[Trielectric]

Odd that it changed from the arbitrary 72% to 70%. Yes, a module would need to be replaced to get from 70 "back" to 80%. The question is, will they, or will they say what they have been saying to the earlier full pack recall cars which is no replaced modules since the whole pack is getting replaced at some point.

My car also had times where it stopped charging at 70%. Other times it has gone to 72%. I have done quite a bit of monitoring the traction battery voltage, versus miles to go, versus %charged. They move around for various interpretations of the software. The battery voltage should be a steady direct reading, except lithium battery voltages have peaks and valleys when charging or discharging, unlike lead acid batteries. Example below of charging differences that occur charging with 120vac. HVAC was off when car was turned off.
Volts 414, Miles 160-162, %Charged 70-72.
Volts 415, Miles 164-167, %Charged 71-72

 

[Noliebro]

I had the "traction battery fault detected" come on in my 2019 again this week so took it to the dealer to resolve this AM. The H514 recall showed up with an actual software fix available in their system today and he said they would perform the update while they inspect the 12V and traction battery and fix the problem. The service dept has been incorrect on i-pace info prior, so I will believe the fix is live once the EV tech actually looks at it... so take it with a grain of salt. I purchased this car used and it has had modules replaced in the past, I imagine they will do the same again here

In our past family experience with LG and the Chevrolet Bolt recalls, the software update and warnings to not charge over 80%, park outdoors, etc., are the beginning, and I hope they will eventually force them to replace all the modules with known issues. My in-laws' 2020 Bolt had the recall for modules to be replaced and no problems now after another 20,000 miles since the fix.

 

[Cascadian]

The H514 recall showed up with an actual software fix available in their system today and he said they would perform the update while they inspect the 12V and traction battery and fix the problem.

From what has been posted, there is a software fix but it's just the "fix" that limits charging not an actual full fix.

 

[Verbow]

I had the "traction battery fault detected" come on in my 2019 again this week so took it to the dealer to resolve this AM. The H514 recall showed up with an actual software fix available in their system today and he said they would perform the update while they inspect the 12V and traction battery and fix the problem. The service dept has been incorrect on i-pace info prior, so I will believe the fix is live once the EV tech actually looks at it... so take it with a grain of salt. I purchased this car used and it has had modules replaced in the past, I imagine they will do the same again here

In our past family experience with LG and the Chevrolet Bolt recalls, the software update and warnings to not charge over 80%, park outdoors, etc., are the beginning, and I hope they will eventually force them to replace all the modules with known issues. My in-laws' 2020 Bolt had the recall for modules to be replaced and no problems now after another 20,000 miles since the fix.

Problem is now I don’t trust it - 1 in 900 2019 iPaces in the USA have had fire issues. Granted there are only about 2700 of them, but that number is crazy.

They replace one cell - but couldn’t another then go and then be a fire issue?

Winter is coming and parking this thing outside here in the Midwest will suck - who knows how long this will take to resolve.

Hate to say it - I love this car - but now looking at a lightly used Porsche Macan GTS and scrapping the iPace. The new electric Macan looks sweet but I’m done with early model year EVs after this experience

 

[Ayepace]

NHTSA has posted their copy of the Interim Owner Notification Letter(Part 577).

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2024/RIONL-24V633-0565.pdf

 

[Qtown charger]

Problem is now I don’t trust it - 1 in 900 2019 iPaces in the USA have had fire issues. Granted there are only about 2700 of them, but that number is crazy.

I understand the sensitivity of this subject and the thought that our cars shouldn't ever catch fire, but the majority of the 2019 I-Paces were included in the H484 recall and measures are being taken to rectify these car's issues. How many I-Paces beyond that set of 2019 cars have caught fire?

While safety should be a major concern, the inherent hazardness of the later cars is very much an unknown and we shouldn't be using the 2019 cars as a barometer of these later cars.

LG has claimed they have identified the production issues and corrected them. Whether we believe that is a good point, but what we don't know is whether the later cars that were flagged by the H441 recall really were fire hazards or were false positive. Commonsense would suggest that JLR set the parameters to trigger a module "failure" well above the parameters associated with an actual fire hazard.

 

[Ayepace]

I understand the sensitivity of this subject and the thought that our cars shouldn't ever catch fire, but the majority of the 2019 I-Paces were included in the H484 recall and measures are being taken to rectify these car's issues. How many I-Paces beyond that set of 2019 cars have caught fire?

I'm having trouble with the math on this for "majority of the 2019 I-Paces were included in H484 recall".

