Just got the CRD back

bigcanoe · **Joined:** Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:33 pm **Posts:** 96

A check engine light was coming on and off, and I took it to the dealer. Took them a week to get the parts and replace them. They replaced the EGR valve (2nd time in the last 6 months), a glow plug, and fuel injector. Thank goodness it was all under warranty, I am not gonna be able to afford this car once I have to pay for repairs out of pocket. Their diagnosis was I didnt drive fast enough to burn out the carbon, I need to get it out on the highway and floor it more.

On the way home, not 10 miles later, the CEL is back on.

alljeep · **Posted:** Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:02 am

bigcanoe wrote:

A check engine light was coming on and off, and I took it to the dealer. Took them a week to get the parts and replace them. They replaced the EGR valve (2nd time in the last 6 months), a glow plug, and fuel injector. Thank goodness it was all under warranty, I am not gonna be able to afford this car once I have to pay for repairs out of pocket. Their diagnosis was I didnt drive fast enough to burn out the carbon, I need to get it out on the highway and floor it more.

On the way home, not 10 miles later, the CEL is back on.

Does anyone know the modes of failure for the EGR valve and the Air Flow control valve? I remember rumors that the plastic gears in the Air Flow Control Valve were changed to metal gears due to stripping of the gear teeth, but never got any confirmation. I also remember rumors of the solenoids going bad on the EGR.

Anyone? Is there really a newly design part for either of these or has it been managed with redesigned software that causes more cycling/open/close procedures to prevent buildup/blockage?

sbohner · **Posted:** Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:13 am

This CEL shortly after the EGR change happened to me to. The control valve needed to be changed too. The likely situation was the control valve was the culprit. Good luck getting it sorted out.

Also, beware that the dealer may find an opportunity to get the ECM flashed -- don't do it :shock:

as it results in substantial loss in throttle responsiveness and power range in exchange for smoother shifting.

BVCRD · **Posted:** Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:54 am

sbohner wrote:

This CEL shortly after the EGR change happened to me to. The control valve needed to be changed too. The likely situation was the control valve was the culprit. Good luck getting it sorted out.

Also, beware that the dealer may find an opportunity to get the ECM flashed -- don't do it :shock:

as it results in substantial loss in throttle responsiveness and power range in exchange for smoother shifting.

Depending on his build date, he may not qualify. If his does, I would get it so that the TC doesn't explode.

bigcanoe · **Joined:** Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:33 pm **Posts:** 96

They already did the LBJ recall and the F37 "recall"...I have seen too much of the shop this last year.

sbohner · **Posted:** Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:17 am

So, what is the statistics on TC explosions? What are the root causes for the TC failures? So far, since DCX is not revieling the numbers, I only know of those reported on LOST KJ -- is it 3. While I'm sure the numbers are higher, the root cause is the most interesting part. DCX put a general purpose (for a gas engine) TC and automatic-tranny into a diesel powered product line. This type of design decision mirrors the debacle that GM had with the Oldsmobile Diesel and taking a gas engine and converting it to a diesel -- the diesel components do not play well with the other parts that have not been diesel engineered. Hence, we have a design flaw that DCX know about, but deployed anyway. According to the Uniform Commercial Code Section 2 on sale of goods, a known design flaw that results in failure is the responsibility of the manufacturer.

So, where do we go from here. Do we all dumb down the ECM to ensure the TC makes it through the warrantee period? Using that logic, we should all have the ECM set to the "Granny-mode" not to exceed 65 mph so that minimum wear and tear on the vehicles. This would and may actually result in safety issues where the CRD is unable to get out of harm's way. I beleive we should encourage DCX to repair their problem in the short term and save themselves considerable costs in the long term. This way the CRD lemon can be made into lemonade where DCX shows customer loyalty is warranted, and they stand behind their diesel entrants into the US market. Otherwise, they will be painted with the same brush as GM and the Oldsmobile Diesel.

