Part issue and question : RL3Z-14A303-A (2024 Lightning charging port)

[gboulton]

Hello, all.

My 2024 Lightning Flash, purchased 12/21/2024, suffered intermittent L3 charging issues from day 1. I had originally chalked them up to EV chargers being flaky at times, and it was exceptionally cold during that time.

On 1/13/25, after multiple charge failures, the final charge attempt resulted in a "Service Vehicle Soon" message. After returning the truck to the dealership, their diagnostics indicated a charge port failure. The necessary part, RL3Z-14A303-A, was on backorder, but they tracked one down at another dealership.

After installing the new part, they discovered that it has an "extra connector" the original part does not have. They confirmed the part and shipping container were stamped with the correct part number, and doublechecked (cross referencing by VIN) that RL3Z-14A303-A was the correct part number. I also tracked down another source for the part, asked the parts tech to double-check their part on hand, and he indicated it too had the extra connector, despite being stamped RL3Z-14A303-A

Several cases have been opened since, at various levels/dept of Ford, in an effort to obtain the correct part, including emergency part request with the vehicle marked off-road. Waiting game at this point.

Best guess among those involved at this point is that the part is actually RL3Z-14A303-B, and these parts have somehow been mislabeled, though we cannot confirm this. Searches online for diagrams of RL3Z-14A303-B show the same diagram as the -A part.

Since there's really not much more to do to try to expedite the correct part, I am now seeking information regarding the difference between the parts. I have the following questions:

1 - Can anyone identify the "extra connector" shown in the 2nd image I have attached. First image shows the original port removed from my truck.
2 - Can anyone provide more information regarding the differences between RL3Z-14A303-A and RL3Z-14A303-B, and if those differences include the extra connector on RL3Z-14A303-B

Thanks in advance!

 

[Charge_Rob]

-A is for single onboard charger vehicles (48A charging)
-B is for dual onboard charger vehicles (80A charging, 24MY fleet option only)

 

[Heliian]

anyone identify the "extra connector" shown in the 2nd image I have attached. First image shows the original port removed from my truck

The difference in part numbers is the single vs dual onboard chargers. I would wager that for simplicity, all the parts are now the same. The service tech should have the maintenance instructions applicable to the assembly. Were they positive that it wasn't the actuator though?

 

[gboulton]

-A is for single onboard charger vehicles (48A charging)
-B is for dual onboard charger vehicles (80A charging, 24MY fleet option only)

Just the info I was after, thanks so much!

 

[gboulton]

Were they positive that it wasn't the actuator though?

I do not know. I know they reported that diagnostics revealed a "Charge port faulty", but beyond that I do not know what other diagnostics were done.

 

[gboulton]

The service tech should have the maintenance instructions applicable to the assembly.

Sorry for the double message, but by this do you mean to suggest that the -B part is interchangeable, and instructions for using it in place of the -A should be available? I've been told by the service advisor that this is not the case?

 

[Heliian]

Sorry for the double message, but by this do you mean to suggest that the -B part is interchangeable, and instructions for using it in place of the -A should be available? I've been told by the service advisor that this is not the case?

Yes, it is possible. If it's just an extra lead for a second charger then you could cap it off and still roll with it. Does the connector have exposed pins or did it come with a sealed cover?

 

[gboulton]

Yes, it is possible. If it's just an extra lead for a second charger then you could cap it off and still roll with it.

This is what I'm thinking.

Does the connector have exposed pins or did it come with a sealed cover?

Only image I have of it is in the original post. It does not SEEM to have a cover on it, but doesn't appear that adding such a thing would be too difficult.

There could of course be a cover down inside that we can't see.

 

[gboulton]

Just got a call from service advisor. He claims they have determined that the extra cable is for "General Service Module 2", and is "a communication cable". He has no further information on what General Service Module 2 is, or what it does.

Anyone have any thoughts on that?

 

[gboulton]

Quick Update :

Correct -A part arrived at dealership late Wed, got the truck back Friday.

Spoke with the tech who did the work shortly before getting the truck back. He said the port issue appeared to be that the locking pin was not functioning correctly or consistently, that he was able to test its function and saw slow/intermittent or no movement at times. New port functioned as expected, so he was fairly confident in the fix.

Have since charged at 2 different DCFC locations that previously threw errors, including the one that caused the original "Service Vehicle Soon" powertrain fault message. Both worked flawlessly.

 

[Grumpy2]

Good News it wasn't something more involved.
It seems Ford needs to do a better job keeping their service folks up to date:

He has no further information on what General Service Module 2 is, or what it does.

 

[gboulton]

Good News it wasn't something more involved.

Yep. The part issue and backorder made it pretty annoying. Hadn't really planned on entering a shared custody agreement with Ford quite so soon after buying a new truck *lol*

It seems Ford needs to do a better job keeping their service folks up to date:

Ford needs to do...a great many things better, ime. The *dealership* was exceptional. Above and beyond in all regards.

And for sure, ANY company making ANY product can have a bad part/unit slip through, I get that. And they DID get it taken care of at no cost to me, so kudos to all involved.

IMO, however, the process was unnecessarily stressful, confusing, and lengthy...and that was entirely down to FoMoCo's lack of engagement with and effort on behalf of both the dealership and me.

Sponsored