Interested in Class action lawsuit over derate of HP/Torque

richardkf · **Joined:** Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:15 pm **Posts:** 167

LOL yea, at this point the CRDs reputation, not-withstanding the slight reduction in HP and/or Torque, for reliability to anyone who snoops around the net on edmunds/kbb user forum and here is crap. If DC can work out all of the major issues, maybe that'll improve.

litton · **Posted:** Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:58 pm

If one is looking at mis-representation, then take a look at DCX intentionally programing the EVIC to display a fuel economy reading of 10-15% higher then reality.....that is fraud in my book. Solving a problem that was unintentional by some small but undefined reduction in torque is much less so. Why are we overlooking the fact that Jeep is spending a lot of money trying to do right by us CRD owners?

I still want the EVIC to be correct and am getting nowhere.

Just my thoughts.

MrMopar64 · **Posted:** Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:41 pm

I wanted to apologize for the inaccuracy in the numbers I reported earlier as they are somewhat too high.

The official statement I heard regarding that is the EVIC is supposed to report a F.E. which is slightly under the actual. I cannot report the actual numbers to which it's calibrated for obvious reasons, but nowhere what I was previously told. Why this is the reason I have no idea...

Just wanted to clarify the position some.

longarm · **Posted:** Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:21 pm

Count me in.

Goglio704 · **Posted:** Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:24 pm

MrMopar64 wrote:

I wanted to apologize for the inaccuracy in the numbers I reported earlier as they are somewhat too high.

The official statement I heard regarding that is the EVIC is supposed to report a F.E. which is slightly under the actual. I cannot report the actual numbers to which it's calibrated for obvious reasons, but nowhere what I was previously told. Why this is the reason I have no idea...

Just wanted to clarify the position some.

???I don't see the post you are correcting. Maybe it's me.

Cowcatcher · **Posted:** Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:02 pm

litton wrote:

If one is looking at mis-representation, then take a look at DCX intentionally programing the EVIC to display a fuel economy reading of 10-15% higher then reality.....that is fraud in my book. Solving a problem that was unintentional by some small but undefined reduction in torque is much less so. Why are we overlooking the fact that Jeep is spending a lot of money trying to do right by us CRD owners?

I still want the EVIC to be correct and am getting nowhere.

Just my thoughts.

Yours may be that far off, mine is not. The only error I can reliably attribute to my EVIC is related to an error in the odometer and that under reports the mileage.

I can tell you that I do not believe that I can reliably fill my CRD fuel tank on a consistant basis given the differences in foaming of the fuel, ground levelness, my patience and other factors to consider hand calculation anywhere near reliable by comparison. I think that those who can must be Gods!

KenJennings · **Posted:** Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:15 pm

MrMopar64 wrote:

...The official statement I heard regarding that is the EVIC is supposed to report a F.E. which is slightly under the actual. I cannot report the actual numbers to which it's calibrated for obvious reasons, but nowhere what I was previously told. Why this is the reason I have no idea...

The EVIC is supposed to be under reporting fuel economy? That's funny (in a greek tragedy sort of way), because I must be getting screwed big time. Only recently has the calculated mileage average exceeded the 21mpg historical average. However, the EVIC routinely reports 24 through 26 mpg for my routine driving, and on a long driving trip which earned a real 24.8mpg the EVIC had reported over 30mpg. It doesn't really matter if I reset the EVIC MPG at fillups or let it run averages across several tanks.

KenJennings · **Posted:** Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:29 pm

Cowcatcher wrote:

...
Yours may be that far off, mine is not. The only error I can reliably attribute to my EVIC is related to an error in the odometer and that under reports the mileage.

I can tell you that I do not believe that I can reliably fill my CRD fuel tank on a consistant basis given the differences in foaming of the fuel, ground levelness, my patience and other factors to consider hand calculation anywhere near reliable by comparison. I think that those who can must be Gods!

I ordinarily fillup after the light comes on. I can consistently pump more than 19.5 gal, sometimes over 20, into the tank. Any variation readily correlates to how much farther I drove after the light come on.

I'm not a god -- just reeeal mellow and patient ;-)

I let the pump run at its slowest speed and shoot the breeze with the station owner. He likes talking about diesels. It takes a few more minutes to let whatever foam there is die down and then finish the topoff. The alternative is doing it quickly and inconsistently which means returning to the office sooner and making the lunch break that much shorter. Now, if I were going fishing, I might be in more of a hurry.

GilaMonster · **Posted:** Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:34 pm

I want my torque back and a real powertrain fix to maximize the potential of this engine. So you can count me in on this effort.

Incidently, if somehow it is proven that the same situation exists in the foreign market, those consumers may also litigate DCX regarding this potentially fraudulent situation.

T^2 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:46 pm

SuperDave_001 wrote:

I am the lurking friend. I did call DCX and they did tell me that the torque reduction was an overall reduction in torque for the vehicle. RTStabler51 and I are going to have our vehicles run on a local dyno before I take mine in. I will run it again afterword. As a side note, maybe we should see if others want to dyno their Libbys too. Who knows, maybe we can get a discount. I have allready contacted a lawyer and left them my question. I will keep you posted.

