Wet air filter

oldnavy · **Posted:** Thu Jul 27, 2006 3:01 pm

DragonDiesel wrote:

OldNavy - that is an excellent little link! Thanks!

No thanks needed, just send cash. :wink:

DragonDiesel · **Posted:** Thu Jul 27, 2006 3:09 pm

Checks in the mail...

Let's see what other lies can I tell you:

I am from the government - I am here to help.

I never got that bill...

My transmission is BOMB proof!

If DCX says that "a lil blow-by oil is okay", then I won't worry about it for the next 100,000 miles or 12 months - which ever comes first.
:-)r

oldnavy · **Posted:** Thu Jul 27, 2006 3:15 pm

DragonDiesel wrote:

Checks in the mail...

Let's see what other lies can I tell you:

I am from the government - I am here to help.

I never got that bill...

My transmission is BOMB proof!

If DCX says that "a lil blow-by oil is okay", then I won't worry about it for the next 100,000 miles or 12 months - which ever comes first.
:-)r

Got a bridge? I need one. :wink:

RFCRD · **Posted:** Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:25 pm

Tom_with_a_Dream wrote:

Quote:

So, if one wishes to do a fairly easy mod, you can call your jeep dealer and order an 02 Jeep Liberty 4X4 airbox bottom, and a water dam, they can look up the part numbers.

RFCRD -

Are you saying that an '03-/05 air cleaner box will not be a direct fit? I'd love to install a custom cyclone separator in my CRD but I suspect my future holds an air box swap with the Belly Hiccy Snorkle. Reality is what it is...

And what is a constriction gauge? When LoTek gets enough orders for the triple pillar-pod and they send me mine, I will need a third gauge to install. One that monitors the air filter condition seems to go hand-in-glove with my Boost. Is that something that would fit into a a2-1/16 gauge cutout?

Thanks.

On the airbox swap, the bases are interchangable and use the same filter element. The idea of using the older model airbox should be fine as long as the diesel can draw enough air through the snorkle opening. The one thing that puzzles me is why did DC change the intake design in '05??? Just doesn't make sense to redesign something that works. Personally just chose to use the factory box, open the intake and design the modification because I had already discussed the situation with the tech rep from DC. They thoughtfully agreed to the modification (in lue of me suing them) and to restore mine to factory spec if it doesn't work.

On the constriction gauge, several styles are available (direct screw-in, remote underhood mounted, and indash mounted). The device holds the highest constriction reading until reset. The cheap solution for me was an underhood remote style. This style has a bracket that I screwed to the front of the lower airbox (above the intake tube) and ran a vaccume hose to a fitting I installed in the lid near the MAF. Whatever style works for your needs is still a wise purchase.

Zonie · **Posted:** Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:28 am

Is it possible that my '06 doesn't have a problem? I'm a little paranoid about rain after reading here. I've been in several 30- 60 min down pours at highway speeds lately and when I get home I pull the air filter (which is perfectly dry) and notice a couple of drops of water in the bottom of the air box. That's it! I did, however, change my air filter out at 5K (WIX from Car Quest). It was dirty enough to tickle my paranoia.

RFCRD · **Posted:** Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:49 am

Zonie wrote:

Is it possible that my '06 doesn't have a problem? I'm a little paranoid about rain after reading here. I've been in several 30- 60 min down pours at highway speeds lately and when I get home I pull the air filter (which is perfectly dry) and notice a couple of drops of water in the bottom of the air box. That's it! I did, however, change my air filter out at 5K (WIX from Car Quest). It was dirty enough to tickle my paranoia.

This is what is so puzzling. There is no difference in the intakes between the '05's & '06's. Does the filter dry out faster and return to normal quicker in the desert air? I have a feeling that the cold dampness and/or high relative humidity of NE Ohio plays a factor in filter recovery. If I had this to do again, I would start with adding a constriction gauge. Now that my intake is modified, it's fixed but becomes difficult to experiment. But hey, Isn't that DC'c job?

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

I also live in a very humid climate area with plenty of rain and 80% humidity. I suspect its really an observation based action - if you don't have the damp filter issue, leave it alone. For those of us who do it's worth the cost of modification. The bonus for me is the air filter stays cleaner.

jeep06 · **Posted:** Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:11 pm

I changed my filter at 5300mi., not a drop of water or any stains that showed water ever being in or on the filter or in the bottom of the filter housing. If you can, look at the air intake behind the grille on a '06, they installed a baffle plate to stop the rain from entering directly into the snorkel. I have driven in several heavy rains with no problems. Hope this helps.

