If enough CRD owners are willing to enjoin in a class action law suit to get DCX to fess up maybe we can get answers. We all paid extra for that torque. It seems criminal to have it taken away. While I doubt that the torque is reduced to that of the gas engine I do not have a gas version for a seat of the pants comparison.
My CRD was running great before the recall and now it seems slightly weaker climbing the hills here in NE Pa.

There's a fallacious argument - if I've ever seen one. We are not talking about moving targets or intangibles here. The specifications are whatever DCX published in it's documentation and sales materials when the vehicle was brought to market - within reasonable tolerances of course. There's no ambiguity here. Again we are talking about the published specifications for this vehicle and what the vehicle is required to be able to produce - in terms of torque - within reasonable tolerances.

I discussed - in another post - lawsuits involving similar cases where auto manufacturers have stated, and sold vehicles with, performance specification numbers that couldn't be delivered. I'll repost here a couple of links that make for interesting reads regarding this subject:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/hyundai_settlement.html
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060313/AUTO01/603130350/1148

Just a couple of highlights:

1) Hyundai overstated Horse Power figures on about 1.3 million cars, sold from the mid '80's to 2002.
2) Hyundai "misstated" H.P. by as much as 10%.
3) Hyundai estimated that the average misstated h.p. figure among all 1.3 million vehicles was [only] 4.6 horsepower.
4) Ford was apparently sued because of an "under-powered" Mustang and 2001 Miata's that were rated for 155 H.P., but in reality only produced 142 H.P..
5) Nissan was apparently sued over the Infinity Q45 because it's 0-60 time was about 1 second longer the what Nissan had claimed.

I've provided this information to make a point - that point being - it's not unheard of for vehicle manufacturers to get sued over this kind of thing.

In essence it appears that DCX has - with their so called CSN fix - sold (for a premium - for the Diesel engines) the consumer vehicles that have performance specification numbers for which DCX can't, or won't deliver. To me that constitutes fraud. DCX has offered to provide a fix (for an engineering failure) that does not return the vehicle back to, or meet, the vehicle’s original specifications. That to me sounds like a possible violation of the warranty.

again.... speculation

... and presumptuosness to substitute ones own opinion for the community as a whole...

True, this is speculation. However, this does illustrate that the legal gamble DC is making may work. Not that it's right but the vast majority of owners will likely be apathetic toward the change as long as the vehicle is mechanically reliable and performs within reasonable expectations.

Mine has been done for almost a month and has yet to fail to meet my performance expectations. I am also tolerant of this type of adjustment as I've seen this done on commercial diesels as a common method of tuning an engine to work with a transmission. What I can't believe is the way DC chose to word their recall notice. There are much more intellegent and effective way to communicate this change without building more controversy. Or maybe I should believe this given the way DC has handled this product and my customer satisfaction over the past 16 months. If they eventually get sued and loose, they can blame themselves for the way they managed the situation.

_________________
2005 Liberty Sport CRD, Lt Khaki, sunroof

Thankful to now be an EX-CRD owner.

I suspect that you might be right about DCX's thinking/gamble in this case. It wouldn't be a surprise if this has been the result of a 'Bean Counter' calculation as to the cost of a real solution to this problem vs. the cost of this half-a** one. One thing to note though - in a couple of these cases it only took and handful of folks to bring suit against these manufacturers.



I suspect DCX would not have included those words about a reduction in torque unless 1) the reduction is real, and 2) they were compelled to.

It appears that DCX has offered only as much truth/honesty regarding this so called fix as they've had to. It also appears that anybody who has sought further truth/facts about what is going on here has been rebuffed. One would probably need a lawyer to gain any further insight/truth on this matter.

Maybe you should read here more than you post. From another thread. Bold added by me.



The only specs I've ever seen were for horsepower and torque at the crank. Again, how do you plan to measure that? You bought a pig in a poke as the saying goes.

_________________
Matt B.

05 Limited CRD. Bought it new. 112k on the clock now.

GDE Eco-tune, rear differential drain plug (drilled and tapped the pumpkin), transmission pan drain plug, Fumoto oil valve, fuel filler neck restriction removed, front hitch, Hayden fan clutch, Sears P1 battery since 08, Mobil 1 5w40, 5 volt glow plugs, DIY timing belt at 109k

Yes, I've seen MrMopar's post before. I don't recall his actual relationship with DCX.

However, DCX's official position has been that the CRD torque specification was 295 lb-ft @ 1800 rpm max and that as a result of the CSN there will be a small reduction in engine torque.