Super D.

Two questions:

1) Any news on the dyno run?
2) What did your lawyer say?

T^2 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:47 pm

Interest still there to fight DCX? Or has it waned?

Joe Romas · **Posted:** Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:54 pm

T^2 wrote:

Interest still there to fight DCX? Or has it waned?

Yes. Did you get yours dyno tested :?:

T^2 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:57 pm

T^2 wrote:

Interest still there to fight DCX? Or has it waned?

I'm not sure if I'm going to. I'm lurking/waiting to see if somebody else goes to the dyno to see what happens.

SuperDave_001 · **Joined:** Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:49 pm **Posts:** 2

Yes I do still intend on fighting them. I was dealing with a pro bono lawyer so he is slow to get back to me. Bassically he said we would have to "prove" that the market value of the vehicle was affected by the decrease in power. He also indicated that there might be many other "winable" avenues to pursue. I will post more when I know more. As for the dyno run, yes I still intend on doing it. This process will not happen quickly for me as I am about to return to active duty for 4 months and will not realy be able to pursue this. I would like to get the first dyno run done before the 22nd of Dec but I haven't even called the shop to see if they can do it. Was anyone else in the area (Manassas VA) interested in doing a dyno run? These guys might cut us a little better deal. Currently the price is $75 for 3 pulls.

Joe Romas · **Posted:** Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:15 pm

SuperDave_001 wrote:

Yes I do still intend on fighting them. I was dealing with a pro bono lawyer so he is slow to get back to me. Bassically he said we would have to "prove" that the market value of the vehicle was affected by the decrease in power. He also indicated that there might be many other "winable" avenues to pursue. I will post more when I know more. As for the dyno run, yes I still intend on doing it. This process will not happen quickly for me as I am about to return to active duty for 4 months and will not realy be able to pursue this. I would like to get the first dyno run done before the 22nd of Dec but I haven't even called the shop to see if they can do it. Was anyone else in the area (Manassas VA) interested in doing a dyno run? These guys might cut us a little better deal. Currently the price is $75 for 3 pulls.

A little far for me, I'm on Ohio. Thanks for your work :!:

tha3rdman · **Joined:** Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:28 pm **Posts:** 10

How about losing 10,000 dollars in 6 months, granted these are KBB values, but I'm tired of the constant trips to the service manager who treats me like an idiot. Telling me there is a throttle valve in there (pointing tward the turbo). and the 06' models only have a 3/36,000 warrenty. Turthfully i'm done with DC and Jeep, to many issues for a daily driver, if I could unload our liberty without losing our stupid is would be done today. Have to wonder why they (DC) dropped the 100k in '05 to a 36k in '06.

valkraider · **Posted:** Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:31 pm

Goglio704 wrote:

vtdog wrote:

Take a deep breath pablo. You will get a succesful class action suit on the CRD right after VP Cheney finishes his first marathon

Your comment contributes nothing to the discussion and may cause yet another thread to become angry and political.

So which political party thinks Cheney can run a marathon then? :twisted:

Seriously, there is nothing political about that. The guy has had like 38 heart attacks...

But in reading through this thread - I seriously remind people that a class action lawsuit will in all reality NET YOU VERY LITTLE.

They simply would be innefective at anything except making the lawyers rich and making DC regret the CRD if they don't already.

A better result for us as customers would be to get the NHTSA (or did I screw that up? NTSHA? Whatever that organization is) to force more recalls to get things right.

Any way you look at it DC does not care about the individual, but we do have strength in numbers.

tha3rdman · **Joined:** Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:28 pm **Posts:** 10

So a better question is, Did all of our complaints/report that were filed aid in the current F37 recall? If so we just may have to continue that course of action untill everything is fixed correctly.

Jeger · **Posted:** Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:11 am

tha3rdman wrote:

So a better question is, Did all of our complaints/report that were filed aid in the current F37 recall? If so we just may have to continue that course of action untill everything is fixed correctly.

I am wondering the same thing, Is there any way to find out what finally pushed DC to do this. I would like to think it was voluntary, but I am having a hard time making myself believe that one.

RFCRD · **Posted:** Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:48 am

Jeger wrote:

tha3rdman wrote:

So a better question is, Did all of our complaints/report that were filed aid in the current F37 recall? If so we just may have to continue that course of action untill everything is fixed correctly.

I am wondering the same thing, Is there any way to find out what finally pushed DC to do this. I would like to think it was voluntary, but I am having a hard time making myself believe that one.

Recall choices like this are usually made for financial reasons. Most engineered products have an "acceptable" statistical failure threshold. Cross the threshold and it becomes more economical to take another course of action. Would be more likely to find the cost of warranty claims has exceeded the cost of preventative action. Some would also weigh in the cost of litigation and buy-backs, all depends on the manufacturer.

Interested in Class action lawsuit over derate of HP/Torque

Who is online