F 31 Recall/ EGR Repair cost me 3 MPG!

Flying J · **Posted:** Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:46 pm

Jeep sees about 100% stop and go traffic, and has been consistantly at about 20 MPG (both hand calc and by the EVIC) since new. Had the F 31 recall and EGR repair done about 60 miles ago and the EVIC is now reporting 17.1! I reset it after I left the dealer.

I'm going to run by my local diesel station and make sure they didn't switch to ULSD since the last fill up, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case. I'm also going to check things out and make sure the tech didn't disconnect a vacuum line or something somewhere. Hopefully this is just a coincidence and the next tank will be back to normal. Or maybe the EVIC is lying to me.

Anyone else had this issue with F 31? (GD5092 - did your MPG come back?)

On the positive side, the tranny shifts a lot smoother.

I'll update this post when I get more miles on it and hopefully more data.

Ripster · **Posted:** Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:54 am

I have noticed that my mileage took a hit from the 18-009-06 to the latest flash before the F recall
one. In otherwords, my best mileage was before the last two flash releases. So if you do not stay
back at the 009 for my 05 you probably will see a hit on mileage, best I can do now is 27, I used to
see 28-29. I should have passed on the 18-023-06 and just waited. I am done experimenting, unless
I get a letter F-31 won't even be tried.

Flying J · **Posted:** Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:50 pm

Put another 30 miles on it and its now up to 17.3. :cry:

At $3.23/ gallon this isn't funny.

I did call the station and they have not changed to ULSD yet. (I was mildly surprised the clerk even knew what I was talking about)

If you get a letter on the recall, it pretty much threatens your warranty if you don't take it in. It says: "...In order to assure your full protection under the emission warranty provisions, it is recommended that you have your vehicle serviced as soon as possible. Failure to do so could be determined as a lack of proper maintenance of your vehicle..."

Ripster · **Posted:** Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:15 pm

Right but I don't know if any of us that got the 18-023-06 got the recall letter.
I have nothing. My dealership did get three sets of ball joints, tried to get 15 more
and there were none to have, I have an appointment, they also got a letter on the
recall.

KenJennings · **Posted:** Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:35 pm

Flying J wrote:

Jeep sees about 100% stop and go traffic, and has been consistantly at about 20 MPG (both hand calc and by the EVIC) since new. Had the F 31 recall and EGR repair done about 60 miles ago and the EVIC is now reporting 17.1! I reset it after I left the dealer.
... Or maybe the EVIC is lying to me.
Anyone else had this issue with F 31? (GD5092 - did your MPG come back?)
...

The EVIC is always lying to me. I calculate mpg by hand with each fill up and the EVIC averages at least 2 mpg higher than reality. I do 90% highway driving and I get the same 21 mpg (real mpg) after the tranny flash that I was getting before the flash. But, now shifting isn't so violent.

richardkf · **Joined:** Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:15 pm **Posts:** 167

KenJennings wrote:

Flying J wrote:

Jeep sees about 100% stop and go traffic, and has been consistantly at about 20 MPG (both hand calc and by the EVIC) since new. Had the F 31 recall and EGR repair done about 60 miles ago and the EVIC is now reporting 17.1! I reset it after I left the dealer.
... Or maybe the EVIC is lying to me.
Anyone else had this issue with F 31? (GD5092 - did your MPG come back?)
...

The EVIC is always lying to me. I calculate mpg by hand with each fill up and the EVIC averages at least 2 mpg higher than reality. I do 90% highway driving and I get the same 21 mpg (real mpg) after the tranny flash that I was getting before the flash. But, now shifting isn't so violent.