As MrMopar stated - all he was offering was his "guess".

Unless MrMopar is an actual official representative for DCX and is authorized to speak for DCX in this matter (I don't recall any such claims), then I don't see this as anything more than hearsay and further speculation.

And for the most part...all the info on a public forum is an educated quess...so what is your point? MrMopar64 is involved with the VM 2.8L CRD development and has first hand knowledge of the computer/ECU/TCMs ect. In general, you have to filter thru any info on a forum and decide what you are going to accept as "plausible". Everyones criteria as to "plausible" will differ.

The point is "open discussion" is the only way to get to a "plausible" answer or reason for a particular cituation. Funny thing is all the talk on L.O.S.T. earlier about tranny issues was probably a big factor in the F37 Customer Satisfaction Notice.

From all the discussion and changes that DC is trying to implement, I don't think we have a "final answer" to all our questions, nor a "final solution" that will satisfy everyone...but...at least this open discussion seems to get up closer to the same.

_________________
Founder of L.O.S.T.
2006 CRD Sport
Mods: GDE Hot Tune w/ 364#@2000rpm/Air Box /3" Str8 Exhaust/ASFIR Alum Skids/245-75R-16 Cooper STT PRO/OME LIFT w/Clevis & 4 Spring Isos/AirTabs/Rigid 10" S2 LED/4xGuard Ctr Matrix Bumper
Drag Strip:Reac=.1078_60ft=2.224_1/8=10.39@64.8mph_1/4+16.46@80.8mph

I agree, he doesn't speak for DC, and I really have no way of verifiying he is who he says he is, but so far his info has been valuable to me at least. For the record, I do think what DC is doing smacks of a bait and switch, and yes, it angers me too. Two things will make pursuing this difficult as far as I can see.

The quoted specs being measured at the crank.

The fact that the transmission actually calls the shots in terms of output. If the engine were capable of 500 ft lbs and 300 HP, it wouldn't matter if the transmission disallowed it.

I intend to avoid the F37 untill I need it. F38 may be right around the corner and include the revised pump across the board. Yes, I know, speculation. For right now I am happy with the vehicle. It would be speculation on my part to assume I won't like the F37.

_________________
Matt B.

05 Limited CRD. Bought it new. 112k on the clock now.

GDE Eco-tune, rear differential drain plug (drilled and tapped the pumpkin), transmission pan drain plug, Fumoto oil valve, fuel filler neck restriction removed, front hitch, Hayden fan clutch, Sears P1 battery since 08, Mobil 1 5w40, 5 volt glow plugs, DIY timing belt at 109k

Well said. Unless there are facts readily available to the public, all we can do is speculate and guess. We can also make an educated guess based on what we have experienced. I haven't had the F37 done on mine, and it hasn't shown up on the Jeep website either so I may never get the F37. If it does somehow show up and I do get it, all I can do is compare how my jeep runs before and after said recall. Without something in writing from DCX, that is the best any of us can do.

_________________
06.5 Jetta TDI PKG 2 - Silver/Anth

With the advent of computer controlled transmissions, they have a lot more control over things. Performance chips and tuners do the same thing with their units. They monitor EGT, boost, and the slippage of the trans. If any of them start to run outside spec (into what the chip maker considers the danger zone), the chip automatically defuels and reduces power. I am again guessing here, but I don't think DCX is reducing the max output of the engine. What they are likely doing is changing the torque band as to allow for less strain on the weak Torque converter. Again, I am only guessing here, but I can't imagine them derating the total output of the engine and leaving themselves open to lots of CRD owners seeking financial damages. I do think they could just put a good TC and pump in there that can handle the application instead of using what I consider a band-aid approach.

_________________
06.5 Jetta TDI PKG 2 - Silver/Anth

I have recieved the notice and the dealer I originally purchased my CRD from is pushing to do the F37. I contend that it is not a true recall, but on the dealer computer it is referred to as a recall. I am putting off the F37 until "I" decide, within reason. I would rather have a custom TC built with a TransGo Shift Kit and an aftermarket Module/Chip upgrade. As MrMopar64 has stated in the past, the 2.8L CRD should be able to handle 340 foot pounds of torque without any ill-effects. I am also going to get a Turbo Blanket made to reduce underhood temps and install a snorkel for cooler intake air temps. Insulating the stock air box is also on the list. Then a custom 3" exhaust with some thermo coatings by Swain Engineering will finish it off. By this time the F37 will be superceeded by some other F? Heck, by then we might be up to G?

