On August 8, 2026, my 2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E Premium experienced a serious electronic lockout. The vehicle was running, with the air conditioning and music on, when the doors locked and I was unable to regain entry. My keys, phone, purse, medication, and other essential belongings were inside the vehicle. I attempted multiple methods to regain access, including the driver’s door keypad, but I was unsuccessful. I remained locked out for approximately 7.5 hours and ultimately had to break the windshield to reach inside and unlock the vehicle. My understanding is that Ford had previously performed a recall remedy addressing a potential electronic door-lockout issue on this vehicle. I am concerned that the vehicle experienced a similar safety-related malfunction after that remedy. I do not yet know the precise technical cause and am requesting investigation. Following this incident, my vehicle experienced repeated 12-volt battery and no-start problems. When the vehicle was left at Kenny Ross Ford for diagnosis, I was later unable to get it to respond to the key or show lights or audible signals, and it did not appear to respond when connected to a charger. The dealership’s inspection subsequently recommended replacing the 12-volt battery and conducting a parasitic-drain test, but the report provided to me did not establish the cause of the original lockout. I am concerned that an electronic failure involving the door-latch system, 12-volt power supply, vehicle control modules, or recall-related software may have prevented safe access to the vehicle. I am requesting that the federal safety agency review this incident in light of Ford recall 25V404, manufacturer campaign 25S65, which addresses a potential lockout condition associated with low 12-volt battery voltage and electronic door latches retaining their locked state. I am not asserting that the recall has been proven to be the cause. I am requesting investigation into whether this incident reflects the same or a related safety defect
2021 Ford Mustang Mach E electrical problems
156 complaints (44% of all complaints for this car). Typical mileage when it fails: 30,696. 2 crashes reported.
- owner complaints
- 156
- of this car's complaints
- 44%
- typical mileage
- 30,696
- crashes
- 2
- recalls
- 3
Which part fails
- Propulsion system: charging: cable/cord: accessory2
- Propulsion system: traction battery: management system/energy control module (bms/becm)1
- Propulsion system: charging: module: accessory1
- Instrument panel: speedometer/odometer: sensor/sending unit1
- Instrument panel: speedometer/odometer1
- Body control module/bcm1
- 12v/24v/48v battery1
At what mileage
Complaints by mileage at the time of the problem.
Ford Mustang Mach E electrical problems in other years
Specific symptoms reported on the 2021 Ford Mustang Mach E electrical
Phrases found in the owners' own descriptions, so one complaint can mention several symptoms.
Related recalls
Electrical system: propulsion system: traction battery: management system/energy control module (bms/becm): software
- What is wrong
- Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2021-2022 Mustang Mach-E vehicles previously repaired incorrectly under recall number 22V‑412. The high voltage battery main contactors may overheat.
- Risk
- An overheated high voltage battery contactor may cause the vehicle to lose drive power, increasing the risk of a crash.
- Remedy
- Dealers will update the on-board software, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed April 11, 2025. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1‑866‑436‑7332. Ford's number for this recall is 25S14.
Recall number 25V130000 · Recall details
Electrical system: propulsion system: traction battery: management system/energy control module (bms/becm)
- What is wrong
- Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2021-2022 Mustang Mach-E vehicles equipped with an extended range battery. The high voltage battery main contactors may overheat.
- Risk
- An overheated high voltage battery contactor can result in a loss of drive power, increasing the risk of a crash.
- Remedy
- Dealers will replace the high voltage battery junction box, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed December 29, 2023. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1‑866‑436‑7332. Ford's number for this recall is 23S56. Vehicles included in this recall that were previously repaired under recall 22V‑412 will need to have the new remedy completed.
Recall number 23V687000 · Recall details
Electrical system: propulsion system: traction battery: management system/energy control module (bms/becm): software
- What is wrong
- Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2021-2022 Mustang Mach-E vehicles. The high voltage battery main contactors may overheat.
- Risk
- An overheated high voltage battery contactor may cause the vehicle to lose drive power, increasing the risk of a crash.
- Remedy
- Dealers will update the on-board software, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed on July 8, 2022. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1‑866‑436‑7332. Ford's number for this recall is 22S41.
