New Customer Satisfaction Recall - F37

BVCRD · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:15 am

truckbouy2 wrote:

Awwwwwww....I was just spoofin' a little.....
But I think Mr. BVCRD you are right on the money on your assements.
You appear to be a fair honest man. Even the most Evil of Companies (And I am NOT calling DC evil) deserve a chance to remedy faulty equipment
as best they see fit. AND not everyone will be satisfied. Few ever are.

You're right! Just think, if I wasn't here defending the CRD, alot of posters on here wouldn't have a whipping boy.

I figure I am good therapy for them. Sort of a "OK, let it all out now fella" sort of guy.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:18 am

KJbob wrote:

BVCRD wrote:

I'm sure they tuned down the torque so just in case they are wrong yet again, it doesn't happen a second time. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice....... I am for real here.

So much for your "What if it's a better part" argument. :roll:

I guess you can never loose an argument if you argue both sides.

BVCRD wrote:

I am a Jeep Liberty enthusiast, not a Jeep Liberty Beeatcher.

Are you for real? C'mon, customer feedback, both positive and negative, is a critical element of a product's improvement process.

BVCRD wrote:

BTW, NADA probably moniters this site and your resale values are dropping. Now THAT was a joke. Not very funny huh?

How does that tin foil hat fit?

I don't have all the answers. I'm on here looking for some too. If you have some, please share them with me. Please be able to supply proof as well. I have 2 suggestions. Leave It To Beaver, and Gunsmoke. All you need to know about life can be learned there.

T^2 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:33 am

BVCRD wrote:

KJMedic wrote:

BVCRD,
You want proof: Then why did DCX detune the CRD? They cut the Torque back on these beast. If they were so confident with the new TC then why turn down he torque? I think you work for DCX as a comic book writer. You sure jump to there defense very quickly. :idea:

I'm sure they tuned down the torque so just in case they are wrong yet again, it doesn't happen a second time. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice....... I am for real here. No comic book stuff. I am a Jeep Liberty enthusiast, not a Jeep Liberty Beeatcher. BTW, NADA probably moniters this site and your resale values are dropping. Now THAT was a joke. Not very funny huh?

Again you can't be serious.... Or can you?

Engineering isn't some kind of crap shoot where you through things up against the wall and see what sticks. There is no (or should be no) "fooling me" if things are properly designed and engineered. If this replacement TC was indeed properly designed/engineered for this application, then there were be no need to hedge one bets and reduce torque for your "just in case scenario". The only reason that engineers would implement a torque reduction in programming software is if they clearly recognized that this replacement TC is at best a marginal replacement part.

Let me suggest a more plausible scenario: It’s more than likely that business concerns trumped engineering concerns. IOW it was determined – from a business point of view - that the desired (read: the cheapest) resolution for this problem was to use TC’s currently in inventory (or TC’s in inventory that could easily be modified) instead of going the significantly more expensive route of redesigning and producing a new TC from scratch. Given that, the engineer’s task would have been to simply come up with a way to make this approach work. A logical result of that engineering task would have been to implement a necessary reduction in torque via reprogramming the ECM and TCM modules so that this TC would be able to survive (until at least DCX has escaped further liability) installation in this given application.

Again you are spending a lot of effort being an apologist for DCX at the expense of your own credibility. One has to wonder why....

BVCRD · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:03 pm

T^2 wrote:

BVCRD wrote:

KJMedic wrote:

BVCRD,
You want proof: Then why did DCX detune the CRD? They cut the Torque back on these beast. If they were so confident with the new TC then why turn down he torque? I think you work for DCX as a comic book writer. You sure jump to there defense very quickly. :idea:

I'm sure they tuned down the torque so just in case they are wrong yet again, it doesn't happen a second time. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice....... I am for real here. No comic book stuff. I am a Jeep Liberty enthusiast, not a Jeep Liberty Beeatcher. BTW, NADA probably moniters this site and your resale values are dropping. Now THAT was a joke. Not very funny huh?

