DC has the Tranny/TC fix but won't give it to us KJers

DarbyWalters · **Posted:** Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:47 am

A post from MrMopar64 in the Other Jeep Diesel thread:

The jeeps shown in the pictures are actually the J8, the military version of the JK - hence the outrageous suspensions and steel bumpers. They're available in 2-door and 4-door versions, all riding on the long-wheel base chassis. Being military vehicles, they're available in regulated and non-regulated EuroIV config (basically EGR/no EGR).

Scottie, you'll do yourself a favor if you wait until the 2008MY JK CRD. The 07MY features the same 545RFE as KJ with a 360 N-m rating. For 08MY, the 545RFE has been internally updated and upgraded (read: made bullitproof for both trans internals and for TC) and will feature a 460 N-m rating.

*************************************************************

DC is leaving us "high and dry" with the 2005-2006 Jeep Liberty CRD...they "HAVE" the correct version of the 545RFE and TC but are riding out "OUR" warranty time span. Also leads me to believe that an aftermarket fix will not be hard to find ... BUT ... is ridiulous that we have to resort to that avenue.

G-funk · **Posted:** Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:57 am

time to get a petition started and send it to DC.

Jeger · **Posted:** Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:17 am

So what is the best thing we could do to get the ball rolling on this. Start calling and emailing is a given. But what is it going to take to get the actual fix. They obviously gave us an underrated tranny from the get go.

Scottie · **Posted:** Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:50 am

[quote="DarbyWalters"]

Scottie, you'll do yourself a favor if you wait until the 2008MY JK CRD. The 07MY features the same 545RFE as KJ with a 360 N-m rating. For 08MY, the 545RFE has been internally updated and upgraded (read: made bullitproof for both trans internals and for TC) and will feature a 460 N-m rating.

quote]

I here what your saying will wait and see what problems we get with her.

However once the motor has had the Startech treatment we are looking at.

44 hp / 32.4 kW extra power, 262 hp / 193 kW at 4,000 rpm, max. torque 580 Nm between 1,600 and 2,800 rpm.

DarbyWalters · **Posted:** Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:52 am

MrMopar64 wrote:
07JK ATX: 545rfe, 360N-m rating
07JK MTX: NVG370 (6-spd), 3.21 or 4.10 axle

07KA/KK ATX: W5A580, 460N-m
07KA/KK MTX: NVG370 (6-spd), 3.21 axle

08JK ATX: 545rfe w/ new internals and torque converter, 460N-m
08JK MTX: same, 3.21 3.73 4.10 axle

07KA/KK ATX: same
08KA/KK MTX: same

Ranger1 wrote:
05 CRD - 295 ft-lbs with 545RFE transmission. 295 ft-lbs converts to 400 Nm. Why did Chrysler use a 360Nm rated tranny with 400Nm engine? Converting 360Nm to ft-lbs works out to around 270 ft-lbs. That wouldn't even handle the 5.7 Hemi.

Certain questions come to mind.....

Joe Romas · **Posted:** Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:52 am

DarbyWalters wrote:

Certain questions come to mind.....

Like how do we begin? Letter writing to DC, I doubt it would get much attention. Automotive press, maybe. Consumer products? Class action attorneys that will get large sums of money from DC while we get a free oil change :roll:

I want something that will last long after the crappy 06 warranty :!:

I don't want a free extended warranty, I'm already paying for that :cry:

edit: I've just sent a email on the Jeep site. Later today I hoe to speak with the sales manager at the dealership. Neither ill help but at least it's a start :lol:

UPDATE, I just got this from Wayne Senior Staff Representative , not Sam asking about the NM values. "Unfortunately, Customer Assistance does not have the technical
information you are requesting."
Supprised, not me :roll:

Jeger · **Posted:** Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:18 am

Does anyone have an official document of some sort that states the max torque input of our tranny? I cant find anything anywhere except what MrMopar stated.

I did find this..seems to be an overhaul guide?
http://www.hotrodlane.cc/New%20HEMI%20T ... 0trans.pdf

DarbyWalters · **Posted:** Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:53 am

Funny thing is in general car makers should build stuff with a 10% cushion for strength sake and used to do that in the past. At 400nm we should have a tranny that can handle at least 440nm...instead they went 10% the wrong way from 400nm to 360 nm. Then they do a "detune F37"...probably to the 360 and call everything "fixed". I am sure that the current 545RFE worked fine with the 2.5L that originally came in the Euro CRD.

