LOST JEEPS :: View topic - Torque reduction

I read in another thread here that if you cut the wire between the tcm and ecm that controls the torque
management request it should prevent the tcm from pulling the ecm back. After the FSM manual was posted
by SirSam, I decided to track down this wire. On the ecm, the wire is ping 11 on connector C1 and the other end is
on the tcm at pin 10. I did not want to cut the wire so I decided to check the connectors.

At the ecm, all of the wires are caulked into the connector, no easy removal there. At the tcm, it is different. When you
disconnect the connector from the tcm, look at the bottom of the connector. You will be able to find pin 10 very easily.
You will see a red part in the connector, gently pry this out. Once you get this out, you will then be able to gently work the
connector pin back out of the connector. Be Very Careful. This pin is not meant for repeated insertion and removal from the
connector. The connector pin is also very easily bent.

After assembling things back together, time for a test drive. According to the butt-o-meter, there is a definite improvement.
I noticed that when accelerating, you can feel the jeep pull instead of feeling like it is winding up like a jack in the box. I've
also noticed that no codes have been generated, or at least my scan tool can find.

As always, results may vary, and peform this operation at you own risk.

Hmmm, I think I'll seek the advice of my local tranny guru before even considering this one.
Something my tranny guy said keeps coming to mind - that from what he's seen over the years, all the OEM's have consistently underestimated the ability of a diesel engine to humble what they thought was a bulletproof auto trans previously used only behind gas engines.

It could be that this tranny was designed to operate with some amount of "normal" torque reduction at the shift points (F37 notwithstanding), and by disconnecting this wire and completely disabling the torque reduction request signal, we're not just getting rid of the F37 torque reduction, but also disabling a safeguard and shortening the life of the clutch packs - ie, we may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

The Torgue Mananagement Request wire is used for the traction control feature.

DZL_LOU wrote:

The Torgue Mananagement Request wire is used for the traction control feature.

That thought occurred to me this morning, what if on the '06 CRD's it's used for traction control and ESP as well?

That now being the case, it could have some nasty unintended consequences, especially in winter driving conditions, if the TMR is completely disabled. In essence, you'd be disabling a major safety feature on the vehicle.

Traction control and ESP are recent features, and of the DC vehicles I've seen listed where this mod was tried, AFAIK none of them had traction control or ESP.

I'm not saying that this won't turn out to be a benign and/or useful mod. All I'm saying is that right now, for our vehicles at least, I don't have a warm fuzzy that we really know what we're getting into. As was suggested above, some controlled testing and research would be in order before making blanket use of this mod. Murphy is always waiting for his chance.

Yep

Last time around when diesels were popular GM put a chevy chevett tranny behind a diesel in caddy's :-)r

Another reason diesels have such a bad rap here. I wonder what Toyoto would have done if they faced the torque coverter problem like Chrysler did :?:

Would they have derated the engine? Somehow I don't think so :wink:

Since the 2005's don't have traction control it would not effect them in the same way as 06 models but the shift point torque reduction if any might be affected.

Author:	crawdad-480 [ Mon Sep 24, 2007 11:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Torque reduction
I read in another thread here that if you cut the wire between the tcm and ecm that controls the torque management request it should prevent the tcm from pulling the ecm back. After the FSM manual was posted by SirSam, I decided to track down this wire. On the ecm, the wire is ping 11 on connector C1 and the other end is on the tcm at pin 10. I did not want to cut the wire so I decided to check the connectors. At the ecm, all of the wires are caulked into the connector, no easy removal there. At the tcm, it is different. When you disconnect the connector from the tcm, look at the bottom of the connector. You will be able to find pin 10 very easily. You will see a red part in the connector, gently pry this out. Once you get this out, you will then be able to gently work the connector pin back out of the connector. Be Very Careful. This pin is not meant for repeated insertion and removal from the connector. The connector pin is also very easily bent. After assembling things back together, time for a test drive. According to the butt-o-meter, there is a definite improvement. I noticed that when accelerating, you can feel the jeep pull instead of feeling like it is winding up like a jack in the box. I've also noticed that no codes have been generated, or at least my scan tool can find. As always, results may vary, and peform this operation at you own risk.

Author:	LocoCRD [ Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:07 am ]
Post subject:
Excellent info. Keep us posted as to how it runs and if any codes show up.

