2021 FORD MUSTANG MACH E Complaints

My 2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E (142,009 miles) intermittently fails to accept a charge at public DC fast-charging stations. My husband relies on these stations because our home electrical panel cannot support a home EV charger, and he uses this vehicle daily for his work in commercial real estate, often needing to charge it twice a day while traveling throughout Southern California. We first brought the vehicle to Tuttle-Click’s Capistrano Ford (San Juan Capistrano, CA) for this issue, and were charged $250 for a diagnosis and software-related repair (Invoice XXX, dated XXX). The technician’s notes state the vehicle would stop charging after about a minute at DC fast chargers, that the code P0EEE:27 was stored in the SOBDM module, and that the battery was manually charged to 99% and the code cleared. Ford refunded the $250 after the same problem recurred shortly after this repair. When we brought the vehicle back in a second time for the identical issue, the dealership informed us that Ford currently has no fix for this defect, and that only a Level 1 or Level 2 AC home charger can reliably charge the vehicle — which is not an option for us since we have no home charger installed. The dealership subsequently provided us with a copy of Ford’s own internal Special Service Message, SSM 55080, titled ‘Stop Charging When Using DC Fast Charger Level 3 With DTC P0EEE:27 And/Or P2E53:27 Stored In the SOBDM Module.’ This bulletin confirms Ford is aware this defect affects 2021–2023 Mustang Mach-E, 2022–2025 E-Transit, and 2022–2023 F-150 Lightning vehicles, that replacing the charge port hardware will not resolve it, and that a software fix was targeted for Q3 2026 — a deadline that has passed without a working fix reaching our vehicle. This defect leaves us with no reliable way to charge the vehicle away from home, directly impacting my husband’s ability to conduct his work.

This is the information from the Ford dealership that was looking at my vehicle, but did not complete the repair: "Verified customer concern. During diagnosis, the following on-demand DCs were retrieved from the BECM: POAA1:00, POAA4:00, and P0563:00. Following TSB 25- 2247, a High Current Fuse Box is required for replacement to start. During the FDRS High Voltage System De-energizing procedure, FDRS detected a stuck contactor. After opening the LVSD as instructed, FDRS displayed Voltage Still Present. Multiple repair attempts failed. Customer was contacted and notified to bring to selling dealer, Further technical support required with engineering. No repairs made at this time." While Ford has reported that my vehicle is not subject to any related recall at this time, the safety concerns raised during this diagnosis are very similar to those safety concerns raised in NHTSA Recall No:23V-687 (Manufacturer Recall No: 23S56). My vehicle is also part of the described class of vehicle in that Safety Recall Report. I am of the belief that my vehicle should have been included in that safety recall or a related safety recall. To date, every Ford dealership I have reached out to refuses to make repairs to my vehicle related to this issue.

My 2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E suffered a total loss of motive power on the road, throwing code P0D10:00:AF for a stuck-open high-voltage contactor. This is the exact failure mode of Safety Recall 23S56. Ford is refusing to cover the repair because my VIN was omitted from the database and the vehicle is at 108,017 miles, treating a hazardous powertrain defect as an out-of-warranty consumer expense. I have an active case number with Ford.

The panoramic roof glass panel is not properly bonded/sealed to the vehicle body structure, allowing water to leak into the cabin on the driver’s side. The vehicle and the failed component (roof glass/moulding) remain available for inspection upon request. This creates a safety risk consistent with the one described in NHTSA Campaign 21V712000 / Ford Safety Recall 21S42, which covers 2021 Mustang Mach-E vehicles with inadequate panoramic roof glass panel adhesion to the vehicle body structure — a defect that, per Ford’s own recall filing, creates risk of the roof panel separating from the vehicle while driving, increasing the risk of a road hazard, injury, or crash. My vehicle exhibits the water leak symptom associated with this defect, but my VIN was not included in the recall population. The first visible symptom — staining on the driver’s side rear headliner — was documented in a photograph dated XXX, with continued staining documented in a follow-up photograph dated XXX. The vehicle was presented to an authorized Ford dealer (All American Ford of [XXX]) for inspection on XXX. The dealer confirmed the water leak and documented the driver-side top moulding as faulty, with the roof panel requiring replacement. The vehicle was also examined through a BBB AUTO LINE arbitration proceeding (Case #XXX), which acknowledged the existence of Safety Recall 21V712 in connection with this vehicle’s file. There were no warning lamps or dashboard messages associated with this failure; the only symptom has been visible water intrusion and headliner staining. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

While merging onto the freeway and accelerating, the center touchscreen detached from its mount. The screen has two components: a rear housing fixed to the dash and a glass front panel that sits on top of it — the glass panel came loose on its own; I have never attempted to remove or pry it. The panel remained connected only by internal wiring and hung loose from the dash while the vehicle was in motion. This created three distinct safety hazards: (1) the screen was dangling and at risk of fully detaching, (2) the failure occurred during a high-attention driving maneuver (accelerating while merging), and (3) I was forced to catch the glass panel with one hand to prevent it from falling or shattering, then reattach it while still navigating traffic — as the sole occupant of the vehicle. Heavier-than-usual traffic that day gave me a lower-speed window to manage this; at highway speed under normal conditions, this could have been considerably more dangerous. No warning lights or dashboard messages preceded the failure — this is a hardware/mechanical defect, likely related to the internal mounting clips. Since the initial failure, the screen has detached repeatedly during acceleration, occurring frequently over the following days. In subsequent incidents, my boyfriend was a passenger and able to assist in stabilizing the screen. The screen has since stopped functioning entirely, which independently constitutes a safety issue, as it disables the backup camera display and other driver-assist systems that rely on it. The dealer has not yet been able to reproduce the issue. A service appointment has been scheduled and is pending.