MrMopar64 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:31 am

Don't forget they're still using the 545RFE, it's just been updated internally to handle more torque so that #1 the vehicle is more competitive and not so underpowered, and #2 to help with the torque-capacity probs.

It'd be hard to bring action against DCX based on the info because that information isn't technically published anywhere, just what I have from my notes.

MrMopar64 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:34 am

Additionally, all the new 545RFE applications are using the NGC-IV controller versus the EATX module that was used in KJ. The NGC is fully on CAN vs. the gatekeeper debacle used on KJ, so there would be some backwards compatibility issues from a SW standpoint as they'd have to redevelop the trans cal for it. At there is development almost done on the new HW - I'm not sure what is new, but trans/torque converter are different for sure.

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

DarbyWalters wrote:

Funny thing is in general car makers should build stuff with a 10% cushion for strength sake and used to do that in the past. At 400nm we should have a tranny that can handle at least 440nm...instead they went 10% the wrong way from 400nm to 360 nm. Then they do a "detune F37"...probably to the 360 and call everything "fixed". I am sure that the current 545RFE worked fine with the 2.5L that originally came in the Euro CRD.

The 545RFE was designed concurrently with the 4.7L V8, which has 295 ft-lbs in its lowest power configuration (non HO) and 325 ft-lbs in the GC Overland model. It seems rather unusual to design a tranny rated for less torque than the engine it was originally introduced with - a 99 GC with the 4.7L iirc.

litton · **Posted:** Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:08 pm

Ranger1 wrote:

DarbyWalters wrote:

Funny thing is in general car makers should build stuff with a 10% cushion for strength sake and used to do that in the past. At 400nm we should have a tranny that can handle at least 440nm...instead they went 10% the wrong way from 400nm to 360 nm. Then they do a "detune F37"...probably to the 360 and call everything "fixed". I am sure that the current 545RFE worked fine with the 2.5L that originally came in the Euro CRD.

The 545RFE was designed concurrently with the 4.7L V8, which has 295 ft-lbs in its lowest power configuration (non HO) and 325 ft-lbs in the GC Overland model. It seems rather unusual to design a tranny rated for less torque than the engine it was originally introduced with - a 99 GC with the 4.7L iirc.

The 545RFE is the tranny used behind the HEMI at 390 ft-lbs and seems utterly reliable. In addition, there hasn't been any reported tranny failures on the CRD that I have been able to find. Now that is excluding some pump problems caused my TC debris but the tranny itself seems to be pretty buttet proof. What am I missing????

DZL_LOU · **Posted:** Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:03 am

litton wrote:

The 545RFE is the tranny used behind the HEMI at 390 ft-lbs and seems utterly reliable. In addition, there hasn't been any reported tranny failures on the CRD that I have been able to find. Now that is excluding some pump problems caused my TC debris but the tranny itself seems to be pretty buttet proof. What am I missing????

A catastropic transmission failure at 25,000. See signature line

MrMopar64 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:52 am

Quote:

What am I missing????

The problem actually lies in the size of the engine. At 2.8L, the engine is borderline too big to be a 4-cyl diesel due to the torsional issues it experiences. Yes the engine has balance shafts, a harmonic balancer up front, and is internally balanced. However, due to the explosive nature of the ignition event and other torsional issues due to the engine's size, the poor torque converter and tranny get to absorb it all. What you need is a low-stall converter that you'd find in a nitrous application - furnace brazed fins, torrington roller thrust bearings, anti-balloning plates, etc. That's why you'll find less issues on the 2.5L engine...

DZL_LOU · **Posted:** Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:38 am

MrMopar64 wrote:

Quote:

What am I missing????

The problem actually lies in the size of the engine. At 2.8L, the engine is borderline too big to be a 4-cyl diesel due to the torsional issues it experiences. Yes the engine has balance shafts, a harmonic balancer up front, and is internally balanced. However, due to the explosive nature of the ignition event and other torsional issues due to the engine's size, the poor torque converter and tranny get to absorb it all. What you need is a low-stall converter that you'd find in a nitrous application - furnace brazed fins, torrington roller thrust bearings, anti-balloning plates, etc. That's why you'll find less issues on the 2.5L engine...

Ohhh all that talk of a nitrous application transmission has me willing to part with money! BUT, how can I ever get my pre-software flash 2.8L to act like the day I drove it off the lot? Since the flash, it's just not as responsive. If I can ever restate the original setpoint parameters, sign me up for spending some bucks on a customized transmission!

litton · **Posted:** Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:36 am

DZL_LOU wrote:

litton wrote:

The 545RFE is the tranny used behind the HEMI at 390 ft-lbs and seems utterly reliable. In addition, there hasn't been any reported tranny failures on the CRD that I have been able to find. Now that is excluding some pump problems caused my TC debris but the tranny itself seems to be pretty buttet proof. What am I missing????

