It depends on your state. E.g. Colorado has a 24+6 months law where if the first time the issue occurred was within 24months or 20k (or 24k?) miles, you have up to 30 months from purchase date to file a lemon law buyback.
It usually adheres to the state you purchased in, so NJ in your case. My quick search says 2yr/24k miles.
Yeah I'm doing additional research and I'd be fairly upset if it was didn't qualify because I was 2 years + 2 days and 224 miles over.
Could only be 6 original battery modules after this! They didn't say which failed, so might not even be the prior replacement one that failed.Sorry to hear that you have also lost two battery modules in 24k miles. There are two issues here. First, you are out your truck for at least 2 weeks, and second, there are still 7 other original battery modules in your truck, any of which could (and probably will) go bad at any time. I have become leery of taking my truck far from home for this reason. Meanwhile Ford is stalling on my request for a buy back.
there are 9 battery modules, so could be 7 or 8 original modules still left after repair. There has been one report of someone having 3 modules replaced (see my tracking spreadsheet in my signature below). Speaking of which, what is your Build Month/Year shown on your driver's door sticker at the top? Early 2022's seem to have the worse luck, but even 2024's have been bit by this long time delay repair. If the battery module replacements could be done in a few days, instead of weeks, the pain would be less severe for everyone, including Ford for fewer lemon buybacks. @Ford Motor Company
Have you looked at how many of the failed modules are related to battery cooling system failures? Anecdotally I have seen several cases where either a diverter valve or a heater assembly (like my case) was correlated with bad modules. Presumably the cooling system is necessary, especially while charging, so it stands to reason that cooling system failures could be at the root of at least some of the module failures.
Yes, that would make sense. The 96 battery cells, made up of either 4 (SR) or 5 (ER) pouches, expansion and contraction, due to charging and temperature variations, are being stressed. Also, @MickeyAO implied that testing showed bigger "depth of charge"s (say, 10-100% vs 50-70%) were more stressing on the batteries. Normally, the cooling & heating system should minimize the temperature factor.
If you think about the concept of people who have had multiple modules fail, you would think Ford would have a 6 Sigma team all over data collection trying to get to root cause on these failures. The numbers of just casually voluntarily reported failures to a Google sheet on a forum, which is probably a fraction of actual failures, out of the fairly small population of vehicles in the field suggest they have a pretty big issue on their hands.