RFCRD · **Posted:** Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:17 pm

Ranger1 wrote:

I also live in a very humid climate area with plenty of rain and 80% humidity. I suspect its really an observation based action - if you don't have the damp filter issue, leave it alone. For those of us who do it's worth the cost of modification. The bonus for me is the air filter stays cleaner.

One thing I am seeing is more dirt/sediment in the bottom of the airbox with the modification. Last week when I had it apart to install the constriction gauge the drain holes were plugged. I pulled the air box an drilled more drain holes (one for each square on the bottom).

alljeep · **Posted:** Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:42 pm

jeep06 wrote:

I changed my filter at 5300mi., not a drop of water or any stains that showed water ever being in or on the filter or in the bottom of the filter housing. If you can, look at the air intake behind the grille on a '06, they installed a baffle plate to stop the rain from entering directly into the snorkel. I have driven in several heavy rains with no problems. Hope this helps.

Same here and I too have the baffle plate. Mine was built June 20, 2005. Even at the car wash when they pre-spray and seem to spray the intake area for bugs a good 3-4 minutes straight, it stays dry.

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

With the snorkel airbox mod, I'm seeing no debris at all in the bottom after 2 weeks and several hundred highway miles. The air filter still looks nearly brand new, with only a tiny fleck of drebri on it. No black road grime that used to show up in a few days with the CRD airbox. This 2 week period included 2 days of moderate and heavy downpour rain soaked interstate driving. Filter and airbox completly dry. I too question why the change of air inlet on the CRD - it doesn't make any sense to me - the performance is slightly better on mine with the snorkel system. At least it was until the egr crapped out again.

With the ridiculous emissions requirements, it could have been something as simple as too much air getting into the engine with the old airbox system, increasing NOx emissions. If you recall, they had to halt CRD shipments in November 2004 due to emissions compilance failure at the last minute - some early CRD reports claimed that they were told that PCM updates were done on CRD's already loaded on trains for shipping. Aything that increases airflow and oxygen content into the cylinders has the potential to increase the burn temperature and subsequent NOx emissions.

I remember reading an engineering report on diesel emissions testing a couple of years ago, where the engineers claimed that they could actually optimize diesel engine burn temperatures by eliminating egr, raise the burn temperature to the point where particulates and soot were so minimal that no PM traps were required. The downside was the NOx output was too high to pass EPA rules. With the advent of BlueTec by DC and plasma emissions technology by Honda, I am hopeful that egr can be eliminated, the burn optimized for maximum power, economy and reduced soot formation, and the excess NOx handled by downstream converters. I will not be interested in purchasing any future diesel powered vehicles which continue to use egr and the grime it puts back into the engine as an emissions control device.

Cowpie1 · **Posted:** Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:15 pm

Caterpiller got by without EGR on its ACERT engines for big trucks. They explain it far better than i could on their website. Unfortunately, they have to do the particulate filter route for the 2007 engines.

DC could still produce Liberty CRD until January '07. All of the big truck manufacturers are kicking out trucks as fast as they can with pre '07 emmissions right up till January. A few will be made after January if ordered prior to january and all components made up until end of '06. The EPA requirement is NOT based on model year, but calendar year. So.... DC could be kicking CRD's out until the end of the year. With the demand, I would think they would have done this.

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

Quote:

DC could be kicking CRD's out until the end of the year. With the demand, I would think they would have done this.

So, knowing that VM Motori posted that a 4th engine production line has increased engine capacity some 28,000 units over 2004 production, mostly for Chrysler R428 engines, what does this tell us about why DC ended the CRD production early, even by their normal production run history?

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:14 pm

Ranger1 wrote:

Quote:

DC could be kicking CRD's out until the end of the year. With the demand, I would think they would have done this.

So, knowing that VM Motori posted that a 4th engine production line has increased engine capacity some 28,000 units over 2004 production, mostly for Chrysler R428 engines, what does this tell us about why DC ended the CRD production early, even by their normal production run history?

You seem to forget that D/C is not the only people that VM sells engines to, and besides those engines were built before and durring the expancion, also D/C would rather fill the Europe demand for the diesel until VM could catch up due to better market demand.

I bet when '07 model is announced the CRD will be available. Maybe not till after 1st of the year due to ULSD fuel requirements for particulate filters.

