Unapproved Flash after CEL

sbohner · **Posted:** Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:21 am

Not sure what to think... :roll:

My wife took our vehicle in for yet another CEL and I have a loaner that my wife brought back after the dealer indicated that something went wrong with an ECM flash they were conducting. The way my wife recalls it, they found the CEL and tried to do the flash without her consent and it was botched. They sent her back with a Service Bulletin number 18-038-05 REV.A (the Performance Group), but didn't give her the CEL number.

Reading through this, I found that it is a flash that has to do with engine start and drivability at altitude (or brake switch DTC P0504). In reading further, it says the symptom is: At an altitude of 5000 feet or higher, a cold engine start is followed by a slow idle up condition or an off-idle engine shake during warm up. Suffice it to say that I detected neither of these and we are no where near 5000 feet in altitude! :shock:

A final symptom was also listed regarding to the brake switch signal circuit -- we had not problems with our brakes. Hence, I'm decidedly confused and now concerned

.

Isn't the dealer required to alert the customer before conducting any reprogramming of a vehicle?

DZL_LOU · **Posted:** Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:50 am

sbohner wrote:

Not sure what to think... :roll:

My wife took our vehicle in for yet another CEL and I have a loaner that my wife brought back after the dealer indicated that something went wrong with an ECM flash they were conducting. The way my wife recalls it, they found the CEL and tried to do the flash without her consent and it was botched. They sent her back with a Service Bulletin number 18-038-05 REV.A (the Performance Group), but didn't give her the CEL number.

Reading through this, I found that it is a flash that has to do with engine start and drivability at altitude (or brake switch DTC P0504). In reading further, it says the symptom is: At an altitude of 5000 feet or higher, a cold engine start is followed by a slow idle up condition or an off-idle engine shake during warm up. Suffice it to say that I detected neither of these and we are no where near 5000 feet in altitude! :shock:

A final symptom was also listed regarding to the brake switch signal circuit -- we had not problems with our brakes. Hence, I'm decidedly confused and now concerned

.

Isn't the dealer required to alert the customer before conducting any reprogramming of a vehicle?

I pulled up 18-038-05 and also noticed that the issue date for this was back in Dec 16, 2005
It's very odd that they would be applying a service bulletin from that period to a vehicle that did not exhibit any of the symptoms listed in the service bulletin.

I would ask them if they possibly got their vehicles confused and why they would be applying a service bulletin from 2005.

What happens with the Flash updates is that the StarSCAN tool is downloading the software flash from DCX via the internet. If the connection disrupts or the download is not a success it has to be redone from the beginning all over again.
This download/FLASH is a multi-hour process.

This is an excerpt from the DCX FLASH FAILED procedures manual

Occasionally a flash update procedure may not complete properly and/or the diagnostic
equipment may lock up or become disconnected during the procedure. Flash
Reprogramming is a "CRITICAL PROCESS"; an error may result in a no-start/failed
control module. Most modules, encountering an interruption or failure while
reprogramming, are recoverable. Replacing a module that is recoverable is not covered
under the provisions of the warranty.

This service bulletin covers items that may cause this condition, a process to restart the
flash procedure, and miscellaneous information that will help prevent unnecessary
replacement of control modules.
GENERAL:
Flash Reprogramming is only authorized when programming a generic module or by a
specific SERVICE ACTION (Service Bulletin/Recall/Rapid Response Transmittal/Advance
Service Information).
CAUTION: When updating a module because of a Service Action, it is important to
follow the steps outlined in the Repair Procedure section of the Service
Action. Procedures may differ depending on the module that is being
reprogrammed.
Review the entire Service Action prior to performing a flash reprogramming update. Often
other parts may need to be serviced, replaced, or tested, prior to flash reprogramming, and
ARE REQUIRED as part of completing the Service Action.
COMMON CAUSES OF FLASH REPROGRAMMING ERRORS
Interruptions, voltage problems, a variety of other outside interactions, and failure to follow
the steps outlined in the Service Action can potentially interfere with the process. This
document seeks to provide information to minimize problems associated with module flash
reprogramming.

sbohner · **Posted:** Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:13 am

Thanks DZL_LOU for the thorough description. It sounds like a few things can disrupt the programming.

The question still remains whether or not the dealer has the right to flash the ECM without the consent of the owner. It seems that this is like changing a significant component on the vehicle since it entails several hours of work. The dealer is normally requests permission to replace a battery or even seal. Why not a flash?

