LOST JEEPS
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/

Jeep Liberty CRD Engine Power Factory-Uprate-Request (FUR)
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=19169		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  BBB [ Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Jeep Liberty CRD Engine Power Factory-Uprate-Request (FUR)
As Jeep Liberty CRD owners isn't it about time we banned together with a mass mailing or other organized effort to contact Jeep /DCX with our extreme disapointment over the appearent reduction in torque we received after the service reflashes. I know I will be doing so as others already have.
Can we get a form letter generated that follows the style of the exerpt from the possible conversation between another disgruntled CRD owner and a DCX factory rep............. the following makes my fur stand up...............

Q. Why tamper with the engine management system if the transmission may have problems.
A. As the recall states to extend the service life of the transmission.

Q. So if nothing is done the transmission could fail prematurely.
A. The recall is for the torque converter; the transmission will be inspected for damage upon removal.

Q. What is the specific power and torque loss based on the engine remapping?
A. Engine performance would not change.

Q. How can you say engine performance will not change when you have reduced the load on the transmission by altering the engine mapping? The engineers must have some basis for the change of the settings and the effect of those changes. Again, what are the revised horsepower and torque measurements after the changes?
A. Engineers state you will not notice any difference in torque or performance with the changes.

Q. You have not answered my questions. Am I to assume that the engineering department has not tested and measured the effects of the change that they are requiring all dealers to do on these vehicles? That would be as ludicrous as a new product launch with a turbo diesel engine vehicle and not properly testing the balance of the driveline that is mated to that engine?
A. The engineers have indicated a 20 ft lb of torque drop at wide-open throttle.

Q. Why did you tell me earlier that engine performance would not change? Based on all that has been said I am formally requesting that you have engineering provide to me graphs of the horsepower and torque curves across the entire RPM range, both before and after the required changes.
A. We cannot provide that as it is information proprietary to DaimlerChrysler.

Response:
Your marketing department did not think it was proprietary when they sold me the benefit of 295 ft lbs of torque and 5,000 lbs of towing capacity.

Q. So what will the new towing capacity be?
A. I do not have that information.

Q. Would you indicate in your file reference that I requested documentation of the results from engineering regarding the horsepower, torque, and revised towing capacity of the CRD JEEP Liberty?
A. Yes I will.

There appears to be alot of us in this boat, so if we send letters and call enough times and/or get a petition or legal help we may be able to get the ship turned around. We like our Diesels as advertised, we do miss the 20 ft lbs. and give us the "police/military package" tranny as a replacement please thank you .
Author:  Hammy713 [ Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:32 am ]
Post subject: 
Count me in! The obvious vague answers are unacceptable. So do you have an address or email address we should be sending requests too other then the Jeep website? We all need to get on board with this.
Author:  spoonplugger1 [ Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:20 am ]
Post subject: 
BBB,
Your the first I've heard that noticed anything after the F37, most have had a positive result. The US seems to be the only people ripping the CRD so much. Go to some of the other boards in other countries and they have big smiles on their faces. I've noticed better results since the ULSD came out. I tow with my CRD all the time, haven't noticed a lick of difference. Wasn't having any problems with the tranny before or since the recall, but then my dealer is on the "good dealer" list we started before here.
Author:  Marlon_JBT [ Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
spoonplugger1 wrote:
The US seems to be the only people ripping the CRD so much. Go to some of the other boards in other countries and they have big smiles on their faces.

I have a smile on my face. :)
Author:  GilaMonster [ Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
Good on you BBB, there is nothing wrong with trying to get what you paid for in the design and engineering of this vehicle. Instead of downrating the torque at certain points in the curve for TC longevity, they should have put the correct TC system in the tranny in the first place.

Is there really a difference in the euro versus US model transmission/TC combination?

