Wrangler CRD TC

CRDMiller · **Posted:** Thu Jul 23, 2009 8:58 pm

08 Wrangler with a 2.8 TD 545rfe trans
NUMBER QTY LINE SERIES BODY ENGINE TRANS TRIM DESCRIPTION
1 68037142AA 1 J, U EN0 DGQ CONVERTER PACKAGE, Torq
2 04736547 1 J, U EN0 DGQ O RING, T orque Converter Hub
3 01949765 4 J, U EN0 DGQ SCREW , Hex Head Header Point, 312 -24x.44

Moparpartsamerica has 68037142AA @ $195.50

06 Liberty CRD
NUMBER QTY LINE SERIES BODY ENGINE TRANS TRIM DESCRIPTION
T RANSMISSION A SSEMBL Y
NOTE:
Sales Codes:
[DGQ]=5 Speed Automatic T ransmission - [5-45RFE]
[EN0]=All 4/5 Cyl. T urbo Diesel Engines

1 05143976AB 1 U, J EN0 DGQ TRANSMISSION KIT , Automatic,With Stamp # [521 19462AD]
2 05175969AB 1 J, U EN0 DGQ CONVERTER PACKAGE, Torque
3 01949765 4 DGQ SCREW , Hex Head Header Point,.312 -24x.44

moparpartsamerica does not list 05175969AB or 05175969

Joe Romas · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:01 am

CRDMiller wrote:

08 Wrangler with a 2.8 TD 545rfe trans
NUMBER QTY LINE SERIES BODY ENGINE TRANS TRIM DESCRIPTION
1 68037142AA 1 J, U EN0 DGQ CONVERTER PACKAGE, Torq
2 04736547 1 J, U EN0 DGQ O RING, T orque Converter Hub
3 01949765 4 J, U EN0 DGQ SCREW , Hex Head Header Point, 312 -24x.44

Moparpartsamerica has 68037142AA @ $195.50

06 Liberty CRD
NUMBER QTY LINE SERIES BODY ENGINE TRANS TRIM DESCRIPTION
T RANSMISSION A SSEMBL Y
NOTE:
Sales Codes:
[DGQ]=5 Speed Automatic T ransmission - [5-45RFE]
[EN0]=All 4/5 Cyl. T urbo Diesel Engines

1 05143976AB 1 U, J EN0 DGQ TRANSMISSION KIT , Automatic,With Stamp # [521 19462AD]
2 05175969AB 1 J, U EN0 DGQ CONVERTER PACKAGE, Torque
3 01949765 4 DGQ SCREW , Hex Head Header Point,.312 -24x.44

moparpartsamerica does not list 05175969AB or 05175969

I've not yet had my second cup this morning but are you indicating that our torque converter is no longer available and maybe the 08 Euro one is possibly replacing it :?:

Goglio704 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:20 am

I've not had enough coffee either, but it would make sense to only stock one replacement. There is less incentive to go cheap now since a lot of these beasts are out of warranty.

GreenDieselEngineering · **Joined:** Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:10 pm **Posts:** 1111

Hi everyone,

If you're looking up Mopar part numbers that start with a leading zero, you have to drop the zero when looking up a part number. 5175969AB is $570 list/$393.30 your price at moparpartsamerica.com

For the JK converter, that is indeed the correct part number. However, the Mopar designation is for Export sales only so you can't purchase that part number from any dealer in the NAFTA market (mexico/US/canada).

Thanks,
Green Diesel Engineering[/i]

gmctd · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:18 pm

Unfortunately for the eager-beaver and young-at-heart (and a few token old-guys), 5175969AB is the self-same, one-of-a-kind, actual epitome of acme pinnacle wunnerfulness of original upgraded-from-4.7L-gasser (patooie!) TC as-shipped between the 545RFE and 2.8L CRD in yer KJ, thru '07 - read it and weep, bunkies................

68037142AA 1 J, U EN0 DGQ CONVERTER PACKAGE, Torq is the TC with installed o'ring, if purchased new
4736547 1 J is the o'ring if doing trans work where unit must be removed from engine and seal requires replacement

545RFE TCC - kit #'s are for TC with o-ring

Note: 4736582AD - p\n on QC label on upgraded KJ TC, no o'ring

5175969AA - '05 KJ TC kit

5175969AB - '06 KJ TC kit

68000336AA - '07 KJ - new p\n, same old TC

Note: 4736352AB - p\n on QC label on Hemi TC, no o'ring

4736587AB - '06 Hemi TC kit

4736587AC - '07 Hemi TC kit

And, DCJ's new revised p\n scheme makes it exceeding difficult to cross-reference actual hard-part numbers - gonna need a fresh box of kleenex tissues, eh........................

