My day in court

Kellog13 · **Joined:** Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:21 pm **Posts:** 74

I have a glorious day in court next week and require a little more info:
1) Does any one have a copy of the F37 showing the all CRD's affected and who has a letter from customer service showing the decrease in torque to improve longevity of the transmission?
2) Who knows where I can find where two DC exec's went public and stated the "CRD Liberty was an experiment"?
3) How many TSB's have been issued for our vehicle?
4) Does any one have anything else to add to help my case?

My case is pretty much air tite as the road trip should seal the deal. I have the opportunity to say what needs to be said and thats what I'm gonna do. This vehicle has been parked four 4 months waiting for this day and It can't come soon enough!

Thanks for your time.

CRDLIBERTY · **Joined:** Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:52 pm **Posts:** 72

I was seeing glitter like metal in my oil? Surely others see it except chrysler reps, ive had several things go wrong egr failure, during the f37 they miss installed linkage which failed immediatly after i picked it up. Also i just found out 7 months latter the high pressure harness was disonnected! Another dealer spoted this mistake, also they left 2 quarts or more low after i picked up my jeep and towed 3k uhaul. Im getting close to sue myself, chrylser needs to step up to the plate they failing. I like the CRD alot and wouldnt trade for any gas one they make straight up, so ive got a dielma. This week my jeep was towed under warranty it lost power on the freeway. Im tired of the run around but still love my jeep. Sue time? I see your suing them how come? What problems have you had. What are you seeking?

BlackLibertyCRD · **Posted:** Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:56 pm

Kellog13 wrote:

I have a glorious day in court next week and require a little more info:
1) Does any one have a copy of the F37 showing the all CRD's affected and who has a letter from customer service showing the decrease in torque to improve longevity of the transmission?
2) Who knows where I can find where two DC exec's went public and stated the "CRD Liberty was an experiment"?
3) How many TSB's have been issued for our vehicle?
4) Does any one have anything else to add to help my case?

My case is pretty much air tite as the road trip should seal the deal. I have the opportunity to say what needs to be said and thats what I'm gonna do. This vehicle has been parked four 4 months waiting for this day and It can't come soon enough!

Thanks for your time.

You can sign up for AllData.com and get all the infromation you want on the tsb's, recalls, ect.

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

Any chance you could post a link to the court case online? I'd enjoy following this one...

Uffe · **Posted:** Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:23 pm

The liberty CRD was an experiment because the US doesn't use diesel engines as much in their mid-sized SUVs. DC was trying to see if the CRD option would sell in the US as an experiment. The engine itself is no experiment, it's based on solid engineering by an italian company with 40 years of experience making diesel engines.

I get the impression that you're trying to blame the engine for the libertys issues - am I way wrong?

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

Uffe wrote:

The liberty CRD was an experiment because the US doesn't use diesel engines as much in their mid-sized SUVs. DC was trying to see if the CRD option would sell in the US as an experiment. The engine itself is no experiment, it's based on solid engineering by an italian company with 40 years of experience making diesel engines.

I get the impression that you're trying to blame the engine for the libertys issues - am I way wrong?

Blame the engine, blame Chrysler's implementation of the engine(even though it works fine in the rest of the world, exceptional even), blame blame blame.

Of course thats neither here nor there. The fact that I do not believe he has a case has nothing to do with the fact that I'm curious how Chrysler will handle it.

Endurance · **Posted:** Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:22 pm

Kellog13 wrote:

I have a glorious day in court next week and require a little more info:
1) Does any one have a copy of the F37 showing the all CRD's affected and who has a letter from customer service showing the decrease in torque to improve longevity of the transmission?
2) Who knows where I can find where two DC exec's went public and stated the "CRD Liberty was an experiment"?
3) How many TSB's have been issued for our vehicle?
4) Does any one have anything else to add to help my case?

My case is pretty much air tite as the road trip should seal the deal. I have the opportunity to say what needs to be said and thats what I'm gonna do. This vehicle has been parked four 4 months waiting for this day and It can't come soon enough!

Thanks for your time.

It seems to me that you're poorly prepared if you dont have the informations above.

chrispitude · **Posted:** Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:29 pm

Reflex wrote:

Blame the engine, blame Chrysler's implementation of the engine(even though it works fine in the rest of the world, exceptional even), blame blame blame.

I thought everyone here was overly critical of the drivetrain until my own torque converter failed. Then I spent my own money to replace it with an aftermarket unit which could handle the power.