Sure, this is a great vehicle, but there is no reason to expect the best from it.
Author:  spoonplugger1 [ Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
If I remember right from my discussion, there is a program that allows the dealers to change fuel management between the PCM and the TCM by as much as 30% to smooth out the shifts and the corresponding load the tranny is subjected to at say full throttle. It resumes back to full throttle after the shift is completed. This was programmed into the tranny so they could build the build the lightest, strongest, most efficient components without losing reliability. Like all engineering designs there is some compromises to get the customer the most, for the least. I was also told that if you looked at the wiring diagrams and could understand them you could cut a wire between the two boxes and negate this feature. I was told the biggest difference we would notice would be between 1-2 and 2-1 shifts, but you'd still notice some differences elsewhere. We'd also void our warranty.
Author:  Goglio704 [ Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
spoonplugger1 wrote:
... I was also told that if you looked at the wiring diagrams and could understand them you could cut a wire between the two boxes and negate this feature...
I think you were given bad info there. The two computers communicate over a communications bus, not by means of individual wires for individual functions. There are probably only two (possibly 4 or 5) wires between the two computers in the first place. Not trying to be a jerk, I just think your source was way off base.
Author:  DarbyWalters [ Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
US...all Automatics
Elsewhere...mostly Manuals

They shouldn't have supplied an Auto Tranny that is "on the edge" of being able to handle the torque characteristics of a 4 cylinder diesel of this size. They tranny pump and TC are both on the edge as the F37 points out.

Usually recalls are to "fix" a known malady...not to keep the malady but downgrade the disease. Bean Counters have surmised that 11,200 CRDs is not enough to worry about "long term" and have instead given a placebo instead of a cure. Sorry, not trying to be dramatic but I could not think of a more delicate way to voice my opinion of this diagnosis.
Author:  alpnst [ Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm sorry that some of you didn't notice a change after F37. I personally feel that the driving dynamics of the CRD have changed drastically. I want my old CRD back with its full 295ft/TQ.
Author:  Danno [ Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
alpnst wrote:
I'm sorry that some of you didn't notice a change after F37. I personally feel that the driving dynamics of the CRD have changed drastically. I want my old CRD back with its full 295ft/TQ.

I agree it was quite a drastic change after the f37, i hated it. Definatly not as powerful as it used to be. However after I disconnected the MAF it definatly made a big difference, more power, and lower shift points. Almost like it was when I bought it. Then I put my chip back in, and I was again a very happy camper.
Author:  Joe Romas [ Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
Goglio704 wrote:
spoonplugger1 wrote:
... I was also told that if you looked at the wiring diagrams and could understand them you could cut a wire between the two boxes and negate this feature...
I think you were given bad info there. The two computers communicate over a communications bus, not by means of individual wires for individual functions. There are probably only two (possibly 4 or 5) wires between the two computers in the first place. Not trying to be a jerk, I just think your source was way off base.


There's actually a wire as he describes. I've seen it in the prints of my FSM :D
Author:  RTStabler51 [ Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think each vehicle reacts differently to this F37. Although, I did notice some minor changes, and think that the off line performance was hurt a bit, towing 4k pounds 700+ miles with the same performance and fuel consumption shows that this F37 isn't as bad on my rig as it maybe on others. Would I complain about it? At this point no......
Author:  DZL_LOU [ Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
Joe Romas wrote:

There's actually a wire as he describes. I've seen it in the prints of my FSM :D


There is a pin input to the TCM called the "Torque Reduction Request" however without fully understanding how this works it is a mistake to remove or cut this input.
Author:  Goglio704 [ Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
DZL_LOU wrote:
Joe Romas wrote:

There's actually a wire as he describes. I've seen it in the prints of my FSM :D


There is a pin input to the TCM called the "Torque Reduction Request" however without fully understanding how this works it is a mistake to remove or cut this input.