Recall number 22V412000 · Recall details
Related investigations
Collisions Involving Ford BlueCruise
On April 25, 2024, the federal safety agency’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE24012) to assess BlueCruise, a partial driving automation system available on certain vehicles manufactured by Ford Motor Company (Ford). the federal safety agency opened the investigation after the agency received notice of two fatal collisions involving BlueCruise-equipped Ford Mustang Mach-E vehicles. Based on the incidents, the federal safety agency scoped the investigation to 2021-2024 Mustang Mach-E vehicles equipped with BlueCruise. In June 2024, ODI sent an Information Request (IR) letter to Ford requiring that it provide certain information pertaining to crashes, non-crash reports, and technical specifications that relate to BlueCruise, as well as other Ford partial driving automation systems that offer lane and speed maintenance. In its response to ODI’s IR, Ford stated that there are 2,539,962 Ford and Lincoln vehicles (including subject and peer vehicles) equipped with a partial driving automation system within the scope of the request. The majority of these vehicles are equipped with a system that Ford calls Lane Centering Assist (LCA), which is a hands-on partial driving automation system that combines longitudinal control authority governed by Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) and lateral control authority governed by a steerable path. LCA is offered on a wide range of Ford and Lincoln models beginning in model year 2019. Vehicles that are equipped with BlueCruise, the focus of this investigation, have LCA capability and additionally offer hands-free partial driving automation when certain conditions are met. Hands-free BlueCruise operation is only offered on certain roadways and system availability is geofenced using vehicle GPS. BlueCruise-equipped vehicles employ a camera-based driver monitoring system to determine driver attentiveness to the roadway. BlueCruise was introduced in model year 2021 and is currently available in a select range of Ford and Lincoln vehicles. For BlueCruise- and LCA-equipped vehicles, both ACC and Pre-Collision Assist (PCA) features use a combination of camera and radar sensing technologies to detect and classify objects. ACC is specifically designed to detect vehicles (including cars, trucks, and motorcycles) and bicycles in front of the subject vehicle which are either stationary or moving in the same direction as the subject vehicle. Through this investigation, limitations in the detection of stationary vehicles in certain conditions have been identified. Specifically, due to the potential for false detection of stationary objects at long distances, Ford designed ACC to inhibit any response to reported stationary objects when the subject vehicle’s approach speed is at or above 62 mph. Additionally, system performance may be limited when there is poor visibility due to insufficient illumination. In addition to reviewing Ford’s response to ODI’s IR, the agency conducted a review of crash and non-crash reports identified collectively through Ford’s IR response, incident reporting through Standing General Order 2021-01 (SGO), and the federal safety agency vehicle owner questionnaires. In total, 32 crashes and 2,004 non-crash reports on subject and peer Ford vehicles were identified across manufacturer and ODI data sources. A detailed analysis of each crash was conducted including the review of any available police reports, photographs, data recovered from in-vehicle event data recorders, connected vehicle data, and/or other information. In both fatal collisions referenced in the PE24012 opening resume, the subject Ford Mustang Mach-E vehicle was traveling over 70 mph on a controlled-access highway during nighttime lighting conditions with hands-free BlueCruise engaged when it collided with a stationary vehicle. Analysis of data imaged from the vehicles’ event data recorders demonstrates that in each incident, the driver did not apply the brakes or take evasive steering action, and no deceleration was initiated by either the BlueCruise system or PCA prior to impact. Through the agency’s crash analysis, four additional frontal collisions were identified where the subject Ford impacted a stopped or slow-moving lead vehicle or another stationary object located in the travel lane. Two of these four incidents involved BlueCruise-equipped Ford Mustang Mach-E vehicles (included in the failure report summary along with the fatal collisions discussed above), while the other two involved other Ford models equipped with the LCA system. Additionally, a trend was identified through analysis of the non-crash reports relating to allegations that ACC (the longitudinal component of both BlueCruise and LCA) failed to detect and/or respond to a stopped or slow-moving lead vehicle. In these reports, consumers often describe that the absence of deceleration initiated by ACC was unexpected and required harsh manual braking or intervention from the PCA to avoid a frontal collision with the lead vehicle. Based on the federal safety agency’s analysis, system limitations relating to the detection of stationary vehicles while traveling at highway speeds and in nighttime lighting conditions appear to be factors in collisions under investigation and several apparently similar near-miss, non-crash reports. This Engineering Analysis (EA) is being opened to further investigate these system limitations and to evaluate drivers’ ability to respond to scenarios that exceed system limitations. During the EA, the agency expects to, among other things, perform vehicle evaluations, review additional technical information, and perform additional analysis of related crashes and non-crash reports. The crashes included in the failure report summary can be found at under the following SGO report identification numbers: 502-7268, 502-7426, 502-6852, 502-8738.