_________________
Founder of L.O.S.T.
2006 CRD Sport
Mods: GDE Hot Tune w/ 364#@2000rpm/Air Box /3" Str8 Exhaust/ASFIR Alum Skids/245-75R-16 Cooper STT PRO/OME LIFT w/Clevis & 4 Spring Isos/AirTabs/Rigid 10" S2 LED/4xGuard Ctr Matrix Bumper
Drag Strip:Reac=.1078_60ft=2.224_1/8=10.39@64.8mph_1/4+16.46@80.8mph

Yeah, I take mine in tomorrow for the F23 LBJ recall. I hate to take it in when it is running fine, but with a new-born baby in the car I need to have safety issues like this taken care of.

I think it has enough power for me, so I will likely not do any mods for performance. I would like to do some cosmetic mods though. I want to get a lift kit, RB1, bull bar, hitch, and tint the two front windows with a strip across the top of the windshield. When I start doing some towing, I may also opt for a deeper trans pan, rear diff cover, and a guage pod to monitor EGT and trans temp.

_________________
06.5 Jetta TDI PKG 2 - Silver/Anth

What is your build date, mine is 5-11-06 if I remember correctly, still no notice for me. Neither online or in the mail.

Mine was built in August 2005. , but I didn't buy until June 2006


LOL...I just noticed I hit the "edit function" instead of the quote button. Just flexin' a bit...

_________________
It may be that your only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

06 CRD Sport
Built 5/11/06
Jeep Green
Rocklizard diff cover
V6 Airbox

I think the important quantity to determine is the delta, or change in torque before and after the fix. In other words, what is the net impact, or net reduction in torque that results from this 'fix'. Measuring torque at the crank isn't important in this regard. I suspect that a roughly accurate number could be obtained if a sufficient sample of (before and after) dynamometer data was collected.

LOL now people are going to think I am really nuts!

_________________
It may be that your only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

06 CRD Sport
Built 5/11/06
Jeep Green
Rocklizard diff cover
V6 Airbox

We should purchase a G-Tech Pro SS or RR and ship it around the country to each member. I used to have a "state of the art Vericom" that would give you rear wheel horsepower among other data. We don't have to have Flywheel Hp as stated above to get a "differential reading" of changes.

_________________
Founder of L.O.S.T.
2006 CRD Sport
Mods: GDE Hot Tune w/ 364#@2000rpm/Air Box /3" Str8 Exhaust/ASFIR Alum Skids/245-75R-16 Cooper STT PRO/OME LIFT w/Clevis & 4 Spring Isos/AirTabs/Rigid 10" S2 LED/4xGuard Ctr Matrix Bumper
Drag Strip:Reac=.1078_60ft=2.224_1/8=10.39@64.8mph_1/4+16.46@80.8mph

I agree that the delta is what is relevant to the end user and would be what I would want to know. Nonetheless, this whole discussion revolves around a potential law suit over not meeting the spec, and to my knowledge DC never published a spec at the wheels.

_________________
Matt B.

05 Limited CRD. Bought it new. 112k on the clock now.

GDE Eco-tune, rear differential drain plug (drilled and tapped the pumpkin), transmission pan drain plug, Fumoto oil valve, fuel filler neck restriction removed, front hitch, Hayden fan clutch, Sears P1 battery since 08, Mobil 1 5w40, 5 volt glow plugs, DIY timing belt at 109k

My point was simply that folks need to be careful to differentiate between what is FACT and what is Fiction, so to speak.

I have no problem with postulating as to what may be happening here, but I think folks need to be careful when offering answers to other peoples queries for information.

It reminds me of the old adage - If you say it often enough, people will begin to believe it.

I'm just noting that even though some theories have been restated multiple times here - it's best not to restate or offer them as anything more then what they are - which are theories, speculation, personal opinion etc.

Again - officially the only known FACTS that I'm aware of are 1) the CRD was sold with a specification of 295 lb-ft of torque @ 1800 rpm max, and 2) that the engine torque is being reduced as a result of this CSN.

Mine was built January 25, 06 and I purchased it in May 21, 06 and I didn't get the F37 recall eather. Reading between the lines I think our CRD's came detuned and the dates they're recalling are the ones that originally had the wrong filters (till mid November 05) and then those that later got the wrong filters when they were mistakenly reintroduced into the supply chain (after mid may) and the old and new TC's are as OldNavy has said, are the same Just the way I see it since the popular thinking now is the studder/bucking is a air in the fuel problem In other words they don't admit the TC's are bad

_________________
Atlantic Blue 06 CRD Limited (his)
Joined by a 2000 XJ Classic (hers)