Again, thanks for the good information.

no-blue-screen · **Posted:** Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:11 am

sbohner wrote:

Thanks DZL_LOU for the thorough description. It sounds like a few things can disrupt the programming.

The question still remains whether or not the dealer has the right to flash the ECM without the consent of the owner. It seems that this is like changing a significant component on the vehicle since it entails several hours of work. The dealer is normally requests permission to replace a battery or even seal. Why not a flash?

Again, thanks for the good information.

There have been a couple of TSBs, and then the F31 recall. Did you ever have any TSBs done on your vehicle or the F31 recall? Either of these things could probably be done without you having to consent to them since the F31 is a recall and the most recent TSB from 7/14/06 is listed as "perform if vehicle is in for service". Most dealers won't do it without symptoms...but maybe this dealer wants to try to update your flash and see if the problem is still present after the update. I may be wrong, but the only time I think they are legally required to notify you is if it is a repair that will cost you money or over a certain amount of money.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:40 am

sbohner wrote:

Thanks DZL_LOU for the thorough description. It sounds like a few things can disrupt the programming.

The question still remains whether or not the dealer has the right to flash the ECM without the consent of the owner. It seems that this is like changing a significant component on the vehicle since it entails several hours of work. The dealer is normally requests permission to replace a battery or even seal. Why not a flash?

Again, thanks for the good information.

Maybe they should have told you, but don't worry too much about the flash itself. I believe it is the same one most of us out here have had that lets the glow plugs stay on longer in a colder climate for smoother warm up. That's a good thing.

sbohner · **Posted:** Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:48 pm

Well, I've wasted 5 hours today messing with my CRD situation. I went to pick up my CRD, but unfortunately when we drove it, it was very apparent that the flash had changed the responsiveness and overall power range of the vehicle (I described it as anemic). So, I didn't take possession of the CRD and I'm working with the service manager, district service manager, and customer service to resolve the problem.

The claim from the customer service folks initially was that the ECM could not be returned to the previous state (like there was a technological limitation). When I alerted them that I'm an engineering professor and director of a new center that specializes in reconfigurable computing using the technology the the ECM is produced with, the discussion became a bit more measured. I'm hoping they will do the right thing here. I really like my Jeep and would hate to have it sit for all the time it would take to get them to resolve this legally.

One thing that I found puzzling was that the shifting seemed smoother after the flash (althought it did appear to do more hunting in the lower gears). While the ECM and TCM probably interact, it is not clear how this behavior would result. Does anyone have any clue on this?

RFCRD · **Posted:** Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:58 pm

sbohner wrote:

Well, I've wasted 5 hours today messing with my CRD situation. I went to pick up my CRD, but unfortunately when we drove it, it was very apparent that the flash had changed the responsiveness and overall power range of the vehicle (I described it as anemic). So, I didn't take possession of the CRD and I'm working with the service manager, district service manager, and customer service to resolve the problem.

The claim from the customer service folks initially was that the ECM could not be returned to the previous state (like there was a technological limitation). When I alerted them that I'm an engineering professor and director of a new center that specializes in reconfigurable computing using the technology the the ECM is produced with, the discussion became a bit more measured. I'm hoping they will do the right thing here. I really like my Jeep and would hate to have it sit for all the time it would take to get them to resolve this legally.

One thing that I found puzzling was that the shifting seemed smoother after the flash (althought it did appear to do more hunting in the lower gears). While the ECM and TCM probably interact, it is not clear how this behavior would result. Does anyone have any clue on this?

Been through the reflash game several times and know when they reflash your ECM or TCM, they have ONE software version to use...the current one (regardless of what TSB they reference for the warranty claim). This is done live, on-line where DCX's computer reads your version and updates to the latest release. What you have now is the software from the F-31/F-37 recalls which is why it is less responsive and also shifts smoother. The botched reflash you referenced was probably a data link problem with the TCM (which acts as the gateway) common on an '05. My dealer has been using an '06 CRD as a host to clone the TCM to get the reflash to take. Then they reinstall the TCM in the '05 and download the ECM software to complete the job.

sbohner · **Posted:** Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:59 pm

Thanks RFCRD! This explains some of it what I had feared. So, in essense, I got the bad part of the F37 done without my consent. It is just plain wrong that a company can get away with this type of bullying its customers. I do not think I can stand by and let them do this. Has anyone mounted a legal defense on this aspect of the CRD previously or are there any people exploring this?