EA25001
Collisions Involving Ford BlueCruise
On April 25, 2024, the federal safety agency’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE24012) to assess BlueCruise, a partial driving automation system available on certain vehicles manufactured by Ford Motor Company (Ford). the federal safety agency opened the investigation after the agency received notice of two fatal collisions involving BlueCruise-equipped Ford Mustang Mach-E vehicles. Based on the incidents, the federal safety agency scoped the investigation to 2021-2024 Mustang Mach-E vehicles equipped with BlueCruise. In June 2024, ODI sent an Information Request (IR) letter to Ford requiring that it provide certain information pertaining to crashes, non-crash reports, and technical specifications that relate to BlueCruise, as well as other Ford partial driving automation systems that offer lane and speed maintenance. In its response to ODI’s IR, Ford stated that there are 2,539,962 Ford and Lincoln vehicles (including subject and peer vehicles) equipped with a partial driving automation system within the scope of the request. The majority of these vehicles are equipped with a system that Ford calls Lane Centering Assist (LCA), which is a hands-on partial driving automation system that combines longitudinal control authority governed by Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) and lateral control authority governed by a steerable path. LCA is offered on a wide range of Ford and Lincoln models beginning in model year 2019. Vehicles that are equipped with BlueCruise, the focus of this investigation, have LCA capability and additionally offer hands-free partial driving automation when certain conditions are met. Hands-free BlueCruise operation is only offered on certain roadways and system availability is geofenced using vehicle GPS. BlueCruise-equipped vehicles employ a camera-based driver monitoring system to determine driver attentiveness to the roadway. BlueCruise was introduced in model year 2021 and is currently available in a select range of Ford and Lincoln vehicles. For BlueCruise- and LCA-equipped vehicles, both ACC and Pre-Collision Assist (PCA) features use a combination of camera and radar sensing technologies to detect and classify objects. ACC is specifically designed to detect vehicles (including cars, trucks, and motorcycles) and bicycles in front of the subject vehicle which are either stationary or moving in the same direction as the subject vehicle. Through this investigation, limitations in the detection of stationary vehicles in certain conditions have been identified. Specifically, due to the potential for false detection of stationary objects at long distances, Ford designed ACC to inhibit any response to reported stationary objects when the subject vehicle’s approach speed is at or above 62 mph. Additionally, system performance may be limited when there is poor visibility due to insufficient illumination. In addition to reviewing Ford’s response to ODI’s IR, the agency conducted a review of crash and non-crash reports identified collectively through Ford’s IR response, incident reporting through Standing General Order 2021-01 (SGO), and the federal safety agency vehicle owner questionnaires. In total, 32 crashes and 2,004 non-crash reports on subject and peer Ford vehicles were identified across manufacturer and ODI data sources. A detailed analysis of each crash was conducted including the review of any available police reports, photographs, data recovered from in-vehicle event data recorders, connected vehicle data, and/or other information. In both fatal collisions referenced in the PE24012 opening resume, the subject Ford Mustang Mach-E vehicle was traveling over 70 mph on a controlled-access highway during nighttime lighting conditions with hands-free BlueCruise engaged when it collided with a stationary vehicle. Analysis of data imaged from the vehicles’ event data recorders demonstrates that in each incident, the driver did not apply the brakes or take evasive steering action, and no deceleration was initiated by either the BlueCruise system or PCA prior to impact. Through the agency’s crash analysis, four additional frontal collisions were identified where the subject Ford impacted a stopped or slow-moving lead vehicle or another stationary object located in the travel lane. Two of these four incidents involved BlueCruise-equipped Ford Mustang Mach-E vehicles (included in the failure report summary along with the fatal collisions discussed above), while the other two involved other Ford models equipped with the LCA system. Additionally, a trend was identified through analysis of the non-crash reports relating to allegations that ACC (the longitudinal component of both BlueCruise and LCA) failed to detect and/or respond to a stopped or slow-moving lead vehicle. In these reports, consumers often describe that the absence of deceleration initiated by ACC was unexpected and required harsh manual braking or intervention from the PCA to avoid a frontal collision with the lead vehicle. Based on the federal safety agency’s analysis, system limitations relating to the detection of stationary vehicles while traveling at highway speeds and in nighttime lighting conditions appear to be factors in collisions under investigation and several apparently similar near-miss, non-crash reports. This Preliminary Evaluation is being upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA25001) to further investigate these system limitations and to evaluate drivers’ ability to respond to scenarios that exceed system limitations. During the EA, the agency expects to, among other things, perform vehicle evaluations, review additional technical information, and perform additional analysis of related crashes and non-crash reports. The crashes included in the failure report summary can be found at under the following SGO report identification numbers: 502-7268, 502-7426, 502-6852, 502-8738.