The EVIC is not average miles per gallon per tank, it's average miles per gallon from the time you start the CRD. It makes sense that it is a few miles higher than average. If you do mixed stop&go and some highway cruising, you're going to a lower per-tank miles per gallon calculation when you do it manually, and a higher average miles per gallon average on the EVIC since it is basically just for "this trip"

KenJennings · **Posted:** Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:48 am

richardkf wrote:

KenJennings wrote:

Flying J wrote:

Jeep sees about 100% stop and go traffic, and has been consistantly at about 20 MPG (both hand calc and by the EVIC) since new. Had the F 31 recall and EGR repair done about 60 miles ago and the EVIC is now reporting 17.1! I reset it after I left the dealer.
... Or maybe the EVIC is lying to me.
Anyone else had this issue with F 31? (GD5092 - did your MPG come back?)
...

The EVIC is always lying to me. I calculate mpg by hand with each fill up and the EVIC averages at least 2 mpg higher than reality. I do 90% highway driving and I get the same 21 mpg (real mpg) after the tranny flash that I was getting before the flash. But, now shifting isn't so violent.

The EVIC is not average miles per gallon per tank, it's average miles per gallon from the time you start the CRD. It makes sense that it is a few miles higher than average. If you do mixed stop&go and some highway cruising, you're going to a lower per-tank miles per gallon calculation when you do it manually, and a higher average miles per gallon average on the EVIC since it is basically just for "this trip"

Every time my CRD started the computer picks up where it left off with the MPG estimate. It does not reset itself. It seems to be a continuous "average". The dealer reset the computer twice for TSB flashes and the mileage calculation was reset to the starting point of 16mpg.

The computer does not appear to me to be giving an average or any sort of analysis related to fuel consumption. It seems to be awarding points that it deceptively presents as MPG for what it considers "good" driving style.

When I got the CRD an F350 (turbo diesel) driver told me his driving style for high mpg is to shoot for the lowest rpms that a gear will allow -- the theory being that lower RPMs means less fuel burned. The EVIC liked this this behavior a lot. I was driving around the highway at 59 mph in OD (and 1625 rpms on the tach) embarassed, but getting EVIC scores around 26 to 28. However, every calculation at fill up told me I was only getting about 21mpg +/-1mpg.

Then I hear from actual CRD owners that it works best in the power band from 1800 to 2000 rpms. So, I've been driving around like that for a couple months. So, now I can drive about 65 to 70 on the highway and not get ugly stares. The EVIC isn't so appreciative now and hands out scores from 22 to 24. But, when I hand calculate mileage at fill up I'm still not doing any better than before. Still right around 21mpg, plus or minus.

So, I can't figure out what the people are doing who say they're regularly getting 24, 26, 28 mpg. I can't duplicate it. Maybe they're just reading the computer and thinking its truthful. (I have no extraneous junk colelction in the vehicle. Most of the time the CRD is carrying me and a laptop. So, its not like I'm having problems due to toting around excess weight)

If DC can't get the computer to show real tank MPG, I think they should have it show a 30 second calculation of fuel use extrapolated for some distance. (My father-in-law's car does this.) Maybe just a smiley or frowning face instead. At least then the fill ups wouldn't be so depressing.

Cowcatcher · **Posted:** Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:58 am

Ripster wrote:

Right but I don't know if any of us that got the 18-023-06 got the recall letter.
I have nothing. My dealership did get three sets of ball joints, tried to get 15 more
and there were none to have, I have an appointment, they also got a letter on the
recall.

I received mine a couple of weeks ago Ripster. I am waiting for the BJ to do them both together.

If you didn't get the 18-023-06 done or the dealer didn't perform it prior to sale then you would not get the recall.

no-blue-screen · **Posted:** Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:29 am

Cowcatcher wrote:

Ripster wrote:

Right but I don't know if any of us that got the 18-023-06 got the recall letter.
I have nothing. My dealership did get three sets of ball joints, tried to get 15 more
and there were none to have, I have an appointment, they also got a letter on the
recall.

I received mine a couple of weeks ago Ripster. I am waiting for the BJ to do them both together.

If you didn't get the 18-023-06 done or the dealer didn't perform it prior to sale then you would not get the recall.