DarbyWalters · **Posted:** Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:22 am

Plenty of current threads on F37 and Tranny/TC that are still on first page of this section.

dgeist · **Posted:** Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:57 pm

sbohner wrote:

So, where do we go from here. Do we all dumb down the ECM to ensure the TC makes it through the warrantee period? Using that logic, we should all have the ECM set to the "Granny-mode" not to exceed 65 mph so that minimum wear and tear on the vehicles. This would and may actually result in safety issues where the CRD is unable to get out of harm's way. I beleive we should encourage DCX to repair their problem in the short term and save themselves considerable costs in the long term. This way the CRD lemon can be made into lemonade where DCX shows customer loyalty is warranted, and they stand behind their diesel entrants into the US market. Otherwise, they will be painted with the same brush as GM and the Oldsmobile Diesel.

I feel compelled to mention something about the way this engine is tuned. The realistic amounts of torque we should expect out of a Turbo-diesel engine of this displacement are probably a little lower than DC marketed it at. If you look at similar diesel engines from other reputable manufacturers, you can see this: http://www.landyonline.co.za/workshop/international28lhs.html. That's the upgrade to the venerable landrover 300tdi (no computer controls, but hey...). In the case of International Engine, they actually tuned the thing to last (as people have come to expect from landrovers with diesels).

So, basically, we may have been duped just a little by DC and they probably "hot-rodded" the engines a little to make them more favorably compare to the V6s, but realistically, the re-programmed control module will probably increase the service life of the vehicle.

I paid for a jeep, not a hot-rod. The torque that it has after the reprogram is plenty to do nearly any daily driving, reasonably difficult off-roading, and light-medium towing. If that's not good enough for people, then sure, they might have some recourse getting something bigger/faster, etc. For me, though, I like the CRD and I'll be doing whatever I have to make sure it lasts a good long time.

Dan

bigcanoe · **Joined:** Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:33 pm **Posts:** 96

It went out for a long while, its back now. Bummer.

bigcanoe wrote:

A check engine light was coming on and off, and I took it to the dealer. Took them a week to get the parts and replace them. They replaced the EGR valve (2nd time in the last 6 months), a glow plug, and fuel injector. Thank goodness it was all under warranty, I am not gonna be able to afford this car once I have to pay for repairs out of pocket. Their diagnosis was I didnt drive fast enough to burn out the carbon, I need to get it out on the highway and floor it more.

On the way home, not 10 miles later, the CEL is back on.

crdmike · **Joined:** Tue May 16, 2006 7:25 pm **Posts:** 138

Unfortunately, the dealer will just keep replacing stuff until it goes off.

bigcanoe · **Joined:** Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:33 pm **Posts:** 96

I guess I better hope it gets fixed before my last 4000 miles on my warranty are gone. Can you get an extended warranty that will cover CELs?

offroadsubaru · **Posted:** Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:29 pm

dgeist wrote:

sbohner wrote:

So, where do we go from here. Do we all dumb down the ECM to ensure the TC makes it through the warrantee period? Using that logic, we should all have the ECM set to the "Granny-mode" not to exceed 65 mph so that minimum wear and tear on the vehicles. This would and may actually result in safety issues where the CRD is unable to get out of harm's way. I beleive we should encourage DCX to repair their problem in the short term and save themselves considerable costs in the long term. This way the CRD lemon can be made into lemonade where DCX shows customer loyalty is warranted, and they stand behind their diesel entrants into the US market. Otherwise, they will be painted with the same brush as GM and the Oldsmobile Diesel.

I feel compelled to mention something about the way this engine is tuned. The realistic amounts of torque we should expect out of a Turbo-diesel engine of this displacement are probably a little lower than DC marketed it at. If you look at similar diesel engines from other reputable manufacturers, you can see this: http://www.landyonline.co.za/workshop/international28lhs.html. That's the upgrade to the venerable landrover 300tdi (no computer controls, but hey...). In the case of International Engine, they actually tuned the thing to last (as people have come to expect from landrovers with diesels).

So, basically, we may have been duped just a little by DC and they probably "hot-rodded" the engines a little to make them more favorably compare to the V6s, but realistically, the re-programmed control module will probably increase the service life of the vehicle.