CRDMiller · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:49 pm

I cant believe that the up rated/w fancy injectors etc etc j8 and wrangler have the same tc..?

Jeep kills me, I swear they do.

MrMopar64 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:04 pm

The 2008 JK converter was improved in the lockup clutch and the damper assembly to accept a greater input torque. Internally it is not the same as the current KJ converter, hence a new part number. It is also the same reason why the 2007 JK only had a 400N-m rating.

Don't get your shorts in a twist just yet...

gmctd · **Posted:** Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:58 am

Ah - the plot thickens even as the knickers are bunching, the shorts are twisting, and killer bees are taking up residence in various and sundry bonnets....................

BTW, I need a stock '03-'05 4.7L TC and a pre-11\05 KJ CRD TC to round-out some surgical R&D - can be failed internally, long as the housing is undamaged - I'll spring for shipping - should be ~50 bucks on 42lbs via USPS Priority mail - just pack it in a leak-proof plastic lawn\garbage\equiv bag to prevent spills, and neither rain nor sleet nor snow nor dark of day shall stay the appointed delivery of that TC(s).....................

yakers · **Posted:** Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:54 am

Soooo, if I need a replacement TC in the near future, and if I can get the new PN whilst still residing in the US; is this a good (good enough) candidate for replacement rather than going with a Suncoast? Being a replacement PN would the trans computer have to be reprogramed?

Joe Romas · **Posted:** Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:34 pm

Depends on if your leaving the country

ReRead Green Diesel's reply

Then read the last line of MrMopar's reply :wink:

gmctd · **Posted:** Sat Jul 25, 2009 5:28 pm

So far, no one has reported any ill effects from installing the Suncoast TCC without an instant TCM relearn, and no one has reported any improved results by doing the relearn - TCM will make any necessary recalculations

Only a face-on full frontal nudity pic of that 'new and improved' TC will tell the tale - won't reveal a thing about the TCC damper configuration, which only affects lock-up, but impeller vane angle will highlite in stark detail how much slush was engineered into that great white hope.............

MrMopar64 · **Posted:** Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:48 pm

The K-factor hasn't changed. In all reality, a lower stall speed isn't what you want. For normal driving, sure you won't tell much of a difference because the engine is still able to move the car right along.

When towing a trailer, however, it's important to have the correctly matched K-factor so that when the converter is unlocked and you step on the throttle, the engine is able to rev up and gain a greater torque multiplication to accelerate the vehicle. Also, your launch performance with and without trailer will suffer (this has all been tested before and it really makes the vehicle driving not very fun since all the time the vehicle feels halfway in lockup) since your stall speed would be lower.

The lock-up/damper assembly were all upgraded to allow for the greater torque input during lockup which is the most important feature.

The ultimate solution would be to have a transmission that would, instead, lock up the torque converter in 3rd gear at 30 or 35mph, so on and so forth. This will give you the greatest gain in terms of fuel economy and driveability...

CRDMiller · **Posted:** Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:58 am

Obviously no tc will fix the fugly tcm programming, and i wont replace my tc until it fails or it's behavior changes significantly, indicating failure.

But if and when that happens, i hope that i can order a better tc from mopar/jeep.

I would murder for a manual control for the 545, or at least a better programming. The first company to provide either, gets my cash. In a ideal world we would have a odb/usb connector and a nice software program to easily change what we wanted......... but I digress.

For clarity's sake, if i were to order 68037142AA, would i not recieve the tc from a up rated piezo injected crd/545rfe? if so, would not this tc be better than the tc I have, and would this tc perhaps not knock my teeth out from 21-30+ psi from 1800-2200 rpm? If not, then what is the part number for said tc. GDE says I cant buy one and this is the correct part for the new one.

Locking up into third at 30 would be great, if i did not have shudder, and i'm sure it would, at least when you get on it/tow. (our current tc)

I don't think there is a user here that would not buy a affordable tc from jeep, and most of us would kill for pre f37 and or programmable shifts.

gmctd · **Posted:** Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:31 am

While I agree on the early TCC lock-on-demand, those K-factors do not take into account the difference in production and availability of lo-rpm btu output of a Diesel engine vs those other engines - when the fuel is trucked in with the intake air charge, low-rpm output is only a hoped-for dream - add fuel (increase fuel\air ratio) to get black smoke and flooding - but, allow those engines to rev with an appropriately-mated (read: slush) TC and the air flow increases to which added fuel begins producing power - slush is good for rpm-power engines