I'm convinced that since what they are doing has no legal basis (that I can find so far), they are subject to legal remedy. What do you think?

RFCRD · **Posted:** Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:42 pm

sbohner wrote:

Thanks RFCRD! This explains some of it what I had feared. So, in essense, I got the bad part of the F37 done without my consent. It is just plain wrong that a company can get away with this type of bullying its customers. I do not think I can stand by and let them do this. Has anyone mounted a legal defense on this aspect of the CRD previously or are there any people exploring this?

I'm convinced that since what they are doing has no legal basis (that I can find so far), they are subject to legal remedy. What do you think?

I have no doubt this fix will eventually get them sued for the bait & switch or that it mechanically fails again. They are probably banking on people like myself that will say "OK, I can live with this performance" or will just sell it & move on.

I had the entire F37 done in early December and been running the software since early November (almost 6K miles). Actually like the added refinement of this software combo. It's smooth and the performance is adequate for my needs so this issue is secondary to other design problems at this point.

BioDieselDude · **Posted:** Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:51 pm

I have been avoiding F37 like the plague, but I have this CEL that I am trying to decide if I want to take it up there and end up with lost power having them flash away whatever they want, I need the ball joint in the front done along with a couple other things. I dont particularly mind the smoother shifting, but I dont want to lose 20-40ft pounds of torque taken away by F37 since I tow a 30' trailer, it barely gets the job done in the high altitudes which is where I keep it stored, any tiny drop would be huge for me. I know that eventually I will have to get some work done on it, but maybe I could avoid the dealer, avoid the problem you have had. If there isn't already a legal presidence, with Crysler's current restructuring plan, it might be tough to get action from any judge until end of 2008.

RFCRD · **Posted:** Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:13 pm

BioDieselDude wrote:

I have been avoiding F37 like the plague, but I have this CEL that I am trying to decide if I want to take it up there and end up with L.O.S.T. pohaving the, flash away, I need the ball joint in the front done along with a couple other things. I dont particularly mind the smoother shifting, but I dont want to lose 20-40ft pounds of torque taken away by F37 since I tow a 30' trailer, it barely gets the job done in the high altitudes which is where I keep it stored, any tiny drop would be huge for me. I know that eventually I will have to get some work done on it, but maybe I could avoid the dealer, avoid the problem you have had. If there isn't already a legal presidence, with DCX's current restructuring plan, it might be tough to get action from any judge until 2008.

Pulling a 30' ft trailer is definately taking this rig to it's limits. Looking at your signature line, do you still run the SP tuner? Doesn't the tuner mitigate the F37 power loss? If you get this done, just insist on the replacement pump. Still convinced it's the key to success.

You are right, it will be a slow process to get a settlement out of this. One of my co-workers got a class action settlement check out of GM for his Olds diesel issues two years after he sold the car.

sbohner · **Posted:** Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:24 pm

Hi BioDieselDude,

If my experience is any indicator of what the Daimler-Chrysler corporate direction is with the CRD, I'm obliged to warn you of the dangers. Note that I did not consent to the flash, but the service manager must have been compelled by something. I suspect that your local dealer will feel the same pressures as mine did and unless you stay with them while they do the service, you to will be subject to an unauthorized insertion :shock:

.

Note also that I'm only hours after the deed was thrust upon me. Perhaps tomorrow, I will feel less of a catharsis in writing about it.

BioDieselDude · **Posted:** Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:05 pm

RFCRD wrote:

BioDieselDude wrote:

I have been avoiding F37 like the plague, but I have this CEL that I am trying to decide if I want to take it up there and end up with L.O.S.T. pohaving the, flash away, I need the ball joint in the front done along with a couple other things. I dont particularly mind the smoother shifting, but I dont want to lose 20-40ft pounds of torque taken away by F37 since I tow a 30' trailer, it barely gets the job done in the high altitudes which is where I keep it stored, any tiny drop would be huge for me. I know that eventually I will have to get some work done on it, but maybe I could avoid the dealer, avoid the problem you have had. If there isn't already a legal presidence, with DCX's current restructuring plan, it might be tough to get action from any judge until 2008.

Pulling a 30' ft trailer is definately taking this rig to it's limits. Looking at your signature line, do you still run the SP tuner? Doesn't the tuner mitigate the F37 power loss? If you get this done, just insist on the replacement pump. Still convinced it's the key to success.

You are right, it will be a slow process to get a settlement out of this. One of my co-workers got a class action settlement check out of GM for his Olds diesel issues two years after he sold the car.