PE24012
High Voltage Battery Contactor Failure
On August 17, 2023, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened RQ23-004 to investigate instances of loss of motor power due to overheating high voltage battery contactors in model year (MY) 2021-2022 Ford Mustang Mach-E vehicles (subject vehicles). This Recall Query (RQ) was opened after receiving 12 consumer complaints alleging a high voltage battery main contactor failure in subject vehicles that were included in Recall 22V‑412 and remedied prior to the reported incidents. The remedy in 22V‑412 was a Secondary On-Board Diagnostic Control Module (SOBDMC) software update to monitor contactor temperature and reduce battery power to prevent damage to the contactor, and a Battery Energy Control Module (BECM) software update to monitor contactor resistance to identify an overheated contactor and reduce vehicle power to prevent further damage. On October 13, 2023, Ford filed Recall 23V‑687 of 34,762 2021-2022 Ford Mustang Mach-E vehicles produced from May 27, 2020 to May 24, 2022 with recalled Bussed Electrical Center parts NK48-10C666-AA, NK48-10C666-BA, or LK98-10C666-AB. Affected vehicles are equipped with the extended range battery. Ford stated that preexisting damage to the contactors caused by heat and accumulated wear may reduce the effectiveness of the software update remedy in 22V‑412. The remedy of 23V‑687 is to complete a replacement of the Bussed Electrical Center, or High Voltage Battery Junction Box. In addition, Ford stated that subject vehicles equipped with standard range batteries, in comparison to vehicles equipped with extended range batteries, are less at risk of experiencing this failure due to their smaller battery capacity and lower output electric drive motors. In view of the recall action taken by Ford, ODI is closing this investigation. ODI will continue to monitor reports of this failure in both extended range and standard range models. The Agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances. To review the ODI reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to
RQ23004
Pedestrian alert sounds
the federal safety agency received a petition on or about July 18, 2022, requesting that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 141 be applied to all electric and hybrid vehicles operating in the United States. The petition can be reviewed at under ODI Number 11486072. FMVSS 141 establishes performance requirements for pedestrian alert sounds for motor vehicles. The standard applies to hybrid and electric vehicles that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 KG or less or are defined as low-speed vehicles. The standard became fully applicable to all such vehicles manufactured on or after March 1, 2021.On January 27, 2023, the federal safety agency opened Defect Petition (DP) 22-005 to evaluate the subject matter described in the petition. On June 24, 2023 and as supplemented on June 25, 2023, the petitioner notified the federal safety agency he was withdrawing his petition. The petitioner indicated that, based on his review of data, there is no justification for asserting potential benefits that could be derived from actions sought by my petition. Based on the petitioner's withdrawal, DP22-005 is closed. Closure of this DP does not represent a determination by the federal safety agency regarding the subject matter of the petition.
DP22005
What 2021 Ford Mustang Mach E owners say
Most recent owner complaints, unedited.
2021 model mustang Mache got a new High Voltage Battery Warning on the dashboard and asked to stop the vehicle. My car is Premium trim standard range, but other trims and extended range battery models were recalled for this exact issue earlier, but the premium trim standard range car was not included in recalls. I have read online forums that many people who own standard range cars are seeing this warning suddenly now. Please work with Ford to include standard range cars from 2021 mustang Mache EV to recall for this repair, i think it is also called HVBJB error. I don't have the exact recall number issued for extended range cars earlier for this same error.