The HVBJB ($3500 + Tax) went on my car. It is out of battery system warranty by 25,000 miles (ended at 100,000 miles, I have 125,000 miles). I called Ford Corporate and they said they "have no current programs" to give me any good will discount on the repair. This is a big, known issue with Mustang Mach-e's There was a recall for this HVBJB part / system on many of the 2021 models, but somehow mine wasn't included in the recall. I cannot afford this repair, and I was hoping the NHTSA can get involved to get me some financial relief from Ford. There was also a safety issue as this morning when this all happened, the car forced me to stop at an intersection and would not move or restart. The police had to push me through the intersection. It's currently at Chapman Ford in Egg Harbour Townshop, NJ.

The contact owns a 2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E. While the contact's daughter was driving at an undisclosed speed, the vehicle independently accelerated. The brake pedal was depressed; however, the vehicle failed to stop as intended. No warning lights were illuminated. The contact stated that the failure occurred while the vehicle was being parked in the residence driveway. The vehicle crashed into the right side of the residence before coming to a stop. The air bags did not deploy. The contact stated that the right side of the garage was damaged. No injuries were sustained. The contact stated that the failure was a known failure with the vehicle. The contact stated that an unknown recall with a similar failure was completed in 2022. The vehicle was towed to a local tow yard. The vehicle was deemed a total loss by the insurance company. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 65,000.

While driving my 2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E, the front electric drive unit failed suddenly with no warning signs, warning lights, unusual noises, or any prior indication of a problem. During the failure, multiple fault messages appeared on the instrument cluster, including warnings that disabled adaptive cruise control and indicated the all-wheel-drive system was no longer functioning. The vehicle began to vibrate severely, feeling as though it was driving over rumble strips. As I slowed down, the front of the vehicle became extremely clunky and exhibited abnormal drivetrain behavior. Shortly afterward, the vehicle became undrivable and could no longer be operated under its own power. It had to be towed to a Ford dealership, where I was informed that the front electric drive assembly had failed and required replacement. This is the second time this exact component has failed on the same vehicle. The first front electric drive assembly failed at approximately 33,000 miles and was replaced under warranty. The second failure occurred at approximately 102,000 miles with no warning. I believe this repeated and sudden failure of a critical drivetrain component presents a significant safety concern because it can leave drivers stranded without warning and results in an unexpected loss of propulsion while operating the vehicle in traffic.

While driving my 2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E, the front electric drive unit failed suddenly with no warning signs, warning lights, unusual noises, or any prior indication of a problem. During the failure, multiple fault messages appeared on the instrument cluster, including warnings that disabled adaptive cruise control and indicated the all-wheel-drive system was no longer functioning. The vehicle began to vibrate severely, feeling as though it was driving over rumble strips. As I slowed down, the front of the vehicle became extremely clunky and exhibited abnormal drivetrain behavior. Shortly afterward, the vehicle became undrivable and could no longer be operated under its own power. It had to be towed to a Ford dealership, where I was informed that the front electric drive assembly had failed and required replacement. This is the second time this exact component has failed on the same vehicle. The first front electric drive assembly failed at approximately 33,000 miles and was replaced under warranty. The second failure occurred at approximately 102,000 miles with no warning. I believe this repeated and sudden failure of a critical drivetrain component presents a significant safety concern because it can leave drivers stranded without warning and results in an unexpected loss of propulsion while operating the vehicle in traffic.

Vehicle: 2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E VIN: [XXX] Mileage: 56,005 I am filing this complaint to bring to NHTSA's attention a safety concern regarding Ford Motor Company's decision to make the Blue Cruise driver-assistance system available only via a paid subscription beginning January 2027, at a cost of $49.99 per month. Blue Cruise is a hands-free highway driving assistance system — a Level 2 driver-assistance safety technology. The hardware enabling this system was installed in my vehicle at the time of purchase and was represented as a feature of the vehicle. Ford is now moving to disable this safety feature on existing, in-service vehicles unless owners pay an ongoing subscription fee. I respectfully request that NHTSA examine whether a manufacturer's ability to remotely disable or withhold active safety technology on vehicles already in service — technology that was sold as part of the vehicle — raises concerns under federal motor vehicle safety standards. Specifically: 1. Consumers purchased these vehicles with the reasonable expectation that installed safety hardware would remain functional. 2. Ford's decision to monetize this feature post-sale, on vehicles already in service, effectively degrades the safety capability of those vehicles for owners who cannot or will not pay. 3. The precedent this sets — manufacturers using over-the-air software controls to disable safety features for revenue — warrants regulatory attention. I am not alone in this concern. There are thousands of Blue Cruise-equipped Mustang Mach-E, F-150, and Expedition owners facing this same situation. I respectfully ask NHTSA to investigate whether Ford's subscription model for Blue Cruise is consistent with federal vehicle safety obligations, and whether any regulatory guidance is warranted to protect consumers from the post-sale removal of safety technology. [XXX] [XXX] [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)