Shayne

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2020
Threads
18
Messages
3,344
Reaction score
2,489
Location
Northern Ontario Canada
Vehicles
2021 MME4x Prem
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
Former practicing lawyer here -- what's your opinion on the potential exposure for another set of claims where the software mitigation here takes away performance (either in speed or charging time) that was claimed by the OEM and provided to the owner, especially on a performance model?
So is a Premium AWD Extended Range (Mach-e 4x) considered a performance model? A V8 is a V8 one would think but much speculation that the GT should somehow be treated different than the rest of us. The speed is normally dependent on the wingnuts foot on the pedal and none of us want to lose notable performance if that is even the case.

It would definitely slow down the need for replacement parts if they just warning owners they are about to strand them and then just have them scramble to replace the part then. Don't sound cool but we will see. Hoping software is temp until all can get a more robust part that is design not to melt down. That obviously will take some time.
Sponsored

 

scoopman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2021
Threads
60
Messages
2,769
Reaction score
5,797
Location
Bay Area
Vehicles
2023 KIA EV6 GT, 2021 VW ID.4 Pro S
Occupation
former electric pony jockey
Country flag
If it’s temporary so that the vehicle can be safely driven to the dealership for repairs, there should be zero liability. If it is for an indefinite duration and materially impacts performance, there will certainly be repercussions. If it’s between these extremes, TBD.
I bet it is of indefinite duration, and that's my feeling as well if it is. There are some interesting recent cases where material changes to the product were forced by the manufacturer via software.

I hope I'm wrong in my pessimistic view.
 

sotek2345

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tom
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Threads
4
Messages
921
Reaction score
1,321
Location
Upstate NY
Vehicles
2021 Mach-e GT, 2017 Raptor, Lightning (9/5 Build)
Occupation
Engineering Manager
Country flag
I bet it is of indefinite duration, and that's my feeling as well if it is. There are some interesting recent cases where material changes to the product were forced by the manufacturer via software.

I hope I'm wrong in my pessimistic view.
I think you are right. If it was just a warning and "turtle mode" until you get it fixed, that would just delay and spread out when they do the replacements - not reduce the number needed in any meaningful way. A more permanent nerf in acceleration and charging speeds would reduce the number of failure and potentially eliminate them completely if it is a big enough cut.

My guess is some form of permanent cut in power / charging along with a warning / turtle system to prevent stranding people.
 


johnmark

Well-Known Member
First Name
JM
Joined
Jun 22, 2022
Threads
11
Messages
276
Reaction score
248
Location
Massachusetts
Vehicles
'22 Mustang Mach-E GT
Country flag
According to NHTSA my vehicle is included (2022 MME GT) and the fordpass chat person confirmed it :(

But when I check Ford's support site for recalls on my VIN nothing shows up. I assume that's because they don't yet have a solution in place, but it did seem odd that they didn't at least include a link to the issue saying they were working on it.
 

generaltso

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2020
Threads
69
Messages
14,710
Reaction score
26,810
Location
Vermont
Vehicles
2021 MME Premium AWD SR Infinite Blue
Country flag
According to NHTSA my vehicle is included (2022 MME GT) and the fordpass chat person confirmed it :(

But when I check Ford's support site for recalls on my VIN nothing shows up. I assume that's because they don't yet have a solution in place, but it did seem odd that they didn't at least include a link to the issue saying they were working on it.
Not all the databases are updated right away. Don't read too much into it.
 

Secret Sauce

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2022
Threads
4
Messages
161
Reaction score
90
Location
SoCal
Vehicles
2022 Mach-e Premium RWD ER
Country flag
As someone whose car was built may 23rd, the incredibly frustrating thing to me is that they knew about the issue and had a fix in mind to avoid recall, but kept building cars with the issue knowing they wouldn't be deliverable. It's absurd that if my car was built two days later, it would have been fine and deliverable. Why would they continue building cars incorrectly knowing they had a fix two days or even a couple of weeks out? To me, it's inexcusable. Especially with things like the tax rebate on these cars.

Let's say there's a delay in the fix. Now orders after mine could in theory get a full tax rebate but mine won't (I know this is unlikely.) This will be my first ford, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't shopping around for other options because of this. I hope it's resolved in mid July but it's infuriating they'd continue building cars that need a recall with a fix a couple days or weeks down the road.
I'm in a very similar spot and feel much as you do about how this was handled. My order was originally scheduled for production in the first week of April but wasn't completed until mid-May, about a week before the cutoff. Manufacturing might have been delayed for this very reason, though we will probably never know for sure. So, yes, they clearly cranked out our cars knowing they would be undeliverable.

My other annoyance is I made my financial plans around the originally-promised delivery date in early May. It would be so easy for Ford to keep customers in our situation better informed about what we can expect in terms of a delivery, but they just don't seem to see this as necessary or even good business. They really should be falling all over themselves to make this right for us, but instead we get talk to the hand. Suffice to say, my first encounter with Ford has not been impressive.

No worries about the tax credits, though. They aren't going to expire any time soon, and if they did, the price would be adjusted accordingly.
 