Again you can't be serious.... Or can you?

Engineering isn't some kind of crap shoot where you through things up against the wall and see what sticks. There is no (or should be no) "fooling me" if things are properly designed and engineered. If this replacement TC was indeed properly designed/engineered for this application, then there were be no need to hedge one bets and reduce torque for your "just in case scenario". The only reason that engineers would implement a torque reduction in programming software is if they clearly recognized that this replacement TC is at best a marginal replacement part.

Let me suggest a more plausible scenario: It’s more than likely that business concerns trumped engineering concerns. IOW it was determined – from a business point of view - that the desired (read: the cheapest) resolution for this problem was to use TC’s currently in inventory (or TC’s in inventory that could easily be modified) instead of going the significantly more expensive route of redesigning and producing a new TC from scratch. Given that, the engineer’s task would have been to simply come up with a way to make this approach work. A logical result of that engineering task would have been to implement a necessary reduction in torque via reprogramming the ECM and TCM modules so that this TC would be able to survive (until at least DCX has escaped further liability) installation in this given application.

Again you are spending a lot of effort being an apologist for DCX at the expense of your own credibility. One has to wonder why....

You offer a legitime defense. Who knows. It could offer a reason that engineers didn't discover their mistake in the first place. I have been offered kudos for being up front about me feelings on this matter. Maybe I own 1000 shares of DCX. How knows? Or maybe I like the way my CRD is. Who knows. Maybe I like pushing buttons. Who knows. I do, but I'm not telling.

Look, this isn't a game here. You need to take me at face value. That is the way that I present myself, and that is the way you should take it, or leave it. I often wonder if so many folks are this unhappy about the CRD, why in the heck don't they sell the thing OFF? Isn't life too short to let a thing like that make you THIS unhappy?

Ranger1 · **Joined:** Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:40 pm **Posts:** 1137

Quote:

I don't have all the answers. I'm on here looking for some too. If you have some, please share them with me. Please be able to supply proof as well.

By your own post, you don't even have a problem. What problem are you looking for an answer? Those who have the issue are either looking for an answer from DC or working on one of their own. Yet you ask for proof as though you are due an explanation! You want proof for existence of a problem that doesn't even affect you! No one owes you any explanation. We'll figure this out without irrelevant conjecture and attempted manipulation from unaffected bystanders.

Enough for now.

no-blue-screen · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:17 pm

in BVCRD's defense, even those of us who are not affected by F37 would still like to know if this new TC is inferior. I for one would like to know this since I supposedly have this newer/redesigned TC and I may be SOL if it dies after my 3/36 is up. Them turning down the torque would also seem to be another "layer" of protection against TC failure in the future, but that is pure speculation on my part.

As far as seeing proof and facts related to this, I don't think we will. Many have tried contacting DC to find out details on the "small reduction in torque" and their efforts have yielded little or no useful information. There is another post on here about someone having a dyno done, but without a basis dyno on an unflashed vehicle, that really doesn't give us much to work with either. Once it is posted it will still be interesting data though.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:26 pm

no-blue-screen wrote:

in BVCRD's defense, even those of us who are not affected by F37 would still like to know if this new TC is inferior. I for one would like to know this since I supposedly have this newer/redesigned TC and I may be SOL if it dies after my 3/36 is up. Them turning down the torque would also seem to be another "layer" of protection against TC failure in the future, but that is pure speculation on my part.

As far as seeing proof and facts related to this, I don't think we will. Many have tried contacting DC to find out details on the "small reduction in torque" and their efforts have yielded little or no useful information. There is another post on here about someone having a dyno done, but without a basis dyno on an unflashed vehicle, that really doesn't give us much to work with either. Once it is posted it will still be interesting data though.

Thanks no blue. I'm just not willing to sell the horse before it develops a limp. I appreciate that many have had issues. I'm not immune to their woes. I hope mine continues to perform admireably, and I hope that the "fix" is long lasting. I guess for the time being, it will be....."Thank you sir may I have another."