I paid for a jeep, not a hot-rod. The torque that it has after the reprogram is plenty to do nearly any daily driving, reasonably difficult off-roading, and light-medium towing. If that's not good enough for people, then sure, they might have some recourse getting something bigger/faster, etc. For me, though, I like the CRD and I'll be doing whatever I have to make sure it lasts a good long time.

Dan

I disagree. VW gets 140 hp and 240 tq out of the 2.0 liter TDi unit in the 2005-2006 Passat TDi in the US market. If that power and torque can come from 2.0 liters, one might argue that our CRD engines are understressed at 160 hp/295 tq from 2.8 liters. The Rover engines are old-tech non common rail units -- hence their low power ratings.

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

Quote:

I disagree. VW gets 140 hp and 240 tq out of the 2.0 liter TDi unit in the 2005-2006 Passat TDi in the US market. If that power and torque can come from 2.0 liters, one might argue that our CRD engines are understressed at 160 hp/295 tq from 2.8 liters. The Rover engines are old-tech non common rail units -- hence their low power ratings.

You are correct. DC didn't raise the hp/torque on the R428 for the US market, they actually lowered it! Taking the engine builder specs on this engine, they have it rated at 174.5 hp and 302 ft-lbs of torque. A similar displacment (2.8L) marine version from VM Motori is rated ~ 200 hp. Further reading on their site shows that they have 70% parts commonality of most engines of similar displacement, lower end components, piston liners, wherever possible to reduce manufacturing costs.

Altering key selling points, heavily advertised power specifications after the sale, to keep improperly spec'd drivetrain components from premature failure is an abysmal business practice. Looking at Chrysler today, its all too evident how this and other poor business practices worked against them. Its unfortunate that after these stunts were pulled on their customers, ultimately, DC employees now must pay a heavy price for their managements failure.

Pablo · **Joined:** Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:06 pm **Posts:** 1201

Ranger1 wrote:

Quote:

I disagree. VW gets 140 hp and 240 tq out of the 2.0 liter TDi unit in the 2005-2006 Passat TDi in the US market. If that power and torque can come from 2.0 liters, one might argue that our CRD engines are understressed at 160 hp/295 tq from 2.8 liters. The Rover engines are old-tech non common rail units -- hence their low power ratings.

You are correct. DC didn't raise the hp/torque on the R428 for the US market, they actually lowered it! Taking the engine builder specs on this engine, they have it rated at 174.5 hp and 302 ft-lbs of torque. A similar displacment (2.8L) marine version from VM Motori is rated ~ 200 hp. Further reading on their site shows that they have 70% parts commonality of most engines of similar displacement, lower end components, piston liners, wherever possible to reduce manufacturing costs.

Altering key selling points, heavily advertised power specifications after the sale, to keep improperly spec'd drivetrain components from premature failure is an abysmal business practice. Looking at Chrysler today, its all too evident how this and other poor business practices worked against them. Its unfortunate that after these stunts were pulled on their customers, ultimately, DC employees now must pay a heavy price for their managements failure.

Amen to all of that. I like the part about the Marine motors. It makes me wonder just what kind of sick motor this thing could be built into-- and probably not for much money (relative to rebuilding any engine). :twisted:

We have Suncoast and ATS for the tranny. BOSH has upgradable fuel injectors and other electronics up the wazoo and there is always InMotion to custom tune it all. Now all we need is a high flow snorkel intake, some exhaust headers and a big flexy lift...

MrMopar64 · **Posted:** Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:37 pm

The KJ engine is indeed underrated in terms of "maximum" ability. The engine is capable of 460 N-m torque before the in-cylinder pressure becomes too great and the aluminum head is stressed too much = bang.

ATXKJ · **Posted:** Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:41 pm

Okay - I could deal with 460 NM - or back it off to 450 for a safety factor - so what's the best path to get there???
not a rail pressure chip - turbo pressure? injector timing? - where do we go from here?

ATXKJ · **Posted:** Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:50 pm

Wait a minute - my unit conversions were off - that's only 330 ft/lbs - that only 10% over the original stock numbers - we gotta be able to do more than that.....

Just got the CRD back

Who is online