Safety Recall 22S41 - 2021-2022 Mach E - HVBJB Recall [high voltage battery main contactors may overheat]

[joely]

Or could be that the 5/25+ cars are unaffected because they have sufficiently-specced contactors, and therefore don't need the software update to ship

I'll add a 3rd theory. The NHTSA recall cites a "part-to-part variation of the high voltage battery main contactor." They could have tightened up the spec and done 100% inspection of the parts they had and only released the ones within the new spec to the factory floor. In fact, that would explain the 2-3 week factory slowdown.

Get out of my head, @Jimbo.

Sponsored

 

[sotek2345]

I'll add a 3rd theory. The NHTSA recall cites a "part-to-part variation of the high voltage battery main contactor." They could have tightened up the spec and done 100% inspection of the parts they had and only released the ones within the new spec to the factory floor. In fact, that would explain the 2-3 week factory slowdown.

Yeah, out of spec variation was my take too after reading that.

 

[Neil4Real]

Hardware fix already exists. Any car that fails appears to be getting the new hardware (including mine). My theory is the software is just to recognize when a failure is imminent, set the MIL, and people will go to the dealer to get it fixed but won't be left stranded. Possibly lowering power output and input until it is fixed. All a theory though who knows they'll never tell us.

The part I'm still not sure they'll do is cars that are "fixed" don't get power limiting software (performance/charging). So they might still be crippled, if that's part of this software "fix." I really do hope your theory is what happens - Software to detect, defective part replaced with new, new software loaded with new replacement part that removes whatever limitation.

 

[Secret Sauce]

Or could be that the 5/25+ cars are unaffected because they have sufficiently-specced contactors, and therefore don't need the software update to ship

In which case the recall action would be to replace the part. Which, as far as we know, it isn't.

 

[Jimbo]

In which case the recall action would be to replace the part. Which, as far as we know, it isn't.

I agree that it should be, but it might not would be.

 

[cvk71]

randomly stranding me are hard to live with.

This is the hard part. PAAK not working, 5 second rule, or my seat randomly moving, or the myriad other problems/glitches are one thing but leaving me on the side of the road is a real problem.

 

[joely]

In which case the recall action would be to replace the part. Which, as far as we know, it isn't.

Not necessarily. The SW update can be to prevent the conditions that cause and out-of-spec part of fail or change the failure mode (e.g. not an instant loss of power). Or it could be to identify the parts that need to be replaced. Assuming the situation where the in-spec parts don't need all that.

 

[buzznwood]

You might be right about (1) but it would still be somewhat surprising if they weren't required to disclose a known future recall.

We are talking about a company that has in the past had to issue recalls to fix previous recalls.

Ford has just issued 3 different recalls for vehicles in the space of a week if things carry on at the same pace in time Ford is going to end up standing for Fix Or Recall Daily, so It really is all about the bottom line.

They can either do the right thing and replace all the duff parts with revised ones fit for purpose at a large cost or play the numbers game and try a lower cost band aid software fix to satisfy safety concerns and hope that it prevents a large enough % of future failures and there by reducing those that do to a small number of warranty repairs that get replaced with the revised part.

 

[joely]

The SW update can be to prevent the conditions that cause and out-of-spec part of fail

Yep, that's exactly what it is

The updated SOBDMC software (LJ98-14G069-AXG, LJ98-14G069-AZG, LJ98-14G069-BBG, LJ98-14G069-BDG) will monitor contactor temperature and intelligently reduce battery power to prevent damage to the contactor. The updated BECM software (NJ98-14C197-AE, NJ98-14C197-BD) will monitor contactor resistance to identify an overheated contactor and reduce vehicle power to prevent further damage.

 

[Secret Sauce]

Not necessarily. The SW update can be to prevent the conditions that cause and out-of-spec part of fail or change the failure mode (e.g. not an instant loss of power). Or it could be to identify the parts that need to be replaced. Assuming the situation where the in-spec parts don't need all that.

Could be. Such fun to be reduced to guessing. Probably we can both agree we're being treated like mushrooms.

We are talking about a company that has in the past had to issue recalls to fix previous recalls.

Ford has just issued 3 different recalls for vehicles in the space of a week if things carry on at the same pace in time Ford is going to end up standing for Fix Or Recall Daily, so It really is all about the bottom line.

They can either do the right thing and replace all the duff parts with revised ones fit for purpose at a large cost or play the numbers game and try a lower cost band aid software fix to satisfy safety concerns and hope that it prevents a large enough % of future failures and there by reducing those that do to a small number of warranty repairs that get replaced with the revised part.

Name a carmaker that doesn't have this record and isn't all about the bottom line. I went through recalls on my Bolt that lasted for over a year. Got so disgusted with that I decided to sell the car back to GM. Now, here I am again, and wishing I'd kept the Bolt.

 

[billy_at]

Not necessarily. The SW update can be to prevent the conditions that cause and out-of-spec part of fail or change the failure mode (e.g. not an instant loss of power).

Bingo! This is what I think too.

 

[billy_at]

I wonder if it would help to let the car sit for a few minutes after DC fast charging - let those contractors cool off a bit before getting on the road?

 

[breeves002]

You might be right about (1) but it would still be somewhat surprising if they weren't required to disclose a known future recall. A problem with your theory (2) is this software is presumably already being installed on all cars made on 5-25 and after. If any physical changes were made to these cars we haven't heard of them. Not that we would, necessarily, but the software should still be a part of addressing the problem it seems.

I know for a fact there is new hardware that is being produced. I also know for a fact the software isn't ready from what I've been told by the powers that be. So that's where we are now. Doesn't mean the person who told me this is right, but I do know for a validated fact there is new hardware...I just don't know what it is going into...if anything other than broken cars.

 

[Socalsp3]

I know for a fact there is new hardware that is being produced. I also know for a fact the software isn't ready from what I've been told by the powers that be. So that's where we are now. Doesn't mean the person who told me this is right, but I do know for a validated fact there is new hardware...I just don't know what it is going into...if anything other than broken cars.

the cost to replace all cars would be enormous. they will likely just replace broken cars with the new part and for the unbroken ones neuter performance with software to reduce strain on the hvbjb. nhtsa recall mentioned software only and doesn't mention hardware replacement at all.

 

[cvk71]

Thank god I debadged. Problem solved!

Same

Sponsored