T^2 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:24 pm

BVCRD wrote:

Ranger1 wrote:

Quote:

I don't have all the answers. I'm on here looking for some too. If you have some, please share them with me. Please be able to supply proof as well.

By your own post, you don't even have a problem. What problem are you looking for an answer? Those who have the issue are either looking for an answer from DC or working on one of their own. Yet you ask for proof as though you are due an explanation! You want proof for existence of a problem that doesn't even affect you! No one owes you any explanation. We'll figure this out without irrelevant conjecture and attempted manipulation from unaffected bystanders.

Enough for now.

Answers? I found some. I found out how to clean the MAP. I found useful info on changing the fuel filter. Doesn't effect me YET! I don't have a crystal ball, but apparently you do. If you KNOW the replacement TC is inferior, show me. I'm originally from Missouri you know.

I am not willing to take the myth, that the replacement TC is inferior with anything but a grain of salt. Sorry.

DCX is the sole repository of all facts (or proof) concerning this issue and DCX is not talking. Since that's the case, when it comes to getting proof, you'll not have it.

So what's that leave you with? Not much. You'll have to come to your own conclusions - based on the best available/known information - as to what the most plausible/logical/reasonable explanation is. I believe that I've already offered the most plausible case as to the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of this new TC for this application. If this TC was not a marginally acceptable replacement part, then there would be no need to programmatically reduce torque so that it may survive (For how long who knows? Just long enough to get DCX beyond the warranty?) installation in this application. I’m sorry, but given the available information – it seems to me that any arguments to the contrary seem sophomoric.

T^2 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:35 pm

no-blue-screen wrote:

in BVCRD's defense, even those of us who are not affected by F37 would still like to know if this new TC is inferior. I for one would like to know this since I supposedly have this newer/redesigned TC and I may be SOL if it dies after my 3/36 is up. Them turning down the torque would also seem to be another "layer" of protection against TC failure in the future, but that is pure speculation on my part...

I apologize for sounding crass, but again this argument also appears to be nothing more than another example of sophomoric reasoning.

If you properly design/engineer or select a part for a particular application, then you design or select that part with appropriate performance specification "padding" so that such additional "layers of protection" are not required to be added later. You would only add such "layers of protection" if the selection of parts from which you had to choose was limited to a part that is at best marginal for the application.

06blueCRD · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:36 pm

no-blue-screen wrote:

in BVCRD's defense, even those of us who are not affected by F37 would still like to know if this new TC is inferior. I for one would like to know this since I supposedly have this newer/redesigned TC and I may be SOL if it dies after my 3/36 is up. Them turning down the torque would also seem to be another "layer" of protection against TC failure in the future, but that is pure speculation on my part.

As far as seeing proof and facts related to this, I don't think we will. Many have tried contacting DC to find out details on the "small reduction in torque" and their efforts have yielded little or no useful information. There is another post on here about someone having a dyno done, but without a basis dyno on an unflashed vehicle, that really doesn't give us much to work with either. Once it is posted it will still be interesting data though.

Well, as I posted in an earlier note, my first TC replacement was mushy and did in fact leak ATF on my garage floor (not a lot but just a few drops per week). The dealer said it was residual from the replacement. Weeks later I returned and they yanked the mushy TC out and put another in (I suspect it was my original they put back in - it only had 1,964 miles on it when the F37 was done).

My second (or original if you are a conspiracy student) TC returned my CRD to 85% or more of the way it drove off the lot. I suspect the flash power reduction is to blame for the remainder of power loss sensation.