Limiting counts to US & Canada market:
H441 6422 US + 648 Canada (includes all model years)

H484 269 US + 86 Canada (early 2019s)
H514 2760 all US (all 2019s in US not in H484; 0 recalled in Canada)

Looks to me like a minority of cars were included in H484.

 

[Qtown charger]

I was under the impression 2019 sales in the US were no more than 1500, and that H484 applied to more than 300 US vehicles.

That said, my point is the majority of those vehicles identified as probably having corrupted cells within the modules based on LG's description of a manufacturing defect were identified under H484. To use the 3 fires amongst 2700 cars (1 in 900) as cause to replace every other battery is neither logical, sensible or logistically reasonable.

I will repeat: We have no idea if the majority (or even a meaningful proportion) of the modules that have been flagged under H441 would have caused a thermal incident (fire). As such the current paranoia over battery fires is just that - until proven otherwise.

 

[rcomeau]

I was under the impression 2019 sales in the US were no more than 1500, and that H484 applied to more than 300 US vehicles.

That said, my point is the majority of those vehicles identified as probably having corrupted cells within the modules based on LG's description of a manufacturing defect were identified under H484. To use the 3 fires amongst 2700 cars (1 in 900) as cause to replace every other battery is neither logical, sensible or logistically reasonable.

I will repeat: We have no idea if the majority (or even a meaningful proportion) of the modules that have been flagged under H441 would have caused a thermal incident (fire). As such the current paranoia over battery fires is just that - until proven otherwise.

We don't have all the information that LG and JLR have. It may not just be the actual incidents. The failures lead to a root cause analysis. They would be reviewing the work instructions and records in assembling the packs and looking for a failure (NC, or non-conformity in regulatory jargon) in the parts themselves, or a failure in the assembly instructions and the quality control tests for the packs. If the root cause was determined to be an assembly procedure where a critical step was not properly described (so some randomness in the actual way it got done by the tech since it was not specified) or QC step that failed to capture the problem, then they don't have a way of knowing by looking at the records, which pack might be unsafe. They then haver to lean on statistics and after-sale surveillance in hopes of weeding them out.

This leads to a CAPA (corrective action/preventative action). Corrective action is what do you do about the packs out in the wild. Preventive action is what change can they do in the manufacturing process to prevent this from happening again for future packs.

The Corrective action was at first, to issue a software update to try to identify, after the fact, the suspect modules and replace them. This led to H441 and a period of monitoring and replacing modules deemed faulty. The corrective action includes steps to verify the effectiveness of the action by looking for more adverse events. If they continue to occur, then the corrective acton is deemed insufficient and additional actions are required, hence H484 and even later, H514. Not sure what they only looked at US for H514 other than the higher chance of litigation, otherwise I expect H514 to expand since there is unlikely to be a specific flaw in manufacturing packs specifically destined for the US.

 

[JagIpaceInt]

I have been looking to buy a used EV. The 2019 IPace I am interested is showing "OK to drive with caution Traction battery fault detected". This vehicle is listed under E514 recall. I am OK with 80% range but concerned about any possible safety issues. I can park and charge outside. Should I proceed to buy or should I stay away.

 

[sciencegeek]

Stay away

 

[Qtown charger]

We don't have all the information that LG and JLR have. It may not just be the actual incidents. The failures lead to a root cause analysis. They would be reviewing the work instructions and records in assembling the packs and looking for a failure (NC, or non-conformity in regulatory jargon) in the parts themselves, or a failure in the assembly instructions and the quality control tests for the packs. If the root cause was determined to be an assembly procedure where a critical step was not properly described (so some randomness in the actual way it got done by the tech since it was not specified) or QC step that failed to capture the problem, then they don't have a way of knowing by looking at the records, which pack might be unsafe. They then haver to lean on statistics and after-sale surveillance in hopes of weeding them out.

This leads to a CAPA (corrective action/preventative action). Corrective action is what do you do about the packs out in the wild. Preventive action is what change can they do in the manufacturing process to prevent this from happening again for future packs.

The Corrective action was at first, to issue a software update to try to identify, after the fact, the suspect modules and replace them. This led to H441 and a period of monitoring and replacing modules deemed faulty. The corrective action includes steps to verify the effectiveness of the action by looking for more adverse events. If they continue to occur, then the corrective acton is deemed insufficient and additional actions are required, hence H484 and even later, H514. Not sure what they only looked at US for H514 other than the higher chance of litigation, otherwise I expect H514 to expand since there is unlikely to be a specific flaw in manufacturing packs specifically destined for the US.

