Stop Safely Now (HVBJB): Mach-E Owners Biggest Fear - Facts and Info Thread

[Logal727]

In situations like these, take the total opposite of what CEOs say early on.

Everyone is so freaking negative nowadays.

Sponsored

 

[DevSecOps]

Then the next post saying it doesn’t affect performance should be good enough for those worried.

I'm not sure in what world "reducing battery power" and "reduce vehicle power" is not going to effect performance. It could be vehicle performance or charging performance, either is bad. Farley is just digging a bigger hole. He must have the same media team as Biden...

I'm not being negative, I'm upset because I thought they were going to do the right thing. In the IT world I couldn't go up to a customer and say, sorry your server is overheating so we will pull one of the two processors since they generate the most heat. That's not acceptable.

This software does not prevent the issue from happening completely.

 

[Logal727]

I'm not sure in what world "reducing battery power" is not going to affect performance. It could be vehicle performance or charging performance, either is bad. Farley is just digging a bigger hole. He must have the same media team as Biden...

I guess we’ll see. But thanks for dragging your politics into this.

 

[phil]

Everyone is so freaking negative nowadays.

I know, it's weird, right? Everything in the entire world is going so smoothly these days - no epidemics, no wars in Europe involving nuclear powers, inflation at an all time low, race relations better than ever, the world economy humming along nicely, and carmakers like Ford delivering vehicles that are perfect in every conceivable way.

WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE SO FREAKIN NEGATIVE?????

 

[Logal727]

I know, it's weird, right? Everything in the entire world is going so smoothly these days - no epidemics, no wars in Europe involving nuclear powers, inflation at an all time low, race relations better than ever, the world economy humming along nicely, and carmakers like Ford delivering vehicles that are perfect in every conceivable way.

WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE SO FREAKIN NEGATIVE?????

Definitely what I meant.

 

[buzznwood]

Then the next post saying it doesn’t affect performance should be good enough for those worried.

Yet the first post states it was only demo units which is not true so obviously the next one will be 100% factual

We have a classic Ford issue of initially using a part not up to the task and now trying to save some coin for that mistake by using a band aid software fix that is going to reduce current draw to prevent overheating. The proof will be in the pudding but generally you do not associate reduced current draw with not impacting performance.

We do at least have plenty of existing data on charge curves and vehicle performance to compare against so we will be able to at least see how accurate the statement of no reduction in performance truly is.

 

[EELinneman]

However, we also don't know if the new software does not have the same limitations / protections even if you have the new part, so I'm not so sure having the beefier part means more performance.

Probably just even less risk that you have the contactors fail catestrophically.

Are you suggesting that we will have the software fail the circuit before the hardware welds itself shut? The benefit would be a shorter recovery, but the cost would be a higher failure rate if I'm understanding you correctly.

I don't see a way around replacing the hardware with a part that is fit for purpose. Then some sort of punitive actions within Ford. I'm not suggesting going full Nork Korea, but somewhere at some time, a set of very bad decisions were made. And, this cannot continue to happen.

The real damage is to the reputation not only for Ford, but to the BEV market with these types of very public failures and the FUD that is already out there about our "coal-powered" cars.

 

[chrisGT]

I personally doubt that Ford can OTA the software updates for this recall.
Anyone who has updated their SOBDMC and BECM with FDRS knows that they have dependencies and they are updated together with other modules (PCM, SOBDM, SOBDMB, ABS). Depending on your car's current versions it might need 2-7 modules updated. These modules are included in the customer satisfaction campaigns which were not OTAed and they require a dealer visit.

 

[Logal727]

Are you suggesting that we will have the software fail the circuit before the hardware welds itself shut? The benefit would be a shorter recovery, but the cost would be a higher failure rate if I'm understanding you correctly.

I don't see a way around replacing the hardware with a part that is fit for purpose. Then some sort of punitive actions within Ford. I'm not suggesting going full Nork Korea, but somewhere at some time, a set of very bad decisions were made. And, this cannot continue to happen.

The real damage is to the reputation not only for Ford, but to the BEV market with these types of very public failures and the FUD that is already out there about our "coal-powered" cars.

How does this hurt the BEV market? Recalls are a very normal thing and Expeditions are catching on fire. I’m sure there’s other mfrs too, but that’s the most recent I remember.

 

[pnrmurph]

Personally, I just want to know how long my Premium Ext Range RWD will be sitting at the dealer. Today was the day I was supposed to pick it up.

 

[Logal727]

I personally doubt that Ford can OTA the software updates for this recall.
Anyone who has updated their SOBDMC and BECM with FDRS knows that they have dependencies and they are updated together with other modules (PCM, SOBDM, SOBDMB, ABS). Depending on your car's current versions it might need 2-7 modules updated. These are the same modules covered in the customer satisfaction campaigns which were not OTAed and they require a dealer visit.

These were updated OTA 2.7.2 to 2.7.4

 

[Logal727]

Personally, I just want to know how long my Premium Ext Range RWD will be sitting at the dealer's. Today was the day I was supposed to pick it up.

Honestly people waiting are the only people I can see why they would be upset about this. Hopefully it won’t be long, it’s a great car.

 

[heisnuts]

According to Jim Farley, Ford CEO -

No one on this forum ever had failure. It was just DEMO units. You know, those demo GTs that never existed based on the timeline.

This is getting comically stupid.

He would have been great as the captain on the Titanic....

 

[scoopman]

Are you suggesting that we will have the software fail the circuit before the hardware welds itself shut? The benefit would be a shorter recovery, but the cost would be a higher failure rate if I'm understanding you correctly.

I don't see a way around replacing the hardware with a part that is fit for purpose. Then some sort of punitive actions within Ford. I'm not suggesting going full Nork Korea, but somewhere at some time, a set of very bad decisions were made. And, this cannot continue to happen.

The real damage is to the reputation not only for Ford, but to the BEV market with these types of very public failures and the FUD that is already out there about our "coal-powered" cars.

I believe Ford has stated that this software will predict based on resistance whether the junction box will fail soon and will get you to take it in. Presumably this will show a warning before the part fails while you are driving which is the safety issue that’s really bad.

This will probably result in more stop safely now messages and potentially false positives, but less risk of my car dying while I drive it.

I’m mostly concerned because I bet all the GT junction boxes are getting damaged over time, and might fail eventually. And secondarily I paid a lot more for a GTPE because I expected a performance vehicle. This has to further reduce performance from when I bought the car, and I’m really super unhappy if that’s the case.

Finally I’m not happy with ford’s lack of honesty and transparency in providing the real fix for bad engineering of my car, but I guess I was just wrong for expecting this.

 

[Scooby24]

Maybe it should have read "we also detected the issue on demo units"
I just don't construe that message to be disrespectful, it's just poorly worded. Or..maybe it's masterfully worded /shrug

I think it's masterfully worded. His statement doesn't claim the issue was detected ONLY on demo units, but it does imply that it was detected proactively before customer units (not the case, clearly). So it's not technically an incorrect statement, but its definitely downplaying the issue from an implication perspective.

Sponsored