I own a 2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E Standard Range RWD. My vehicle has experienced a high-voltage powertrain malfunction involving the high-voltage battery system/HV Battery Junction Box (HVBJB). The vehicle is currently at a Ford dealership for diagnosis and repair. What concerns me is that the same high-voltage/powertrain warning appeared on my vehicle previously, before the vehicle reached 100,000 miles. The warning appeared in my FordPass history, then went away. The vehicle later developed the same type of warning again, and the problem has now resulted in a current high-voltage powertrain malfunction. My vehicle is not included in the existing HVBJB recall (23S56) based on its VIN/build configuration. I believe this may indicate that vehicles outside the current recall population can experience the same HVBJB/high-voltage failure. I contacted Ford about the issue and requested Goodwill Assistance. Ford denied the request. I am asking the federal safety agency to review whether the existing recall population adequately covers 2021 Mustang Mach-E vehicles experiencing this failure and whether vehicles outside the current recall population may have the same safety defect. The fact that the warning appeared before 100,000 miles is particularly important because it suggests the current failure may have been preceded by an earlier warning while the vehicle was still below the mileage associated with the battery warranty. I have FordPass history documenting the earlier warning and can provide additional documentation, including dealership diagnostic information, repair records, and photographs/screenshots if requested. I am concerned about the safety implications of a high-voltage battery/powertrain failure because loss of propulsion can occur while driving and may create a hazardous situation, particularly in traffic or at highway speeds.
My 2021 Mustang MachE experienced a failure of the relay which connects its high-voltage battery to the rest of the car. The car is an EV, and the result of this is that the drive-motor had no power, and the car would not move. I would like to ask, please, that all model years with this known-issue (HVBJB - high voltage battery junction box) be recalled.
While accelerating on a highway on-ramp, the vehicle displayed Powertrain Malfunction/Reduced Power, a High-Voltage Battery Warning. Power was reduced while merging into traffic. The same warnings appeared at about 90,000 miles and cleared on their own. This is a Standard Range RWD Mach-E, which was excluded from the high-voltage battery junction box recall. The vehicle was towed to AutoNation Ford Katy and diagnosed with HVBJB failure. Loss of propulsion at highway speeds is a safety hazard. I am requesting that the federal safety agency investigate whether Standard Range vehicles should be included in the recall.
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 the federal safety agency 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.
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 federal safety agency 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.
This is a safety issue. The front collision assist is not working. I have returned the car to the Ford Dealer (Biener Ford) several times but the dangerous issue persists. I'm not the only one. There are many complaints listed on the web and the Ford Mach E forum. Ford needs to recall their EV Ford Mach-E vehicles and fix this dangerous safety issue once and for all.
Questions about the 2021 Ford Mustang Mach E electrical
Does the 2021 Ford Mustang Mach E have electrical problems?
Owners have filed 156 complaints about the electrical of the 2021 Ford Mustang Mach E, 44% of all its complaints, more than any other problem.
At what mileage do 2021 Ford Mustang Mach E electrical problems start?
The typical (median) mileage in owner complaints is 30,696 miles.
Was there a recall on the 2021 Ford Mustang Mach E electrical?
Yes, 3 recalls: 25V130000, 23V687000, 22V412000. Check your VIN to see if your car still needs the free repair.
What year does the Ford Mustang Mach E have the most electrical problems?
The Ford Mustang Mach E model years with the most electrical complaints are 2021 (156 complaints), 2022 (79 complaints) and 2023 (53 complaints).
Other 2021 Ford Mustang Mach E problems
Driver assistance 113Transmission 53Fuel system 49Acceleration 37Brakes 32Visibility 21Engine 17Steering 15Body 7Lights 4Locks 2Seat belts 2Suspension 2Seats 1Wheels 1
VIN decoder
See the problems and recalls for an exact car
Buying a used 2021 Ford Mustang Mach E?
Check the exact car before you pay: accidents, salvage or flood titles, odometer readings and previous owners.
Check its history