EELinneman

Well-Known Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
May 4, 2021
Threads
92
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
2,258
Location
Littleton, CO
Vehicles
Mustang Mach-E GT Performance Edition
Occupation
Sr. Dir Cloud & Projects
Country flag
All this talk about legal departments makes me smile. I was an attorney on the Legal Staff of a Ford competitor in the early 90s and I have some perspective. Generally, significant liability flows from affirmative answers to the following questions - Given your claim history: was it foreseeable this part would fail with greater than random frequency? was it foreseeable that it could fail while the car is in motion? Was it foreseeable that it could fail in a manner that would strand the owner? Etc. The main issue driving significant liability in these and other scenarios is that the failure comes without notice and surprises the owner.


The software update mitigates this liability by providing notice to the owner/Ford of an impending failure. In this regard, the software update constitutes risk/liability mitigation, and is not, itself, a “fix.” A fix would be replacement with a properly robust part.

That said, my guess is that when the software detects an impending failure, Ford will authorize the replacement/substitution of a more robust part. If this is the process, then from my/the owner’s perspective, what I’m getting is notice (so I’m not stranded/crash) and a replacement part as/when necessary.

While I understand the desire of people to rush in (at their convenience) and get a more robust part prophylacticly, the attorney in me believes as long as there is a safe process to replace the part prior to total failure, then the approach is adequate.
Jeff,

With respect to a software fix, if it reduces power where the existing GT and GT PE's are no longer performing as advertised, what liability does this bring to Ford?
 

Secret Sauce

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2022
Threads
4
Messages
161
Reaction score
90
Location
SoCal
Vehicles
2022 Mach-e Premium RWD ER
Country flag
With the Bolt, it was don't park in the garage, don't charge indoors, I think it was also don't leave the charger plugged in, an executive also said to park 50 feet away from any other car/person/structure and to only park on the top floor of parking lots, but they walked that back a little bit afterwards (maybe that was the "truth", but since that sounds so bad, it was walked back)...concerns were pretty high overall and a lot (in the thousands/tens of thousands?) had it repurchased.

One of the possible lingering main downsides with the Bolt is it was banned from parking at a lot of private parking lots. Various airports came to mind, Soldier Field, various malls, etc...

Cars are not a protected class so they can be discriminated against :)
Some of us sold our Bolts back to GM not because we were worried about battery fires (the incidence was extremely low) but over the protracted recall. If you owned one of the first two model years, it went on for well over a year, and even once LG was committed to replacing all the batteries, GM was completely opaque about how long it would take to make the correction. The other frustration was GM didn't seem to lift a finger to address the parking lot bans. Those were totally nuts, really, but we had to suffer though them entirely on our own.
 

EELinneman

Well-Known Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
May 4, 2021
Threads
92
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
2,258
Location
Littleton, CO
Vehicles
Mustang Mach-E GT Performance Edition
Occupation
Sr. Dir Cloud & Projects
Country flag
Former practicing lawyer here -- what's your opinion on the potential exposure for another set of claims where the software mitigation here takes away performance (either in speed or charging time) that was claimed by the OEM and provided to the owner, especially on a performance model?
This makes me wonder if the accountants who make all the decisions are factoring in the reputation hit that Ford will take and the loss of goodwill, which they certainly calculate.
 

jsteach

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Threads
16
Messages
382
Reaction score
418
Location
yorba linda, CA
Vehicles
21 MME S/W EB AWD ,2017 Honda accord touring v-6
Occupation
Retired. 40 year automotive/ service
Country flag
This software update my be very similar to what Mercedes Benz calls "Limp Home Mode".
 

JSW

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jeff
Joined
Dec 15, 2020
Threads
10
Messages
309
Reaction score
636
Location
Ann Arbor
Vehicles
Chevy Bolt; Porsche Boxster; Chevy Blazer; Jeep Wrangler
Country flag
Jeff,

With respect to a software fix, if it reduces power where the existing GT and GT PE's are no longer performing as advertised, what liability does this bring to Ford?
In my personal view, it will be a function of both the duration of the performance adjustment (temporary vs permanent) AND the magnitude of the adjustment (material vs. de minimus) - only a permanent & material change could have any potential basis for recompense…
 

EELinneman

Well-Known Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
May 4, 2021
Threads
92
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
2,258
Location
Littleton, CO
Vehicles
Mustang Mach-E GT Performance Edition
Occupation
Sr. Dir Cloud & Projects
Country flag
In my personal view, it will be a function of both the duration of the performance adjustment (temporary vs permanent) AND the magnitude of the adjustment (material vs. de minimus) - only a permanent & material change could have any potential basis for recompense…
Thank you. As the father of a lawyer, I think I understand the boundaries you live within regarding these types of questions.
 

buzznwood

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Threads
3
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
1,328
Location
california
Vehicles
focus st & GTPE
Country flag
Jeff,

With respect to a software fix, if it reduces power where the existing GT and GT PE's are no longer performing as advertised, what liability does this bring to Ford?
There was a lawsuit over the 1999 SVT cobra not achieving the advertised power, there is also an on going lawsuit over the GT350 as being advertised as track ready while the reality is a lack of performance on track due it going into limp mode due to inadequate cooling.

So if there ends up being a lawsuit against the mach-e it will just another to add to Fords list of underperforming shame.
Sponsored

 
Last edited:
 




Top