Oth, a Diesel engine pumps it's designed full displacement of air in each 4-stroke cycle - run it horribly 'lean' and it merely idles - add fuel to suit at nearly any rpm off-idle and BTU output begins to increase way beyond those other engines - load it at lo-rpm and BTU's increase drastically - add a magic Bar-increaser, dump even more fuel and exhaust gas flo increases even more drastically, eg-temps increase drastically, to which increased exhaust energy the Bar-increaser responds merrily, and you get max torque in the range of 1500-1700rpm - add a slush-verter that won't allow full hydraulic coupling until 2200rpm, and you're wasting a lot of fuel, merely converting that power into hydraulic-fluid therms - a turbo-charged Diesel engine needs lo-stall to work the turbo - lookit how much faster an auto-trans Diesel leaves the line vs an identical manual-trans version which cannot get equiv turbo spool-up with unloaded rpm - yeah, you can lock the brakes with one foot, load-up and slip the clutch with the other foot, mash the loud pedal with the remaining foot to get rapid spool but with burned clutch disk, pressure plate and flywheel - scary

While n\a Diesels like a little slush, use that same transmission with it's oem-spec'ed TC on the turboDiesel version in the same chassis and the stall magically increases by ~400rpm, not even good for efficiency and economy

The most significant improvment everyone notices with the Suncoast Hemi-verter is the increased lo-end response, well B4 the TCC locks, ruling out the advertised racing upgrades to the clutch - that improvement is resulted from the lo-stall properties of the oem hemi-verter, nothing more - torque multiplication is still 2.1:1, decreasing as turbine speed approaches impeller speed, usually 1:1 at some point between 2nd and 3rd gears, yet the improvement is readily obvious to that most universal of critics, the ole buns-dyno - slush is bad for turboDiesels

There is a ray of hope for the other camp, as the newer d.i. gasoline engines such as which powers the Saturn\Pontiac roadster do better at lo-rpm torque in a light chassis, but not nearly as well as Diesels because they still need rpm and a throttle plate to maintain stoke at any rpm

nursecosmo · **Posted:** Sun Jul 26, 2009 4:24 am

Amen!

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:54 am

GMCTD makes sense with the greater torque from the DI Turbo Gasser. Audi, VW and Mazda have production cars with DI Turbo Gasser engines that are accepted by the consumers. My Fuel Systems Engineer Brother at ford tells me that 2011 will be the debut of Ford's DI Turbo gassers.
They are doing this to increase fuel economy and reduce emissions, not because they, "Locked and Taged Out the Bean Counters". too bad.
I plan to stick with Diesel as long as I can.

gmctd · **Posted:** Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:01 pm

Yep - direct injection allows oem's to produce smaller-displacement gasoline engines that are equally as powerful as their larger brethren, resulting in increased efficiency and economy due to less operational friction and lighter assemblies - reduce mechanical overhead and load capability increases

Uffe · **Posted:** Sun Jul 26, 2009 4:07 pm

What you need is a DSG, in essence.

danoid · **Posted:** Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:15 am

Please see this thread.

http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=45411

danoid · **Posted:** Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:28 am

And as far as transmission / torque converters in general go...

I've heard both sides of the loose / tight torque converter argument and there are valid points to both. A tight torque converter can yield better low end throttle response, but unfortunately, due to the way the EPA test is performed (30%?) of it is sitting still. This requires more fuel at idle (can't put it in neutral) and actually lowers the EPA City sticker value.

The solution is to get rid of the torque converter IMO. So Uffe is on the right track with a dual clutch transmission, but there is another step. Look here http://eahart.com/prius/psd/ for a good explanation.

But trust me, I'm not advocating the Pruis, just it's transmission concept. In our hybrid Hemi Durango, city fuel economy went from 13 to 20 mpg, a huge difference in the amount of fuel used. All things being equal (which they never are) my 22 mpg CRD could theoretically now hit 33 mpg EPA City.

The beauty of this system is that it decouples engine rpm from wheel rpm. You no longer have 4-8 choices (transmission speeds) you have an infinite number of gear ratios. This allows the engine to concentrate on making torque, not power (something diesels are really really good at) and makes the output rpm the responsibility of the transmission, where it belongs. I've been lobbying for a while to take an old Durango and plop a VM 2.8 in it. I don't think anyone will really notice the drop in crank torque (385 lbf-ft for the Hemi vs. 340 lbf-ft for the CRD) but we could see some really goofy fuel economy numbers...

Wrangler CRD TC

Who is online