Author:	Sir Sam [ Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:08 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Torque reduction
crawdad-480 wrote: I read in another thread here that if you cut the wire between the tcm and ecm that controls the torque management request it should prevent the tcm from pulling the ecm back. After the FSM manual was posted by SirSam, I decided to track down this wire. On the ecm, the wire is ping 11 on connector C1 and the other end is on the tcm at pin 10. I did not want to cut the wire so I decided to check the connectors. At the ecm, all of the wires are caulked into the connector, no easy removal there. At the tcm, it is different. When you disconnect the connector from the tcm, look at the bottom of the connector. You will be able to find pin 10 very easily. You will see a red part in the connector, gently pry this out. Once you get this out, you will then be able to gently work the connector pin back out of the connector. Be Very Careful. This pin is not meant for repeated insertion and removal from the connector. The connector pin is also very easily bent. After assembling things back together, time for a test drive. According to the butt-o-meter, there is a definite improvement. I noticed that when accelerating, you can feel the jeep pull instead of feeling like it is winding up like a jack in the box. I've also noticed that no codes have been generated, or at least my scan tool can find. As always, results may vary, and peform this operation at you own risk. Interesting......Im wondering what some others have to say about this.......

Author:	chrispitude [ Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:34 am ]
Post subject:
link to my post with TRD link information

Author:	flash7210 [ Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:14 am ]
Post subject:
Ok, real quick... Which one is the TCM?

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

Torque reduction http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=24682	Page 1 of 3

Author:	chrispitude [ Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:03 am ]
Post subject:
I sure hope it's the one on the passenger side, or else I just sent my TCM to Inmotion. - Chris

Author:	flash7210 [ Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:57 pm ]
Post subject:
While on my lunch break I did it. I pulled the plug on the TCM and carfully removed pin 10. I test drove it and there were no problems. I really can't say if it improved performance yet but it didn't hurt. I plugged in the MAF too and the CEL is still on so we will see if it goes out. Good job Crawdad, excellent work!

Author:	retmil46 [ Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:35 am ]
Post subject:
Hmmm, I think I'll seek the advice of my local tranny guru before even considering this one. While this mod has been tried with this same tranny on other DC vehicles, to my knowledge no one has tried it before with this tranny mated up to a diesel. It could be that this tranny was designed to operate with some amount of "normal" torque reduction at the shift points (F37 notwithstanding), and by disconnecting this wire and completely disabling the torque reduction request signal, we're not just getting rid of the F37 torque reduction, but also disabling a safeguard and shortening the life of the clutch packs - ie, we may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It could be the engineers beat out the beancounters on this one and DC got it right - even a broken clock is right twice a day. Something my tranny guy said keeps coming to mind - that from what he's seen over the years, all the OEM's have consistently underestimated the ability of a diesel engine to humble what they thought was a bulletproof auto trans previously used only behind gas engines. I'm not saying don't try it if you want - it's your vehicle and your money after all, and from my sig you can see I've done my share of mods. But up to this point, all the mods I've done have been with the idea of increasing reliability and longevity - I literally backed my way into those dyno numbers and the performance was a welcome side benefit - and had the benefit of precedence - all those mods, in one form or another, had already been tried and discussed on other diesel vehicles ad infinitum. But this is going a little far into uncharted territory for my tastes, seems to have the possibility of reducing tranny life, and after going to the time and trouble of installing the Suncoast TC and other items to put the tranny issue to bed once and for all, I'm a little hesitant to try something that may end up undoing all that work. I'll pass on this one, and ask Bruce his opinion on this particular mod, good or bad.

Author:	Joe Romas [ Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:04 am ]
Post subject:
retmil46 wrote: Hmmm, I think I'll seek the advice of my local tranny guru before even considering this one. Something my tranny guy said keeps coming to mind - that from what he's seen over the years, all the OEM's have consistently underestimated the ability of a diesel engine to humble what they thought was a bulletproof auto trans previously used only behind gas engines. Yep Last time around when diesels were popular GM put a chevy chevett tranny behind a diesel in caddy's Another reason diesels have such a bad rap here. I wonder what Toyoto would have done if they faced the torque coverter problem like Chrysler did Would they have derated the engine? Somehow I don't think so

Author:	chrispitude [ Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:20 am ]
Post subject:
retmil46 wrote: It could be that this tranny was designed to operate with some amount of "normal" torque reduction at the shift points (F37 notwithstanding), and by disconnecting this wire and completely disabling the torque reduction request signal, we're not just getting rid of the F37 torque reduction, but also disabling a safeguard and shortening the life of the clutch packs - ie, we may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Hi retmil46, Yep, I've been wondering the same thing. It might be good to use this in a controlled experiment to see if the torque is being reduced at times other than a shift, so we know if F37 really is neutering power up hills, etc. But, I don't think I would run with it for any length of time for the reasons you describe. - Chris

Author:	DZL_LOU [ Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:36 am ]
Post subject:
The Torgue Mananagement Request wire is used for the traction control feature.

