Updates on the HVBJB (22S41)

[kennethjk]

You are using a false equivalency for your argument.

A tire blowout can be quite dangerous, suddenly limiting how far your car can go can be quite annoying. This does neither of those.

I had this happen to me while trying to merge onto a highway with my 2 year old in back. I've experienced catastrophic tire failure, it's nothing like it. Your car still functions as a car, we put on more than 200 miles after the failure before replacement. The car still functions.

The honest truth is you are overly cautious and upset it wasn't fixed how you wanted. You see a potential 'inconvience' and think that you should have it your way.

What happens when you try to pass a truck on a one lane road and all of a sudden the car losses speed (partially )or power completely. It has happened.

is that dangerous?

possibly being stranded at a Wallmart late at night is not dangerous? Read some of the threads on what happens at those places.

I have had tire issues, small and large. Most aren’t super serious and when having run flats you can drive.

overly cautious? Yeah and it can be dangerous.

ford blew it here, plain and simple.

Sponsored

 

[kennethjk]

How many people has this stranded? The vehicle still functions.

Prior to the software update this was a dangerous safety issue. It isn't anymore.

are You guaranteeing that someone cannot be stranded?

 

[ohmslaw]

are You guaranteeing that someone cannot be stranded?

No, but I can tell you it has been designed to not fail in that way. Does that guarantee the contactors will not weld or fail open; no. Nothing has a non-zero failure rate.

Ford didn't mess anything up. Literally this is an emerging market. Parts don't exist for a lot of needs, the LEV200 contactors aren't rated (on the spec sheet) for the Mustang power needs. At the time of design nothing else was really available. Tyco (the manufacturer) will allow over current on their contactors, but OEMs work with the supplier for those deviations. Ford I'm sure did, then Tyco delivered parts not acceptance tested to those levels.

I've had vehicles fail in a plethora of ways in a variety of locations. If you are so worried about vehicle failures why buy new technology? Should have bought a ICE Toyota then.

Everyone that is complaining and worried about this, why haven't you sold your cars? They were worth more than sticker when this first came to light. You had plenty of opportunity where the market was in your favor.

 

[AKgrampy]

What happens when you try to pass a truck on a one lane road and all of a sudden the car losses speed (partially )or power completely. It has happened.

is that dangerous?

possibly being stranded at a Wallmart late at night is not dangerous? Read some of the threads on what happens at those places.

I have had tire issues, small and large. Most aren’t super serious and when having run flats you can drive.

overly cautious? Yeah and it can be dangerous.

ford blew it here, plain and simple.

Although I agree with your position that I wish Ford would have changed them all out I also agree that the software takes care of the safety issue for the most part. You do not hear of many, if any, stranded cases (of course forum small subset) these days. Normally everyone now can drive it to the dealer. The software warns of potential failure and then also limits power in order to prevent the failure. I know it can still completely fail to SSN but rarely does at least from what I have been reading. If passing, then just like any situation that interrupts a passing move like an oncoming car, you apply brakes and drop back in behind the vehicle.

 

[Regulus7]

My HVBJB just failed this weekend. 13,387 miles on a GT. My car was a March build so I knew this would happen. I have never DCFC because I knew this was a risk. I also drove a bit less macho than I would otherwise at times also because I worried about it. And it did fail as I was passing a car on the hiway.

it’s an inconvenience for sure. Over my almost 10 months of ownership I have never taken it on a long trip because of the worry of failure and because I did not want to risk fast charging. But overall these limitations did not limit my enjoyment of the car.

ironically. NOW I am looking forward to more WOTs and not being worried about fast charging. So marginally I expect to get more utility once the repair is done. My dealer is optimistic that they can get it done in under two weeks. Let’s see

 

[RickMachE]

Not fast charging is a ridiculous step to take IMO.

 

[AKgrampy]

My HVBJB just failed this weekend. 13,387 miles on a GT. My car was a March build so I knew this would happen. I have never DCFC because I knew this was a risk. I also drove a bit less macho than I would otherwise at times also because I worried about it. And it did fail as I was passing a car on the hiway.

it’s an inconvenience for sure. Over my almost 10 months of ownership I have never taken it on a long trip because of the worry of failure and because I did not want to risk fast charging. But overall these limitations did not limit my enjoyment of the car.

ironically. NOW I am looking forward to more WOTs and not being worried about fast charging. So marginally I expect to get more utility once the repair is done. My dealer is optimistic that they can get it done in under two weeks. Let’s see

Hope your repair goes smooth and quick. I actually hope mine fails sometime this summer but who knows. I am not really worried about it though. I do believe it is a bit a a misperception about DCFC causing failure though. If you look at failure data almost all failure was due to high current during high power application while passing or high speeds. Prior to the software patch the HVBJB failure manifested itself many times after the vehicle stopped either at a DCFC or in the garage. It was not actually the DCFC which was causing the melting of the contacts.

 

[kennethjk]

No, but I can tell you it has been designed to not fail in that way. Does that guarantee the contactors will not weld or fail open; no. Nothing has a non-zero failure rate.

Ford didn't mess anything up. Literally this is an emerging market. Parts don't exist for a lot of needs, the LEV200 contactors aren't rated (on the spec sheet) for the Mustang power needs. At the time of design nothing else was really available. Tyco (the manufacturer) will allow over current on their contactors, but OEMs work with the supplier for those deviations. Ford I'm sure did, then Tyco delivered parts not acceptance tested to those levels.

I've had vehicles fail in a plethora of ways in a variety of locations. If you are so worried about vehicle failures why buy new technology? Should have bought a ICE Toyota then.

Everyone that is complaining and worried about this, why haven't you sold your cars? They were worth more than sticker when this first came to light. You had plenty of opportunity where the market was in your favor.