I thought everyone here was exaggerating the filter head issues until I learned how to bleed it, and found surprising amounts of air in the filter head every weeks. I now make a point to spend my own time doing this.

I thought folks here were being overly cautious with their EHMs and ORMs until I decided to pull the MAP sensor one day. It was an absolute solid blob of crud. I cleaned it up and the vehicle runs much better (to the point that my wife commented how much nicer it drives on her commute to work). It looks like I will be investing my time and money in a solution to the CCV/EGR clogging problem. Even so, it's not a final once-and-done solution, as I will have to add "draining the CCV crud" to the maintenance list for this vehicle.

Our turbocharger has been making strange noises. The tech has replaced the CCV valve after seeing how much oil was in the intake. I have since learned that this is probably a normal oil amount for this engine. Based on the noises, there appears to have been other consequences to oil in the intake (turbocharger issues or a clogged EGR). This is ongoing.

I never have been able to solve the issue with stuttering after hard throttle, although plenty of other people have the same problem. That one is still outstanding.

I think the engine itself is a fine unit. But no, I'm not sure I'd use "exceptional" to describe its U.S. implementation, given the amount of time and money I have had to put into reengineering to fix its flaws.

- Chris

JIMMY JEEP · **Posted:** Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:32 pm

If chrysler have carried out the f37 flash and it has reduced the torque then we all have a valid claim against them ,the vehicles were sold with a supposed 300ftlb of torque so they are guilty of false advertising .They should be supplying new gearboxes under warranty that are reliable in handling the published torque figures. Just out of interest how much torque is lost with the flash.?

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

JIMMY JEEP wrote:

If chrysler have carried out the f37 flash and it has reduced the torque then we all have a valid claim against them ,the vehicles were sold with a supposed 300ftlb of torque so they are guilty of false advertising .They should be supplying new gearboxes under warranty that are reliable in handling the published torque figures. Just out of interest how much torque is lost with the flash.?

Jeep engineers already answered this on I believe the JeepUnlimited forums. If I remember correctly they did not reduce the torque, they simply adjusted the curve so the peak is reached at a different point to reduce stress on the TC.

So far as I am aware, no one here has done before and after measurements on the same stock CRD(ie: one without mods) so the issue is unconfirmed here. I could be wrong on that however.

christpitude - Suffice it to say, I find it difficult to agree with your assessment when your towing as much as you are with your rig(ie: beyond published tolerances). But rather than get into it in this thread, and derail the original poster, I'll respond next time its brought up in a more specific thread, at least to the parts I disagree with.

chrispitude · **Posted:** Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:56 pm

Reflex wrote:

christpitude - Suffice it to say, I find it difficult to agree with your assessment when your towing as much as you are with your rig(ie: beyond published tolerances). But rather than get into it in this thread, and derail the original poster, I'll respond next time its brought up in a more specific thread, at least to the parts I disagree with.

The torque converter failure and air-in-filter-head problems have long predated even the idea of purchasing a travel trailer. I've only towed the trailer twice - once 90 miles away, and once 150 miles away, before parking it for the winter. Based on the torque converter failures and the plethora of message board traffic on ORMs, EHMs, Provents, etc., I doubt my oily intake is an isolated occurrence caused by these two trips.

Also, the trailer weighs in right at 5000lbs - the CRD's rated towing capacity.

I agree that I don't want to derail this thread. But, I disagree with the assertion that this drivetrain's engineering is "above questioning".

- Chris

BlackLibertyCRD · **Posted:** Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:47 pm

I agree with reflex comment on Chrysler's implementation of the engine. The feed to the fuel pump is flawed. The vacuum the fuel stays under overnight in the filter pulls the air out of the fuel. If the fuel doesn't contain lots of microscopic air to begin with there is no problem, but when I come to the east coast I get air in fuel not on the west coast. I get that all diesel fuel is not the same. It's the air in the fuel that causes the jerking (like on-off-on-off) after accelerating and hitting 55 or 65 cruise. I installed a automatic bleeder with lift pump to solve the problem.

The engine torque is too much for the factory torque converter. I didn't have any problem with the torque converter until I started towing 3,000 lbs trailer. It survived towing 2,000 lbs trailer a few times cross country. You will know if your torque slips because it's like running over heavy rumble strips when slightly accelerating up a hill with lots of torque at lower RPM. I don't know about anyone else but Chrysler can say that since towing in overdrive I broke it. We know that is not true but they do have towing instruction in the manual to cover their butts. Would a sun coast torque converter work better, of course, but I know that if I hadn't towed anything the torque converter word last longer.