Author:	retmil46 [ Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:54 am ]
Post subject:
DZL_LOU wrote: The Torgue Mananagement Request wire is used for the traction control feature. That thought occurred to me this morning, what if on the '06 CRD's it's used for traction control and ESP as well? That now being the case, it could have some nasty unintended consequences, especially in winter driving conditions, if the TMR is completely disabled. In essence, you'd be disabling a major safety feature on the vehicle. Traction control and ESP are recent features, and of the DC vehicles I've seen listed where this mod was tried, AFAIK none of them had traction control or ESP. I'm not saying that this won't turn out to be a benign and/or useful mod. All I'm saying is that right now, for our vehicles at least, I don't have a warm fuzzy that we really know what we're getting into. As was suggested above, some controlled testing and research would be in order before making blanket use of this mod. Murphy is always waiting for his chance.

Author:	DZL_LOU [ Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:25 pm ]
Post subject:
retmil46 wrote: DZL_LOU wrote: The Torgue Mananagement Request wire is used for the traction control feature. That thought occurred to me this morning, what if on the '06 CRD's it's used for traction control and ESP as well? That now being the case, it could have some nasty unintended consequences, especially in winter driving conditions, if the TMR is completely disabled. In essence, you'd be disabling a major safety feature on the vehicle. Traction control and ESP are recent features, and of the DC vehicles I've seen listed where this mod was tried, AFAIK none of them had traction control or ESP. I'm not saying that this won't turn out to be a benign and/or useful mod. All I'm saying is that right now, for our vehicles at least, I don't have a warm fuzzy that we really know what we're getting into. As was suggested above, some controlled testing and research would be in order before making blanket use of this mod. Murphy is always waiting for his chance. I agree, this is like opening "Pandora's Box" in Greek mythology since we don't know what plague will be unleashed. Not enough information just yet, and I agree with you it's for Traction Control and Electronic Stability. I just am not convinced that this is the correct path to removing the effects of F37

Author:	Kniggit [ Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:37 pm ]
Post subject:
Joe Romas wrote: Yep Last time around when diesels were popular GM put a chevy chevett tranny behind a diesel in caddy's Another reason diesels have such a bad rap here. I wonder what Toyoto would have done if they faced the torque coverter problem like Chrysler did Would they have derated the engine? Somehow I don't think so Maybe they would be like Honda and make the Odo's roll faster to get us out of warranty quicker K

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	flash7210 [ Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:57 am ]
Post subject:
ok, i tried it for about 150 mile. Verdict? No change in performance, at least for me and my driving habits. If anything, it made the soft-slow shifts more noticable. So I put everything back the way it was. This tranny really needs the shift kit.

Author:	nursecosmo [ Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:19 am ]
Post subject:
When reading up on jeep's traction control system I learned that torque is managed by the ABS system although I haven't confirmed this in the fsm yet. Anyone have any input on this? Since the 2005's don't have traction control it would not effect them in the same way as 06 models but the shift point torque reduction if any might be affected.

Author:	Cowcatcher [ Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:15 pm ]
Post subject:
nursecosmo wrote: Since the 2005's don't have traction control it would not effect them in the same way as 06 models but the shift point torque reduction if any might be affected. I don't believe this is always correct. It is my understanding that TC was an available option in the 2005 CRD but became standard in '06.

Author:	Pablo [ Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:39 pm ]
Post subject:
Everything having to do with how the ESP sends the torque reduction request was explained by MrMopar ... somewhere. I think he said it went over this wire instead of the bus-- as the bus was created before ESP. I don't like the throttle reduction "feature" of ESP and would gladly see it die and keep the rest of ESP-- but I would not do it by cutting this wire. If your tranny is overheating or has a problem-- would this not be how it tells the engine to knock it off? Cutting this would kill your safety net. So you would just go straight to limp mode or fried tranny. I would consider cutting this only if you have a tranny gauge, extra cooler, etc.

Author:	retmil46 [ Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:34 am ]
Post subject:
Ranger1 called up Ron Wolverton at Suncoast a few days ago, and among the things they discussed was this mod, disconnecting the wire for the torque reduction request. Ron's advice was that this was a bad idea, you'd end up burning out the stock clutch packs in short order, they couldn't handle the shock loads during shifting without the momentary (less than 1 second) reduction in torque. Even worse situation if you're running with an Inmotion tune, which from Ranger1's dyno graphs noticeably increases HP/torque at lower rpms. As far as Transgo shift kits, Ron's advice was not to install the resistor mod on the control harness if you purchased the kit that includes it. He said the replacement springs did a more than adequate job of maintaining line pressure, and if I understood Ranger1 correctly, the resistor has basically the same effect as disconnecting the torque reduction request wire.

Author:	MrWinkey [ Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:05 pm ]
Post subject:
Yes but what if you send your tranny to Ron to upgrade the clutch packs and such? This is my current plan....remove the tranny and have it rebuilt after the 70k warranty is up.