Well, obviously, I was wrong. I deal with industrial communications bus all day long in my job. I can't think of a good reason to create a dedicated output and input to exchange info when there is already a communications bus in place. A dedicated circuit like that is normally only used between two devices that don't speak the same language. The only other exception would be safety related stuff or something that changes too fast to be handled over the bus (that is pretty rare anymore because the bus is typically very fast.)
Author:  sbohner [ Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm with most of you here... there have been changes and not just with F37. Any of the TSBs that involve the ECM have reduced the torque in a noticeable way. I have experienced both reduced responsiveness and reduced fuel efficiency. :x Some of these I have reported on LOST KJ. I have also reported them to my dealer and DCX. Nothing has been done.

I like BBBs idea of pressing for answers since there are so many of us with questions. :) I also liked Darby's and others recognition that those who have had problems are not the problem. :P Some folks on the boards get something out of marginalizing people who are reporting their problems or even venting. It is good to see the positive side of things, but not as a mechanism to put people on the defensive. This only reduces communications. Wasn't it Ralph Waldo Emerson who said something to the effect that "... you can silence a man, but that doesn't mean you have converted him." The corollary to this might be you can “torque” him, but you won’t “convert” him. :roll:

I've checked the boards for other diesel vehicles like Dodge Cummins, GM Duramax, Ford Powerstroke, and the like. None have had the volume of problems that we have seen sited here on LOST KJ, let alone the other Liberty sites. It is only a matter of time before CRD community goes after this with concentrated zeal. I think it would be wise for DCX to be responsive to this in a more substantive way before the media get a hold of it.
Author:  MrMopar64 [ Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
All the communication between the EDC16 and the TCM (EATX) is through the CAN gateway such that the J1850 and CAN messages from the EATX are broadcast on the EDC16's CAN bus.
Author:  Goglio704 [ Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
So there is no dedicated wire for "torque reduction request?"

Mr. Mopar,

I think we all value the information you provide, but you embody the showbiz adage about how you should always leave the audience wanting more. :wink:

BBB,

I apologize for contributing to the drift of your thread. I agree with what you are trying to accomplish, for what that is worth.
Author:  rjmaype [ Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Engine Power
Just to keep things in perspective:

I bought a used 2001 Ford Power Stroke Diesel 7.3 L prior to the CRD.

It has a notorius weak component, the cps (cam positon sensor) that can fail at anytime that kills the engine without any chance to restart, leaving your vehicle dead.

From the Ford 7.3 L forum, I learned where to buy one at 50% of the dealer price and to keep a spare in the glove box with a 10 mm socket, in case I need to replace while on the road.

There are other issues but many owners like the vehicle and they live with the less than optimal components.
Author:  DZL_LOU [ Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:48 am ]
Post subject: 
Goglio704 wrote:
So there is no dedicated wire for "torque reduction request?"

BBB,

I apologize for contributing to the drift of your thread. I agree with what you are trying to accomplish, for what that is worth.


Yes apologies for hi-jacking the thread. We will now resume to your reguarly scheduled topic......

But for now, you can see there is what appears to be a "hard connection" in this wiring diagram. There are also "Torque request management" inputs/outputs in the ECM and TCM pin diagrams. From the small amount of information available, the ECM requests the TCM make a reduction in torque. However, larger questions loom as to how, why, when.....etc
Image
Author:  Joe Romas [ Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:27 am ]
Post subject: 
Goglio704 wrote:
DZL_LOU wrote:
Joe Romas wrote:

There's actually a wire as he describes. I've seen it in the prints of my FSM :D


There is a pin input to the TCM called the "Torque Reduction Request" however without fully understanding how this works it is a mistake to remove or cut this input.


Well, obviously, I was wrong. I deal with industrial communications bus all day long in my job. I can't think of a good reason to create a dedicated output and input to exchange info when there is already a communications bus in place. A dedicated circuit like that is normally only used between two devices that don't speak the same language. The only other exception would be safety related stuff or something that changes too fast to be handled over the bus (that is pretty rare anymore because the bus is typically very fast.)


The reason they have the dedicated wire might be that both xCM's want to be master on the bus. In their infinent wisdom trying patches to get things to work is the reason F31 came about :roll:
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/