Good luck. Once the update is applied, it may say ‘EVCC update required’ or similar. It would also say ‘complete’ against the update.I’ve got an appointment today at dealer for my early September 21 LR. Dealer mentioned the conflicting information from MG & that they can only tell if software upgradable by getting car in and checking. So, should know by lunchtime.
Still not 100% correct. Mine is 11313393 and was the one updated my MG dealership who then told MGUK technical it could be done.The information is now live on "TRIP" (MG's internal workshop manual tool)
The basics are that all Long Range MG5 should have the correct hardware. All that is required is a software update, which is chargeable by the dealership as MG have said this is classed as an enhancement rather than a warranty fault.
The only vehicles that will need hardware updates are the MK1 ZSEV and the Standard Range MG5.
This requires a replacement EVCC, part number - 11505199 - RRP: £220.71 + VAT.
Indicative labour time for replacement of this part is 1 hour + coding
View attachment 27242
(MCE = Mid-Cycle Enhancement = Facelift model)
update applied to my LR from early September 2021. Working fine now ?Good luck. Once the update is applied, it may say ‘EVCC update required’ or similar. It would also say ‘complete’ against the update.
I can confirm that my MG ZS EV Mark 1, Australian model, has the EVCC-01 10947807 fitted (date code 201209).EDIT: also found:
EVCC-02 10971602
EVCC-02 11170476
EVCC-01 10947807
Evidence that suggests the latter was fitted to both the 5 and ZS at times. It was also apparently from a 2022 Exclusive, which would discount that the EVCC-01 was fitted to the SR alone.
Excellent there is hope for mine also.?My 09/21 MG5 LR
update applied to my LR from early September 2021. Working fine now ?
I hope they do update the bulletin - mine is that number too. I would be shocked if it hadn't been compatible given mine is an October 22 car. Waiting until service in October to ask for update and hopefully MG will have finished all the faffing about. Like others, this experience of MG handling the issue so badly/inconsistently has put me off considering the brand when I am ready for another carStill not 100% correct. Mine is 11313393 and was the one updated my MG dealership who then told MGUK technical it could be done.
With regard to the Mk1 preFL two of the three quoted EVCC part numbers appear to be incorrect. Rather than 11182838 and 11313398 shouldn’t it be 11182835 and 11313393?The information is now live on "TRIP" (MG's internal workshop manual tool)
The basics are that all Long Range MG5 should have the correct hardware. All that is required is a software update, which is chargeable by the dealership as MG have said this is classed as an enhancement rather than a warranty fault.
The only vehicles that will need hardware updates are the MK1 ZSEV and the Standard Range MG5.
This requires a replacement EVCC, part number - 11505199 - RRP: £220.71 + VAT.
Indicative labour time for replacement of this part is 1 hour + coding
View attachment 27242
(MCE = Mid-Cycle Enhancement = Facelift model)
It's straightforward, but awkward (at least in my case). You take a photo or video of the front of the EVCC. It seems to often be located near the negative lead of the auxiliary (12 V) battery.where owners might be able to check what is fitted in their cars.
It could well be that there are many more variants than a small sample of MGs reveals.Rather than 11182838 and 11313398 shouldn’t it be 11182835 and 11313393?
I collated a list of numbers from here and other sources to get an understanding of what is going on. Those 3 numbers have not appeared on any of the units I and others have documented. On an MG5, the evcc is next to the battery but the label is facing the battery and it is hard to see what is written. I used an endoscope with a mirror to find mine.Hi these numbers that are being quoted as being wrong can you please explain where they are coming from and where owners might be able to check what is fitted in their cars.
Miles has posted what MG I presume have stated or have sent him so why are you saying they are wrong do please enlighten use.
Les
Yes I suspect so as well.It could well be that there are many more variants than a small sample of MGs reveals.
Yes that is worrying as wellBut one would hope that the list of part numbers from MG that don't have to be replaced would be exhaustive. Otherwise, people are going to miss out on important functionality, and/or pay a lot of money needlessly. I see that 11182835, the most popular one owners have reported, is one that has successfully Tesla supercharged with only a firmware update, so that is concerning.
The unit has powerline comms which imposes an RF signal onto the CP and PE signals. This requires a lot of filtering hence the inductors etc. The EVCC is located far from the high voltage cables and although the unit is attached to the charging plug, the power lines don't go to it.Having had a quick look at what the EVCC is likely to have to do, I see that while it looks simple on paper (just a few chips do most of the work), the devil is likely in the detail. For example, when rapid charging, there are high currents flowing, possibly lots of electrical noise from imperfectly smoothed switching regulated power, variations on the way that rapid chargers provide that power and how quickly they react to requests to change that current, and so on. I saw "damping" inductors and resistors, whose exact values would be tricky to predict without a lot of testing. So that could explain the long string of different part numbers for a seemingly "simple" module.
Yes it is a possibility but FL cars have had the same EVCC part as on the PFL. They have been upgraded with this software update only. On that basis those FL cars should have had the EVCC replaced.It's also possible that some of the ones that appear to work successfully with just a firmware update might not work in all circumstances. So it could be that MG knows best, having carefully researched the issue.
I mean, that could happen. It's a possible outcome, to slightly mangle one of Elon Musk's famous phrases.
They’ve only just accepted that it can be updated, but they know which is in my vehicle as I told them, then updated them that car had been successfully updated - something they said wasn’t possible.One would think in this day and age that MG should have a database showing which EVCCs have had there software successfully updated to re-enable Tesla Supercharging. Judging by this latest technical service bulletin they haven't or are not bothering to check it if they have.
As ever with MG they seem to be very secretive and seem unwilling to give owners honest and open information regarding their vehicles. The vibration issue on the MG4 X power is another example. The Tesla Supercharging debacle has been ongoing for eighteen months and lack of communication has only made matters worse for owners.
Yes that's very easy to do much easier than moving the 12V battery. It only took 5 to10 mins to do.Even if people can’t see the label on the EVCC, it is relatively easy to take off. There are two 8mm bolts holing it on and is a simple job. If you wanted to remove the 12v battery, taking the EVCC off is part of that process so shouldn’t be an issue.
Added to my list. That is the earliest (so far) to have been successfully upgraded!Please see below the label on my EVCC. Hopefully it is updateable.
View attachment 27262
Brilliant! I have no idea why they need so many similar-sounding numbers.When is a part number not a part number? When you have a build number, ECU part number, and an ECU hardware reference as well.
I'm sure that we could read it, IF we knew the appropriate PID to use. It might even be possible to guess it, based on the one that gives the firmware version number(s).This data is only available to MG dealers BTW as Carscanner or Ezs cannot read it.
Probably a good position to take. As you can probably gather, the members on here have been piecing what is reality from limited data and while some of the omens are good, we don't know if there are other factors involved. Thanks for the EVCC info - that is another piece of the jigsaw.I have emailed MG head office to try and find out the take on this, but I'm not expecting much back.