Still use the Module and its a gem, I recommend it highly. Save big bucks getting it on Ebay, got mine for $499 and it came with a free K&N filter. The boost pressure and fuel pressure is basically worthless, but its a cool feature to show people. I think dial gauge is the best for boost pressure, will be adding one soon. When I visit Kansas below 1,000 feet altitude I can spin all four wheels briefly off the line in the High Power mode, or in rear wheel spin them for half a block. That's not exactly a cool thing to do but it shows the power it affords and it really helps in towing anywhere near the mountains, or flat road as it drastically improves mileage.

So do you think the replacement pump will prevent power loss? I guess the thing is I know what its like to not have the module and I really dont want to go back there. Going up steep mountains (8,000ft or higher) cranking out 3,000+ RPMs to go 55mph in a 70. My trailer tow weight is about 5,000 with 606lb tongue and to go above 500 lb tongue you must have a weight distribution hitch, and since the trailer is really long you also need an antisway bar so when you go down hill, or slam on the breaks, it doesn't start flopping around, which is a huge threat. I have pulled a big trailer with a tractor on it that was almost 7,000lb which is closer to the max with a weight distribution hitch and had no problems, but I already had the module. I'm not sure if I have the factory hitch, but the sticker underneath says 500lb tongue 5,000 lb, but with weight distribution 750 tongue and 7,500lb tow.

sbohner · **Posted:** Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:35 pm

I've been seeing a lot of references in other threads to acquiescing to the F37 under the banner of it’s “not that bad” and “by the way, we can’t do anything about it.” My own opinion is that this “boil the frog” strategy will bite the consumer later as the inevitable TC failures come after warranty period expires. Then there will be lamenting that we should have/could have done something, but it’s now too late – the value of the CRD will be the same as the Oldsmobile Diesel and those that bought them will be reluctant to admit they bought one later on. Instead, they will just refuse to buy products from Chrysler or any company that acquires them.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:08 pm

sbohner wrote:

I've been seeing a lot of references in other threads to acquiescing to the F37 under the banner of it’s “not that bad” and “by the way, we can’t do anything about it.” My own opinion is that this “boil the frog” strategy will bite the consumer later as the inevitable TC failures come after warranty period expires. Then there will be lamenting that we should have/could have done something, but it’s now too late – the value of the CRD will be the same as the Oldsmobile Diesel and those that bought them will be reluctant to admit they bought one later on. Instead, they will just refuse to buy products from Chrysler or any company that acquires them.

Then again, the F37 recall may fix the issues and you may never go in for TC failure again. I'm a glass is half full kind of guy.

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

BVCRD wrote:

sbohner wrote:

I've been seeing a lot of references in other threads to acquiescing to the F37 under the banner of it’s “not that bad” and “by the way, we can’t do anything about it.” My own opinion is that this “boil the frog” strategy will bite the consumer later as the inevitable TC failures come after warranty period expires. Then there will be lamenting that we should have/could have done something, but it’s now too late – the value of the CRD will be the same as the Oldsmobile Diesel and those that bought them will be reluctant to admit they bought one later on. Instead, they will just refuse to buy products from Chrysler or any company that acquires them.

Then again, the F37 recall may fix the issues and you may never go in for TC failure again. I'm a glass is half full kind of guy.

I think they(DC) should just man up and give the honest talk on what the f37 is all about. Also taking advice from consumers of your product will keep them as consumers .... there just seems to be too much secrecy about the whole thing.

And I am a "use the right size glass" kind of guy.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:31 pm

bbo wrote:

BVCRD wrote:

sbohner wrote:

I've been seeing a lot of references in other threads to acquiescing to the F37 under the banner of it’s “not that bad” and “by the way, we can’t do anything about it.” My own opinion is that this “boil the frog” strategy will bite the consumer later as the inevitable TC failures come after warranty period expires. Then there will be lamenting that we should have/could have done something, but it’s now too late – the value of the CRD will be the same as the Oldsmobile Diesel and those that bought them will be reluctant to admit they bought one later on. Instead, they will just refuse to buy products from Chrysler or any company that acquires them.

Then again, the F37 recall may fix the issues and you may never go in for TC failure again. I'm a glass is half full kind of guy.

I think they(DC) should just man up and give the honest talk on what the f37 is all about. Also taking advice from consumers of your product will keep them as consumers .... there just seems to be too much secrecy about the whole thing.