The egr is government requirement and we are wrong to disconnect it. I know I did and add a chip to boot so if it causes the turbo to break I know I'm the blame.

I can't blame the engine, transmission or Chrysler because if Chrysler built the CRD better, with lift pump, stronger torque converter and a few other weak points. They would not be able to sell the CRD Liberty as the cost will be so much higher. Looks whats happening to the Grand Cherokee CRD, so many 2007 still sitting on the lots and dealers not ordering 2008, if they are available.

ATXKJ · **Posted:** Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:45 pm

I always hate it when I realize I'm agreeing with Reflex but

1) even if everyone on LOST had the problems you describe - it's statistically insignificant - we're not a large sample and we're not a randomly distributed sample.

2) TSBs and recalls are the result of Chrysler acknowledging a problem and attempting to correct it - it does go to admission that there's a problem - but if they're trying to fix it, they may be off the hook - it totally depends on how your Lemon laws were written.

3) I disagree that fuel system design is flawed - I do argue the manufacture of the fuel heads (plastic puc) has a high failure rate, but you'd need more data and some good failure analysis to prove it.
(NHTSA may do that but I haven't seen the data yet)

(and BlackLiberty - how much of your towing was with the Predator? - that's a factor)

4) The CCV system is a designed in failure - however probably at about the 100,000 mile range if not more, no court is going accept that the vehicle should last forever - 100K is normal - I expect mine to last longer - but I expect to work on it to make that happen.

5) I had no transmission problems prior to F37 - none - I suspect that's much more common than you realize -(no data to support that) - and after - the only problem is that it didn't 'feel' the same - no problems.

The only real argument I see is that Chrysler didn't train it's maintenance techs well enough, so the problems were not resolved in a timely fashion -
I just don't see that as a significant argument, it might get some money back.

Kellog13 · **Joined:** Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:21 pm **Posts:** 74

Reflex- your comments are predictable as always and I'll post the out come for your enjoyment.
Endurance- my case has absolutly nothing to do with the data I've requested but only as a resource.

My vehicle to date 06 crd 23,000 km has the following changed:
Battery
Alternator
EGR
control valve
fuel rail
Turbo Charger assy
Torque converter #1
Flex plate
Transmission and torque converter#2
Alarm system
1000km dealer (they put this on for troubleshoot)
Motor vac 3 times

My vehicle exhibits the same condition as when this all started so the vehicle is in no better shape or improvement. The engine still has the mechanical grinding, the alarm is intermittent and the vehicle shudders like other's here. There's aprox 13,000 in parts and repairs and nothing to show for it. I live in a mountainous area with steep passes, I don't tow anything and have never been off road with it. I've owned small diesels for 20 years and turn my own wrenches and am fully comfortable doing timing belt changes on TDI's for my self and friends. The dealer has given me all the TSB's and recalls for this type as they want me to win as the vehicle is unrepairable. I have more to say about the CRD, but for now lets just say my CRD is a lemon.....
I have a few juicy letters from Chrysler to share with you all but you'll have to wait at most exactly 16 days.

Thank you.

bbo · **Joined:** Fri Sep 30, 2005 5:17 pm **Posts:** 382

*subscribes

Sounds like you indeed have a "lemon"

I am interested to see how your story turns out.

Goglio704 · **Posted:** Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:23 pm

Reflex wrote:

Uffe wrote:

The liberty CRD was an experiment because the US doesn't use diesel engines as much in their mid-sized SUVs. DC was trying to see if the CRD option would sell in the US as an experiment. The engine itself is no experiment, it's based on solid engineering by an italian company with 40 years of experience making diesel engines.

I get the impression that you're trying to blame the engine for the libertys issues - am I way wrong?

Blame the engine, blame Chrysler's implementation of the engine(even though it works fine in the rest of the world, exceptional even), blame blame blame.

Of course thats neither here nor there. The fact that I do not believe he has a case has nothing to do with the fact that I'm curious how Chrysler will handle it.

So, Reflex, who is to blame for the excessive problems he has had with his vehicle? No vehicle is perfect, but clearly Kellog13 has a lemon, an incompetent dealer or both. I am not litigious, I think 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean = a good start, but I'd lemon law a vehicle with all those problems. So, again, if he has no case against Chrysler, who is to blame?

Threeweight · **Joined:** Mon May 14, 2007 5:57 pm **Posts:** 679

I guess I fall in the middle. There are significant problems with the engineering of the US CRD's, and some of them rise to a level of seriousness that Chrysler needs to take responsibility for them (or be held accountable by a court).