Totally agree.

Not only do we not know the full details of the manufacturing issues, we don't know the full details of the H441 software change, nor do we know how many of the flagged "module failures" would have triggered a fire.

Based on the frequency of reported "fires" prior to Summer 2023, and the number of reported "module failures" over the past 15months I would have to conclude that the H441 update records a significant number of false positive failures.

I acknowledge, from a safety perspective, false positives are ok, but this feeds the paranoia that everybody's car is likely to burst into flames at any moment. My old 2019 FE survived for 4yrs without a battery issue. H441 was installed and it ran for a couple of months without a warning, then suddenly I get the warning and I need a module replaced. Was it necessary? We'll never know.

 

[rcomeau]

Totally agree.

Not only do we not know the full details of the manufacturing issues, we don't know the full details of the H441 software change, nor do we know how many of the flagged "module failures" would have triggered a fire.

Based on the frequency of reported "fires" prior to Summer 2023, and the number of reported "module failures" over the past 15months I would have to conclude that the H441 update records a significant number of false positive failures.

I acknowledge, from a safety perspective, false positives are ok, but this feeds the paranoia that everybody's car is likely to burst into flames at any moment. My old 2019 FE survived for 4yrs without a battery issue. H441 was installed and it ran for a couple of months without a warning, then suddenly I get the warning and I need a module replaced. Was it necessary? We'll never know.

I mostly agree. They tried to identify modules quickly that might fail over the expected life of the pack. So not just fires to date, but possible fires over the next 10 years (wold the risk increase as they age?), so erring on the side of caution has some merit.

 

[Trielectric]

"OK to drive with caution Traction battery fault detected". This vehicle is listed under E514 recall. I am OK with 80% range

From what I know, the temporary software for the 80% range limit is not out yet. So the car you are looking at has at least one bad cell and was tripped via the H441 high temperature setpoint and is limited to a 72% max charge.

 

[Ayepace]

This is speculative but reading the Porsche recall information may provide insight into why H514 only applies to 2019 US market vehicles.

Is it possible that US 2019s do not have the ability for Jaguar to have "continuous over-the-air access to continually monitor and access high-voltage data and detect future battery module anomalies in a timely and reliable manner using data analytics"? Perhaps the interpretations of US privacy regulations at the time prevented it and the capability was not built-in. I know some of you think Tesla would have done it, but this is not Tesla (a company that has flaunted regulations many times). Or perhaps they built the cars with modules so restricted in memory/storage that they can't support the process and it would be too costly to replace all the necessary modules (BECM, BCM and TCU).

They are handling it differently. Analysis of the battery pack is done first, replace faulty cell modules then install the software. It also states that the software can find other modules to replace after the initial analysis and replacement. We have seen that happen to several cars. The software for Porsche is also not available at this time.

 

[dernotte]

In NA the MY2019-2020-2021 share the same architecture. They are only able to update over the air 4 modules out of 44. For MY2022 and up they are all updatable OTA. The H441 proves that they find enough free space on the BECM to implement a detect strategy and expose new value for voltage deviation, etc… I don’t see why they could not send a couple of bytes of data once a day using the TCU.

 

[dernotte]

When I visited my dealer in June they told me that module #8 was defective (I already knew it based on my OBD2 reading) and a couple of other are also borderline but not defective yet (I also knew it but he was able to give me borderline module # because he did not kept a copy of the report). That is unfortunate because I could have validated my theory on the threshold on voltage variation per module.

 

[Ayepace]

"Remedy" instructions for H514. Nothing more than a specific H514 software update to BECM via TOPIx Cloud.

 

[Qtown charger]

.... I don’t see why they could not send a couple of bytes of data once a day using the TCU.

Perhaps the answer is not "a couple of bytes of data" but rather continual monitoring OTA in the same manner that your ODB monitoring can be employed. Or at least continually during charging.

Privacy be damned. I'd rather let JLR know I'm charging and be monitored vs burning down the house.

 

[Ayepace]

In NA the MY2019-2020-2021 share the same architecture. They are only able to update over the air 4 modules out of 44. For MY2022 and up they are all updatable OTA. The H441 proves that they find enough free space on the BECM to implement a detect strategy and expose new value for voltage deviation, etc… I don’t see why they could not send a couple of bytes of data once a day using the TCU.

It is one thing to create a fault code and pop up a message on the car. It is a bigger effort to create new types of packets of data to pass through the car's network and to their servers to store and analyze.

Let's not forget that this is a car designed back in 2016 using tech of that time.