Since fuel mileage has been mentioned in this thread - my mileage did improve after the F37 but I think most of my improvement was due to the breakin of my Jeep (now has 3151 miles on it) and my learning to drive more responsibly (not calling the turbo into play at every light). I now get 20.5 mpg in City only driving and 29 mpg in highway only driving. I don't have a mix - it's either City or Highway.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:42 pm

06blueCRD wrote:

no-blue-screen wrote:

in BVCRD's defense, even those of us who are not affected by F37 would still like to know if this new TC is inferior. I for one would like to know this since I supposedly have this newer/redesigned TC and I may be SOL if it dies after my 3/36 is up. Them turning down the torque would also seem to be another "layer" of protection against TC failure in the future, but that is pure speculation on my part.

As far as seeing proof and facts related to this, I don't think we will. Many have tried contacting DC to find out details on the "small reduction in torque" and their efforts have yielded little or no useful information. There is another post on here about someone having a dyno done, but without a basis dyno on an unflashed vehicle, that really doesn't give us much to work with either. Once it is posted it will still be interesting data though.

Well, as I posted in an earlier note, my first TC replacement was mushy and did in fact leak ATF on my garage floor (not a lot but just a few drops per week). The dealer said it was residual from the replacement. Weeks later I returned and they yanked the mushy TC out and put another in (I suspect it was my original they put back in - it only had 1,964 miles on it when the F37 was done).

My second (or original if you are a conspiracy student) TC returned my CRD to 85% or more of the way it drove off the lot. I suspect the flash power reduction is to blame for the remainder of power loss sensation.

Since fuel mileage has been mentioned in this thread - my mileage did improve after the F37 but I think most of my improvement was due to the breakin of my Jeep (now has 3151 miles on it) and my learning to drive more responsibly (not calling the turbo into play at every light). I now get 20.5 mpg in City only driving and 29 mpg in highway only driving. I don't have a mix - it's either City or Highway.

Those are some GREAT numbers. Has the replacement taken care of the shuddering? Or, if they did put the old one back in, has it come back? I have heard that your mileage may not be enough to be fully broke in. Some say upwards of 10-20,000 miles.

T^2 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:00 pm

BVCRD wrote:

...I often wonder if so many folks are this unhappy about the CRD, why in the heck don't they sell the thing OFF? Isn't life too short to let a thing like that make you THIS unhappy?

Like I've mentioned in other post - I don't see anything on the market right now that can fill this niche as well as the CRD Liberty. If there were such a beast, then I might consider dumping the CRD for it.

I've also stated that I really like the CRD and that I currently don't have any problems with mine. In fact the only real problem I've had with mine was the EGR failure/replacement. Since then I've had no issues. That being the case - I wouldn't necessarily say that I'm unhappy with my vehicle at the moment. However, I can say that I'm not too thrilled with this CSN and what it appears to be. I'm not going to kid myself about this CSN and the reality that can be reasonably inferred from it's text. Based on all available known facts - this CSN appears to be a turkey that I want no part of.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:13 pm

T^2 wrote:

BVCRD wrote:

...I often wonder if so many folks are this unhappy about the CRD, why in the heck don't they sell the thing OFF? Isn't life too short to let a thing like that make you THIS unhappy?

Like I've mentioned in other post - I don't see anything on the market right now that can fill this niche as well as the CRD Liberty. If there were such a beast, then I might consider dumping the CRD for it.

I've also stated that I really like the CRD and that I currently don't have any problems with mine. In fact the only real problem I've had with mine was the EGR failure/replacement. Since then I've had no issues. That being the case - I wouldn't necessarily say that I'm unhappy with my vehicle at the moment. However, I can say that I'm not too thrilled with this CSN and what it appears to be. I'm not going to kid myself about this CSN and the reality that can be reasonably inferred from it's text. Based on all available known facts - this CSN appears to be a turkey that I want no part of.

That's cool.That's your decision to make. And for the record, I am no attorney, but I don't feel they can make you get it either or face warranty voiding. I didn't buy our CRD to fill a niche. I was looking at that new Toyota thing. Some cruiser. We live where it is winter 9 months out of the year, so we don't get much of a chance to enjoy the summer mpgs. I do tow with it from time to time, and it kicks butt in that dept. Better than a F150 I had with a 4.6L. We plan on keeping the CRD for long term, but we always say that. We get tired of the same ole same ole, and usually trade it in after 2 or 3 years. Have to see how it goes.