1 - Torque converter failure. A responsible business does not release 11,000 vehicles with a transmission who's components that from the get go was not sufficient to withstand the torque of the engine. I remember a post from Mr. Mopar a few months back where the official torque rating of the 545re is at its limit with our engine, before taking into consideration how an inline-4 diesel delivers that torque.

Sorry, but if your wife and kid were in the CRD when the TC imploded on a crowded interstate at 65 mph, I don' t think you'd be giving the good folks at Chrysler the benefit of the doubt.

The "fix" to this problem, reducing the peak torque of the engine and transmission shift points so that the low end "grunt" (one of the main reasons for buying a diesel) is reduced is at the very least a bit of distasteful false advertising. Not a good way to hold on to customers.

The tranny issues are unique to the Liberty's offered with the 5 speed auto. Not an issue with models sold overseas with a manual, or with the older auto. The responsible thing for Chrysler to have done would be replace the defective parts with upgraded stuff (such as the TC's that apparently ship with the new KJ CRD's destined for foreign markets).

2 - Fuel filter assembly. CRD's sold overseas orginally came with a high quality Racor fuel filter assembly that seems to have had no problems whatsover. In switching over the the newer fuel rail Chrysler appears to have sought to save a few bucks by using a simpler and cheaper design. The result is at a minimum problematic (over time, we will all have air in fuel problems from the effect of hot/cold temps on the plastic, stress from filter changes, etc... For those of us who need a fuel heater due to being in a cold climate, the stock head is a serious problem waiting to happen.

Blaming the problem on the puc and the parts supplier who made it is silly. Chrysler signed off the specs for the puc and fuel filter assembly, and like the other 50% of any vehicle made by a contractor, they are ultimately responsible for the vehicle they assemble. If Toyota has defective rear differentials in the new Tundra due to a poor parts supplier, Toyota has to stand behind their product, they can't simply point to the supplier and say "not our fault."

3 - Other problems, like EGR failures, are poor design issues but are not unique to Chrysler. VW has the same problems.

That said, I love my CRD, and think Chrysler made a really stupid decision in dropping it from the US line up. I have taken steps to address a number of the design flaws with it, and I'm sure I'll spend even more time and money fixing others. I knew what I was getting into when I bought it -- as I told my wife, it ain't gonna be a Toyota or a Benz. Still, I do feel for folks who didn't have the full story going in.

truckbouy2 · **Posted:** Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:14 am

I'll give you $5000.00 for that....So Called.... "Flawed Lemon Ride" site unseen.
I can be there next week to pick it up...

ATXKJ · **Posted:** Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:41 am

Kellog13

I hope you win your case – I hate to see people paying for a vehicle that won’t work and the dealer can’t make it work.

I don’t know the specifics of the troubleshooting that was done – however based on what I’ve seen – I’d still argue that at least 80% of the problems were due to poor diagnostic skills and I (like truckbouy2) bet that a good mechanic can fix it (It’s not as cost effective for an individual)

dgeist · **Posted:** Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:35 pm

ATXKJ wrote:

Kellog13

I hope you win your case – I hate to see people paying for a vehicle that won’t work and the dealer can’t make it work.

I don’t know the specifics of the troubleshooting that was done – however based on what I’ve seen – I’d still argue that at least 80% of the problems were due to poor diagnostic skills and I (like truckbouy2) bet that a good mechanic can fix it (It’s not as cost effective for an individual)

I'd speculate that even a mediocre mechanic could fix the issues, too. It would require an actual mechanic, though, with a nack for troubleshooting. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of mechanics of any kind employed at most dealerships, it's technicians who get specific training to run machines and processes. It's the exact same way in other fields, too. You take your average electrical engineer, computer scientist, or completely uneducated hobbyist with a good mind for diagnostics and put them in front of a computer problem they've never seen and they'll run rings around the person with acronyms in their title who trained to "make the big bucks in IT" a few years back. There's nothing wrong with being a "technician" or an "IT guy" I have the utmost respect for anyone willing to learn a trade and make an honest buck. It is sad that many dealers don't employ a little of the other kind, though.

I say learn the basics of math, chemistry, physics, electronics, thermo, and fluids and you'll never need a dealer or a mechanic... or a plumber, or a carpenter, or an electrician.

Dan (I just inspired myself into 3 new DIY projects...)

My day in court

Who is online