According to the recall, 18-023-06 is not subject to the recall as it was just released on 7-14. The flashes subject to recall are the flashes from March of 2006. So the opposite would be true....if you got the 18-023-06 TSB done, then you wouldn't get the recall. You would only get the recall if you had the march-06 TSB done.

cerich · **Posted:** Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:06 am

I don't have a evic on my 05 Limited CRD, I hand calculate always, I also always get 23.5 24.5 mpg highway at 75-80mpg, if I do 60 for a stretch I get 26-27.

groucho · **Posted:** Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:00 pm

I have decided to file a complaint with the NC Attorney General concerning the continual stream of "flash" TSBs for the TC and the BCM Recall, the F31 recall and the upcoming LBJ recall. It is obvious that the vehicles have serious transmission problems and there is a safety issue with the LBJ problem. I am also including the TSB concerning seat spotting as the white spots have returned and I want new seats, not simply seat covers. Seat covers are not an option for the model, which would constitute an unacceptable, after-market fix. Although I have not yet had an issue with EGR, I shall also mention that, as it appears the most frequent complaint. It is important since the warranty for that "emissions" control device is magically reduced by DC, as though it was not an emissions control device.

F31 is an open admission by DC that they have violated EPA emissions regulations. How can a faulty programming issue be "inadvertent"? "Inadvertently" is lawyer talk designed to CYA. The use of that term by DC is akin to an MD claiming that he "inadvertently" removed the wrong organ during surgery. While DC claims it is simply an issue with third-party scan tools, I think that EPA should have the opportunity to examine a CRD to determine if the Emission Standards for this particular vehicle are in fact being met. I am going to contact them and offer my little wagon for testing. Obviously, it must be a more serious problem than DC wishes to acknowledge as they put this nonsense in front of the LBJ issue which directly involves safety of operation. I assume fines for EPA violations are more the threat than anticipated lawsuits from individuals who have been dumped onto the highway by failing front ends.

I think it obvious that DC has used CRD purchasers as beta testers as there is a continual, unending stream of "fixes".

This formal complaint will join the last one, which concerned the warranty, to which DC has not responded apparently, as a good deal of time has transpired. Doubtless, DC inadvertently forgot to answer the NC Attorney General's inquiry.

Since all this crap likely will not qualify as a Lemon Law issue, it never-the-less should be obvious that the vehicle is seriously flawed in design and construction. Consequently, those keeping the vehicles, at least in my State, should have free, continuing repair of the affected parts until at least some point far out in the future. As a for instance, DC should be required to demonstrate to NC officials that the vehicle indeed meets the Emissions standards for which it is certified. My guess is that it wouldn't meet the standard, thus the recall(s).

BCool · **Posted:** Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:01 pm

I've had the 8-09 and the 8-23 done and I'm getting better mileage, I just recieved my recall letter and have yet to have it performed. My last trip cruising 83 I got 27.6 and cruising 80 on the way back I got 28.6. So far that is the best we've gotten and this is through mountain passes and steep driving, I-15 from vegas to salt lake.

jeep06 · **Posted:** Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:40 pm

I had mine done about 10 days ago, was wondering what my mileage was going to do too. Went on my usual 80 mile weekend drive, combined city/highway and it still checked in at 25+mpg (hand calculated). I have found on my EVIC that the MPG is not really responsive when I drive, it takes forever to update. But, if I put the EVIC on MPG and hit the reset button, it is more like real time mpg updating it with every little change in throttle, hills etc. Still not as accurate like the hand calculator in my book.

richardkf · **Joined:** Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:15 pm **Posts:** 167

KenJennings wrote:

richardkf wrote:

KenJennings wrote:

Flying J wrote:

Jeep sees about 100% stop and go traffic, and has been consistantly at about 20 MPG (both hand calc and by the EVIC) since new. Had the F 31 recall and EGR repair done about 60 miles ago and the EVIC is now reporting 17.1! I reset it after I left the dealer.
... Or maybe the EVIC is lying to me.
Anyone else had this issue with F 31? (GD5092 - did your MPG come back?)
...

