Aftermath of torque converter recall

T^2 · **Posted:** Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Goglio704 wrote:

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.

I'm kind of in the same boat. Right now I'm not experiencing any problems with the vehicle, so therefore I'm not highly motivated at the moment to go running down to the dealer to get this 'fix' done.

rogg0 · **Joined:** Wed Jan 03, 2007 5:13 pm **Posts:** 3

Speculation that 10,989 CRD don't care assumes that none TOW at or near the 5000 lb trailer limit in hilly areas of the country. Every little bit helps. I bought the CRD for it's ability to TOW and it's fuel economy ( the change to ultra low sulfur Diesel hurt that some).

retmil46 · **Posted:** Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:28 pm

I agree with Darby on this one. If someone's going to tear into my tranny, then I want quality parts in there that are going to STFU for however long I own the vehicle, not a band-aid to get DC past the warranty period.

I submitted a form to www.tciauto.com this morning, asking what they'd recommend for a quality torque converter. They have one designed for the 545RFE behind the Hemi engine in Dodge trucks. Read thru their FAQ and tech info sections, gave them as much info on vehicle specs as I could, including the rpm band where the engine normally operates when driving.

I also quoted the second sentence in the first paragraph above, word for word, in the comments section of the form I submitted to them. :twisted:

Desert Dog · **Posted:** Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:15 pm

My dealer called me on the recall. While they were doing it, they also replaced the catalytic converter. Said it was part of the recall. While reflashing the computer after that, they blew something up, and had to replace the Module-Transmission control, whatever that is. Took a few days to come in. Can't tell how if any different it handles. The dealer did say the new converter would help milage.

no-blue-screen · **Posted:** Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:24 pm

Desert Dog wrote:

My dealer called me on the recall. While they were doing it, they also replaced the catalytic converter. Said it was part of the recall. While reflashing the computer after that, they blew something up, and had to replace the Module-Transmission control, whatever that is. Took a few days to come in. Can't tell how if any different it handles. The dealer did say the new converter would help milage.

Are you sure he didn't mean Torque Converter? The CAT Converter isn't part of the F37 recall.

T^2 · **Posted:** Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:35 pm

Goglio704 wrote:

T^2 wrote:

Goglio704 wrote:

...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.

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.

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.

I'm guessing here (I make no claim to expertise on this matter) but it seem reasonable that the torque at the crank can be roughly deduced/calculated, assuming fixed loses through operating ranges. Subtracting the delta of the dynamometer data from the specified torque output should give you a rough number for torque loss in terms of deviation from the original specifications.

I would guess that it would be unnecessary to obtain exact numbers - at least initially. It seems logical to assume that DCX already has those numbers anyway. If a suit were brought, I suspect that DCX would be compelled to produce those numbers.

greiswig · **Posted:** Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:43 pm

T^2 wrote:

(SNIP)

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.

Just a point of clarification: it was my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that the torque reduction may NOT be across-the-board, but may in fact only be a reduction of torque during shifting. If so, I'm not overly concerned: once the TC is locked up, everything else should behave as before. If not, then I may take issue with this.

Just want to make sure that we have the "FACTS" laid out properly.

T^2 · **Posted:** Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:45 pm

greiswig wrote:

T^2 wrote:

(SNIP)

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.

Just a point of clarification: it was my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that the torque reduction may NOT be across-the-board, but may in fact only be a reduction of torque during shifting. If so, I'm not overly concerned: once the TC is locked up, everything else should behave as before. If not, then I may take issue with this.

Just want to make sure that we have the "FACTS" laid out properly.

You make my point for me. If something is said enough and is consumed (read/heard) often enough, it runs the risk of becoming the conventional wisdom – or an accepted fact if you will – even though it may have no basis in fact.

What you just stated above was a theory proffered early on in the original "New Customer Satisfaction Recall - F37" thread. At best the support for this theory was based on hearsay from folk's so-called "sources". Others just offered the idea as mere speculation. Overall there has been no proof, evidence, and anything official from DCX to support this as fact.

Again - here are some of the FACTS that ARE known:

1) The original maximum torque specification for this vehicle was stated to be 295 lb-ft @ 1800 rpm.
2) The CSN states that "The repair involves a small reduction in engine torque to enhance torque converter and transmission durability."

Theories abound as to how this reduction was actually implemented, but that's all they are - theories. Nothing official or otherwise has been forthcoming from DCX that would shed more light on this subject. From what I’ve read – attempts to get more information from DCX have been rebuffed. So, I don’t expect DCX to be anymore forthcoming with the FACTS then they've already been.

AZScout · **Posted:** Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:30 pm

Is there a way to get a fresh computer without all the flashes done to it?

Aftermath of torque converter recall

Who is online