A catastropic transmission failure at 25,000. See signature line

I must have missed that thread? What failed and what was the cause of the failure?

DarbyWalters · **Posted:** Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:56 am

MrMopar64 wrote:

Quote:

What am I missing????

The problem actually lies in the size of the engine. At 2.8L, the engine is borderline too big to be a 4-cyl diesel due to the torsional issues it experiences. Yes the engine has balance shafts, a harmonic balancer up front, and is internally balanced. However, due to the explosive nature of the ignition event and other torsional issues due to the engine's size, the poor torque converter and tranny get to absorb it all. What you need is a low-stall converter that you'd find in a nitrous application - furnace brazed fins, torrington roller thrust bearings, anti-balloning plates, etc. That's why you'll find less issues on the 2.5L engine...

Yep, the only I4 Turbo Diesel I know of in a production vehicle that is bigger is the 3.0L TurboDiesel in the Toyota Hilux Surf's. Most 2.7L or bigger are 5 or 6 cylinder models. If our 2.8L was double into a 5.6L V8 we would be running near 600# of torque. :twisted:

Joe Romas · **Posted:** Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:07 pm

DarbyWalters wrote:

MrMopar64 wrote:

Quote:

What am I missing????

The problem actually lies in the size of the engine. At 2.8L, the engine is borderline too big to be a 4-cyl diesel due to the torsional issues it experiences. Yes the engine has balance shafts, a harmonic balancer up front, and is internally balanced. However, due to the explosive nature of the ignition event and other torsional issues due to the engine's size, the poor torque converter and tranny get to absorb it all. What you need is a low-stall converter that you'd find in a nitrous application - furnace brazed fins, torrington roller thrust bearings, anti-balloning plates, etc. That's why you'll find less issues on the 2.5L engine...

Yep, the only I4 Turbo Diesel I know of in a production vehicle that is bigger is the 3.0L TurboDiesel in the Toyota Hilux Surf's. Most 2.7L or bigger are 5 or 6 cylinder models. If our 2.8L was double into a 5.6L V8 we would be running near 600# of torque. :twisted:

Even VW's 2.5L TDI is a 5 cylinder :lol:

grywlfbg · **Posted:** Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:16 pm

One other thing to keep in mind is it's not just a matter of how much "peak torque" the tranny can handle, it's where in the RPM range the engine makes the torque.

W/ a gasser, peak torque comes at a very high RPM so by the time the engine is outputting peak torque the tranny is spinning nice and fast and the TC and pump are well pressurized to handle the power.

But in a diesel peak torque is made at a much lower RPM so the tranny pump isn't able to build up sufficient pressure to handle the power when it comes on and things break.

Anyway, that's my guess as to why the gasser tranny we have is failing. So my feeling is that w/ a redesigned pump the tranny should work fine.

Wilmo · **Posted:** Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:02 pm

DarbyWalters wrote:

MrMopar64 wrote:

Quote:

What am I missing????

The problem actually lies in the size of the engine. At 2.8L, the engine is borderline too big to be a 4-cyl diesel due to the torsional issues it experiences. Yes the engine has balance shafts, a harmonic balancer up front, and is internally balanced. However, due to the explosive nature of the ignition event and other torsional issues due to the engine's size, the poor torque converter and tranny get to absorb it all. What you need is a low-stall converter that you'd find in a nitrous application - furnace brazed fins, torrington roller thrust bearings, anti-balloning plates, etc. That's why you'll find less issues on the 2.5L engine...

Yep, the only I4 Turbo Diesel I know of in a production vehicle that is bigger is the 3.0L TurboDiesel in the Toyota Hilux Surf's. Most 2.7L or bigger are 5 or 6 cylinder models. If our 2.8L was double into a 5.6L V8 we would be running near 600# of torque. :twisted:

Nissan Patrol 2000 on - 2.8L Turbo diesel, 3.0L Turbo diesel - both 4 cylinders.

Mitsubishi Pajero - 3.2L CRD diesel 4 cylinder

Toyota Land Cruiser Prado - 3.0L Turbo diesel and now 3.0 CRD 4 cylinder

Lots of diesels in Australia over 2.8L.....the japanese seem to have it sorted

DC has the Tranny/TC fix but won't give it to us KJers

Who is online