T^2 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:29 pm

BVCRD wrote:

Those are some GREAT numbers. Has the replacement taken care of the shuddering? Or, if they did put the old one back in, has it come back? I have heard that your mileage may not be enough to be fully broke in. Some say upwards of 10-20,000 miles.

I remember that many could not wait to rush down to their dealers to have this CSN performed. If memory serves, many of those folks were stampeding the doors out of desperation to finally get a cure for their 55 mph shudder issue.

I can't say with any great certainty - but from what I’ve read so far - it appears that the notion that this CSN was ever intended to be a fix for the shudder issue may have been nothing more than a fallacy. I don't recall reading anything official that said that fixing the shudder issue was an intended purpose of this CSN. In fact - as far as I can tell - there has never been any proof that the shudder issue was being caused by the TC or transmission (it's never been anything more that a theory). Actually, I've read many posts that suggest that the actual cause of the shudder issue stems from air getting into the fuel lines. Folks have reported that no relief for their shudder issue came from the CSN work, but bleeding the fuel lines of air appeared to solve the problem. To me the “air in the fuel line” theory seems more plausible - based on the symptoms. The shuddering appears to be the result of the engine getting starved of fuel causing engine stutter, which the driver perceives as a shudder under load or acceleration.

If you have shudder issues, then you may want to look at the post (if you haven’t already) concerning the issue and in particular those post that discuss the “air in the fuel line” theory as being the culprit. I don’t have the shudder issue myself, and therefore I have no need or desire to do the research.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:39 pm

T^2 wrote:

BVCRD wrote:

Those are some GREAT numbers. Has the replacement taken care of the shuddering? Or, if they did put the old one back in, has it come back? I have heard that your mileage may not be enough to be fully broke in. Some say upwards of 10-20,000 miles.

I remember that many could not wait to rush down to their dealers to have this CSN performed. If memory serves, many of those folks were stampeding the doors out of desperation to finally get a cure for their 55 mph shudder issue.

I can't say with any great certainty - but from what I’ve read so far - it appears that the notion that this CSN was ever intended to be a fix for the shudder issue may have been nothing more than a fallacy. I don't recall reading anything official that said that fixing the shudder issue was an intended purpose of this CSN. In fact - as far as I can tell - there has never been any proof that the shudder issue was being cause the TC or transmission (it's never been anything more that a theory). Actually, I've read many posts that suggest that the actual cause of the shudder issue stems from air getting into the fuel lines. Folks have reported that no relief for their shudder issue came from the CSN work, but bleeding the fuel lines of air appeared to solve the problem. To me the “air in the fuel line” theory seems more plausible - based on the symptoms. The shuddering appears to be the result of the engine getting starved of fuel causing engine stutter, which the driver perceives as a shudder under load or acceleration.

If you have shudder issues, then you may want to look at the post (if you haven’t already) concerning the issue and in particular those post that discuss the “air in the fuel line” theory as being the culprit. I don’t have the shudder issue myself, and therefore I have no need or desire to do the research.

Yea, I am aware of the air in fuel saga. It seems to have helped some folks. I think the TC theory comes from the "rattling noise" that was mentioned in the F37. If you have it, then you get a pump with the TC.

Bgame · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:58 pm

BVCRD wrote:

T^2 wrote:

BVCRD wrote:

Those are some GREAT numbers. Has the replacement taken care of the shuddering? Or, if they did put the old one back in, has it come back? I have heard that your mileage may not be enough to be fully broke in. Some say upwards of 10-20,000 miles.

I remember that many could not wait to rush down to their dealers to have this CSN performed. If memory serves, many of those folks were stampeding the doors out of desperation to finally get a cure for their 55 mph shudder issue.