I do enjoy the car overall and I manage my risk

I don’t WOT
I wouldn’t let my wife take the car at night
I don’t pass cars in many situations
I was hoping Ford would correct their mistake
i am looking at other cars.
I am considering having the part changed on my dime

I shouldn’t have to be doing any of these things . New technology is not the issue, (I love new technology) the implementation, safety and testing of it, is the issue.

ford did blow it. They produced a part that was inferior as they have admitted. Blame Tyco? nothing else available at the time is not a great defense. Let’s get this thing out even though we know the part is bad Or might not work as intended.

I have bought several first year cars at the end of their first year and they all, except one, had none or virtually no bad issues.

I realize I am on the extreme end compared to most people but to say it’s only a matter of inconvenience is not right.

 

[ohmslaw]

Sell the car. You clearly aren't enjoying it. I'm very glad you don't run risk management/system safety anywhere I have worked in my career. Nothing would ever get made.

 

[RickMachE]

What's pretty about this is that in the absence of this forum, nearly everyone would be clueless about this and be enjoying their vehicles. I don't understand people that live in fear of something happening that may never happen. I totally agree with the belief that in fact there are SOME of the original parts that are defective / undersized / not to specifications, no where near a majority.

We took our car on a 3,000 mile trip, DC charging about a dozen times, and never once worried about it.

 

[dtbaker61]

I do believe it is a bit a a misperception about DCFC causing failure though.

agreed, I actually never, not once, used a DCFC charger, and my HVBJB failed at 18k miles.

If you look at failure data almost all failure was due to high current during high power application while passing or high speeds.

I disagree....

My conclusion from all the data and personal experience is that is can be any combination of conditions that raise and hold the internal temp of the (sealed) HVBJB to levels above 140F-150F for extended time that cause the (sealed) contactors to fail.

in my opinion, key 'events' that raise the internal temp of HVBJB enclosure are:
- ambient temps above 80F, combined with
- a long charge session, L2 in a hot garage, even at 32amp raises temps to 140F
- followed by extended moderate output/regen such as onramp accel plus highway speed combined with elevation gain
- or, repeat WOT/1-p regen braking without 'cooldown' time between.

this opinion is based on watching output/regen kw and the temps of the ac and dc charger sensors via ODB on my carscanner display.

at the end of a 4-5 hour charge in my garage, at 32amps, the temps were 145-155F, and if I jumped right out on the highway and drove up a long extended climb with output over 50kw, the temps didn't come down until elevation levelled out and kW output dropped below about 50kw. Then, temps recovered.

about 2 weeks after I had the software update, it picked up damaged contactors, issued SVS Alert, and imposed the output power cap at 125kW rather than my usual 200kW output available. This DID prove effective in preventing progression to SSN... and I drove somewhat cautiously for 2 weeks with an eye on the temps until my new HVBJB came in.

 

[A-A-Ron]

It is surprising that Ford was able to convince the NTSB that a recall with component replacement wasn't necessary.

NTSB recalls are only concerned with safety. Possibility that your car bricks mid-drive or at a DCFC away from home - safety issue. The software non-fix drastically reduced the likelihood of a safety issue occurring, addressing the NTSB's concern. NTSB doesn't care about HVBJBs that will eventually fail, only that the failures can be detected and prevented to an acceptable level.

 

[AKgrampy]

agreed, I actually never, not once, used a DCFC charger, and my HVBJB failed at 18k miles.



I disagree....

My conclusion from all the data and personal experience is that is can be any combination of conditions that raise and hold the internal temp of the (sealed) HVBJB to levels above 140F-150F for extended time that cause the (sealed) contactors to fail.

in my opinion, key 'events' that raise the internal temp of HVBJB enclosure are:
- ambient temps above 80F, combined with
- a long charge session, L2 in a hot garage, even at 32amp raises temps to 140F
- followed by extended moderate output/regen such as onramp accel plus highway speed combined with elevation gain
- or, repeat WOT/1-p regen braking without 'cooldown' time between.

this opinion is based on watching output/regen kw and the temps of the ac and dc charger sensors via ODB on my carscanner display.

at the end of a 4-5 hour charge in my garage, at 32amps, the temps were 145-155F, and if I jumped right out on the highway and drove up a long extended climb with output over 50kw, the temps didn't come down until elevation levelled out and kW output dropped below about 50kw. Then, temps recovered.

about 2 weeks after I had the software update, it picked up damaged contactors, issued SVS Alert, and imposed the output power cap at 125kW rather than my usual 200kW output available. This DID prove effective in preventing progression to SSN... and I drove somewhat cautiously for 2 weeks with an eye on the temps until my new HVBJB came in.

I am not going to disagree with you as I collected no data myself. I will say I reviewed the data collected and posted by someone else and in most cases it was clear the SVS alarm occurred during steady high current draw. Of course damage could have been occurring previously and the timing was just the final straw that broke the camels back.

 

[hetgeleteken]

Hope your repair goes smooth and quick. I actually hope mine fails sometime this summer but who knows. I am not really worried about it though. I do believe it is a bit a a misperception about DCFC causing failure though. If you look at failure data almost all failure was due to high current during high power application while passing or high speeds. Prior to the software patch the HVBJB failure manifested itself many times after the vehicle stopped either at a DCFC or in the garage. It was not actually the DCFC which was causing the melting of the contacts.

Yep, for me the failure occurred when taking over another car at relatively high speed (145km/hour ~ 90mph). But I was able to safely continue my journey to the office with reduced but still reasonable power, turn the car off, call the closest dealer and drive over a few hours later. Repair took less than a week and no issues since. Happened at around 12,000 miles.
miles or so.

Sponsored