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

VM has information on their site that most of their demand is fairly level, i.e., marine, industrial and agriculture. They say that auto demand for the 4th line came primarily from the demand for Chrysler vehicles. They have already been supplying the R425 and more recently the R428 engine to the European market. That market doesn't appear to have grown by 40% in a single year. Their expansion into Aisa with GM/Daewoo, Hundaei/Kia in Korea, China and a few others is licensing only. No drain on their factory in Cento. They specifically point out their business strategy is to license only in that part of the world to avoid the extra capex. So that leaves primarily the NA market, European and Austraila. Except for NA, these are not as large a market for heavy SUV 's as much as the lighter smaller automobile vehicles.

I hope you're right about the 07 CRD. But if you look at other factors that DC/Jeep is facing , like rising fuel costs and the dramatic decline in Jeep sales, including the Liberty, holding back on the 06 CRD production doesn't make financial sense if all other factors are on target. I believe that if the CRD launch had gone without all of the expensive warranty issues, they would still be making the CRD as fast as they could, both to bolster the bottom line and to beat the 07 emissions requirements. As far as engine count required, the 11,000 diesel engines included the 06 production run - a good estimate for continued 06 production might be another 5000 units. Pretty good chance that they could get that many from VM Motori for 06. Another factor that would make more sense to produce all they could in 06 besides the easier emissions requirements is the EPA certification. If they change the Liberty for 08, production will start sometime in 07 and will require a new vehicle diesel EPA certification.

So even though you raise a good point, I'm still not convinced that engine availability was the main reason they stopped production so early.

But in spite of my reasons, I still hope your're right about 07. It won't be long before we know. My bet is that the new Mercedes 4 cylinder diesel, the 2.2 Liter, with 170 hp and 295 ft-lb of torque will show up in an 08 or 09 Liberty CRD. My reasoning is that Chrysler made the VM Motori deal long before the buyout from Mercedes, somewhere around 1992. Hard to believe someone back in Germany doesn't keep asking "why can't we keep our engines in everything we sell?"

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:40 pm

Ranger1 wrote:

But in spite of my reasons, I still hope your're right about 07. It won't be long before we know. My bet is that the new Mercedes 4 cylinder diesel, the 2.2 Liter, with 170 hp and 295 ft-lb of torque will show up in an 08 or 09 Liberty CRD. My reasoning is that Chrysler made the VM Motori deal long before the buyout from Mercedes, somewhere around 1992. Hard to believe someone back in Germany doesn't keep asking "why can't we keep our engines in everything we sell?"

Reguardless of who's & which engine is used we will see a BIG increase in diesels very shortly.

RFCRD · **Posted:** Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:37 am

Ranger1 wrote:

With the ridiculous emissions requirements, it could have been something as simple as too much air getting into the engine with the old airbox system, increasing NOx emissions. If you recall, they had to halt CRD shipments in November 2004 due to emissions compilance failure at the last minute - some early CRD reports claimed that they were told that PCM updates were done on CRD's already loaded on trains for shipping. Aything that increases airflow and oxygen content into the cylinders has the potential to increase the burn temperature and subsequent NOx emissions.

This is an intersting thought. Trade an engineered and problematic airflow constriction for lower NOx emissions. Who would be dumb enough to do that...? Nevermind, answer is obvious.

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

I really don't know if that was the reason or not. I figure it came from one of two possible reasons - cost reduction or emissions control. I can't think of much else that would warrant such a change.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:30 am

Yep, DC loves cost reduction.

About a year or so ago, Freightliner switched the design on the side extenders for the bigger cabs. They went from a design that used square-tube aluminum braces bolted to sizeable brackets on the back of the cab, to lightweight stamped sheetmetal braces that were literally pop-riveted to the skin of the cab.

Bloody things were so flimsy and it was so easy to damage them, and a PITA to replace because they were riveted instead of bolted, the customers raised several different kinds of h### and a couple months back they switched back to the old design.

kingofl337 · **Posted:** Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:34 pm

After looking at my CRD and seeing what DC did to block water from coming in.
I would think that is fairly adiquite. Blocks off the whole first grille so the water
would have to go a long way to get in there. Unless it leaks by the headlight / fog light
light. So maybe this is the best fix for our rigs.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/JEEP-LIB ... enameZWDVW

Then we could do the 4" tube mod mentioned earlier.

Then put this at the entrance.

http://www.ukesdirtstore.com/eshopprod_ ... r_Sock.htm

Should be about $60.00 all said and done including shipping.

Wet air filter

Who is online