I can't say with any great certainty - but from what I’ve read so far - it appears that the notion that this CSN was ever intended to be a fix for the shudder issue may have been nothing more than a fallacy. I don't recall reading anything official that said that fixing the shudder issue was an intended purpose of this CSN. In fact - as far as I can tell - there has never been any proof that the shudder issue was being cause the TC or transmission (it's never been anything more that a theory). Actually, I've read many posts that suggest that the actual cause of the shudder issue stems from air getting into the fuel lines. Folks have reported that no relief for their shudder issue came from the CSN work, but bleeding the fuel lines of air appeared to solve the problem. To me the “air in the fuel line” theory seems more plausible - based on the symptoms. The shuddering appears to be the result of the engine getting starved of fuel causing engine stutter, which the driver perceives as a shudder under load or acceleration.

If you have shudder issues, then you may want to look at the post (if you haven’t already) concerning the issue and in particular those post that discuss the “air in the fuel line” theory as being the culprit. I don’t have the shudder issue myself, and therefore I have no need or desire to do the research.

Yea, I am aware of the air in fuel saga. It seems to have helped some folks. I think the TC theory comes from the "rattling noise" that was mentioned in the F37. If you have it, then you get a pump with the TC.

The fuel saga is interesting. I have bled my system and the hand pump will get hard and not pump when I get all the air out. But crank the engine up and let it idle a while and the pump will get soft and pump again. Check it and I can get air out of it again. Pump again and get all the air out and the hand pump is hard again with the vent closed. Crank it and the hand pump gets soft and I can get air out of the filter again. I also noted that with the engine running you can not get any air or fuel out of the bled valve. I have never had any problem with the CDR cranking. I bet if people will check after they think they have all the air out they will have air in it again after they crank it up and run it a while.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:13 pm

Where can it be coming from if you don't have a leak somewhere?

Joe Romas · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:14 pm

Bgame wrote:

[The fuel saga is interesting. I have bled my system and the hand pump will get hard and not pump when I get all the air out. But crank the engine up and let it idle a while and the pump will get soft and pump again. Check it and I can get air out of it again. Pump again and get all the air out and the hand pump is hard again with the vent closed. Crank it and the hand pump gets soft and I can get air out of the filter again. I also noted that with the engine running you can not get any air or fuel out of the bled valve. I have never had any problem with the CDR cranking. I bet if people will check after they think they have all the air out they will have air in it again after they crank it up and run it a while.

BG
What your seeing is because when the engine is cranked or running, the fuel filter after pumping it up goes from pressure to a vacume as the injection pump, a Bosch C3 I think, starts pumping fuel from the tank and through the filter ito the fuel rail :!:

Bgame · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:14 pm

Joe Romas wrote:

Bgame wrote:

[The fuel saga is interesting. I have bled my system and the hand pump will get hard and not pump when I get all the air out. But crank the engine up and let it idle a while and the pump will get soft and pump again. Check it and I can get air out of it again. Pump again and get all the air out and the hand pump is hard again with the vent closed. Crank it and the hand pump gets soft and I can get air out of the filter again. I also noted that with the engine running you can not get any air or fuel out of the bled valve. I have never had any problem with the CDR cranking. I bet if people will check after they think they have all the air out they will have air in it again after they crank it up and run it a while.

BG
What your seeing is because when the engine is cranked or running, the fuel filter after pumping it up goes from pressure to a vacume as the injection pump, a Bosch C3 I think, starts pumping fuel from the tank and through the filter ito the fuel rail :!:

I believe you are correct. But why do we still get air in the system after the ist runs a few seconds? I have done this 6 times in a row and will still get air out of the bled valve.

onthehunt · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:54 pm

Quote:

I think you work for DCX as a comic book writer. You sure jump to there defense very quickly.

Pretty soon there will be a couple of people who know everything about the crd and a bunch of d/c employees on this site.

New Customer Satisfaction Recall - F37

Who is online