And I am a "use the right size glass" kind of guy.

Never heard that one.

sbohner · **Posted:** Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:20 pm

I'm a half-full kind of guy myself, but recently my cup has been getting filled with something from DCX of which I cannot say at this point. As I have indicated before, I really love the CRD and what it represents in American Diesel landscape. It is fun to drive and a move in the right direction for American Automakers. My other vehicle is a late model Mercedes, and have been happy with their products and services.

This is more a point of alerting the Liberty CRD community that the dealers may be compelled to be agressive about changing the product to meet a short-term cost objective rather than a long-term customer loyalty objective. It is my position that holding them responsible for such a decision is incumbant upon a group like LOST KJ. This way we remain loyal customers and our CRDs do not become a poster-child for why diesels are not good in America and the fodder for newspaper articles.

RFCRD · **Posted:** Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:51 pm

BioDieselDude wrote:

So do you think the replacement pump will prevent power loss?

The replacement pump is for the transmission. One of the problems with this transmission is the original pump seals leak. This causes a loss in fluid pressure controlling the lock-up clutch (causes the shudder some report). The new pump is redesigned with improved seals. I noticed an immediate improvement in TC lock-up function after the F37. Mine was already showing early signs of failure (stalling) when the F37 came out so I was able to argue for the replacement. The downside is they have to open the transmission to release the front cover plate while servicing. The tech has to be careful not to pull any shafts out of their bearings while replacing the front plate or the job will become ugly to finish.

sbohner · **Posted:** Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:10 pm

I just posted something on the Torque Converter Recall thread that I thought bears repeating here along with some more perspectives. Here are some relevant paragraphs from that posting followed by some bottom line perspectives:

"Some folks have posted that the F37 ECM detuning only effects the shift points and not the overall power range. Since I’m a scientist and engineer, I did a simple experiment with the CRD when they went to return it to me. There is a two mile steep hill on a highway near the dealer and my home. Prior to the flash (over the past 9 months) my CRD traveled up this hill without even downshifting and keeps a 70 MPH at a bit over 2200 RPM. After the flash, both me and my wife tested on the same hill and the CRD couldn’t make it over 65 MPH and there were several oscillations in the gears in overdrive making the RPMs vacillate between 1900 and 3400 RPM.

That being said, the in-town driving was more refined with smoother shifts at higher revs (sort of like the Liberty 3.7L). My initial assessment is that DCX has modified the VM Motori ECM to act more like a gasoline engine rather than making the Chrysler tranny accommodate a diesel. In other words, my torquey diesel has been molded to feel more like a 3.7L (but with no high RPM punch) with all the noise of a diesel and none of the benefits. In my opinion, this is not a good design trade-off and feels more like what MrMopar64 called a “crutch fix.”

This is a matter of persuasion. DCX can certainly win me over if they adopt a more transparent posture. So far, their position has been recalcitrant. Had the flash been necessary and I been given the choice, perhaps I would be more amenable. However, since it was not my choice and they have taken a non-cooperative stance, I must hold my resolve."

Bottom line: We need to be mindful of the long-term consequences of just going with the flow on this one.

First, a company full of fine people will suffer if decision makers there continue on the path of marginalizing customers -- ultimately their products will diminish in value, the customers will buy from the competition, and shareholders will invest elsewhere. Where does that leave CRD owners? Our CRDs are devalued.

Second, and more close to home, the total cost of our CRD ownership goes up as DCX is emboldened to use risk avoidance tactics with us customers. Yes, it is cheaper for them to avoid costly warranty repairs, but in the long term the loss of customers (over 11,000 plus all those that read about our fate in the paper) will do no one any good. We need those jobs to remain in the US.

Third, the diesel Jeep Liberty is a good idea that most of us took a chance on – a new venture in the American Marketplace. We got behind DCX with our hard-earned money and bought into this good idea. Most of us have the means to move up the product line into other diesel offerings based on our experience here. Yet we will be reluctant to persuade our colleagues to join the diesel generation unless DCX gets behind us like we did them.

You can be assured that this forum does make it to the eyes of people at DCX. I think that we should applaud Darby, OldNavy, and others here in enabling us to collectively communicate about our experiences with our Libertys. If decision makers at DCX do not hear about how we feel, they will not do what is right. Instead, they will do what best meets the next quarter's financial results -- that is how they are measured. Customer satisfaction is part of their balanced scorecard. It is connected systemically to the financial results.

Unapproved Flash after CEL

Who is online