The EVIC is always lying to me. I calculate mpg by hand with each fill up and the EVIC averages at least 2 mpg higher than reality. I do 90% highway driving and I get the same 21 mpg (real mpg) after the tranny flash that I was getting before the flash. But, now shifting isn't so violent.

The EVIC is not average miles per gallon per tank, it's average miles per gallon from the time you start the CRD. It makes sense that it is a few miles higher than average. If you do mixed stop&go and some highway cruising, you're going to a lower per-tank miles per gallon calculation when you do it manually, and a higher average miles per gallon average on the EVIC since it is basically just for "this trip"

Every time my CRD started the computer picks up where it left off with the MPG estimate. It does not reset itself. It seems to be a continuous "average". The dealer reset the computer twice for TSB flashes and the mileage calculation was reset to the starting point of 16mpg.

It displays the average miles per gallon, based on where it left off from the last trip. It then recalculates for the current trip. It is Average miles per gallon for this trip, not for this tank. Otherwise, it would also need to be able to take into account each time you refueled (the miles to empty calculation does this) and it would need to continuously re-calculate each time you started the CRD, based on the current tank of fuel (again - miles to empty). It does not do any of those things.

It is convenient to have for long trips (average miles per gallon) where you are cruising hundreds of highway miles in a single trip - and probably close to accurate under those circumstances. It is, otherwise, just an average "ball park" figure and not to be counted on down to the 1/10th of a mile. Under every other condition, you'd need to keep hand calculating to get an accurate average mile per gallon figure since a new tank of gas doesn't reset the calculations that it does.

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

If any of these latest TCM flashes change the shift points so that the tranny holds lower gears longer before shifting, it certainly could lower mileage. The only reason I can think of for changing shift points to hold lower gears longer would be to keep the tranny pump at higher revs if it's not running fast enough in a diesel application to keep the pressure high enough. It certainly wouldn't be for a lack of low rpm torque. Without the specs on that pump, its hard to tell. It would be nice to know what the minimum rpm is required for nominal operating pressure. DC clearly changed its design for a reason.

The question I have is the new tranny pump going on all the newer 545RFE's or just the HEMIS and CRD's?

Cowpie1 · **Posted:** Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:11 pm

Regarding the desire to contact state Attorney Generals about the constant stream of PCM and TCM flash updates: I doubt if you will get anywhere since this is typical for ALL computer controlled diesel engines.

I have had two reflashes done on my 2006 Volvo semi and one on my 2006 CRD. Their is a constant flow of these software upgrades out of the manufacturers. Usually, they are not applied unless the user is experiencing problems. The only reason I got the ones for my semi is that it went to the dealer for other problems and he just went ahead and did the updates.

Mechanical problems such as the LBJ's may get somewhere with the government though.

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

Quote:

I doubt if you will get anywhere since this is typical for ALL computer controlled diesel engines.

What's not typical is the incidents of TC locking up in dangerous traffic situations. Not normal at all. The constant stream of TCM updates, when taken in context with the tc failures, is both unusual for this transmissions previous history and in terms of overall vehicle safety as measured against what is considered normal failure rates in live traffic. In context of this CRD application, it's an issue. If it continues to fail on live systems, at some point someone will be involved in an accident.

If the user who had his next egr valve failure denied warranty by the dealership hadn't contacted VM Motori, he wouldn't have them going on record saying that they believe the muffler is not the cause of EGR failures. You sometimes have to do these things, if for nothing else to get it on record. You just don't know when critical mass is reached and a government agency decides to look into it. Who is to say what motivates them to decide if ball joint failures are worse than TC transmission lockups in traffc.

cerich · **Posted:** Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:28 pm

Ranger1 wrote:

Quote:

I doubt if you will get anywhere since this is typical for ALL computer controlled diesel engines.

What's not typical is the incidents of TC locking up in dangerous traffic situations. Not normal at all. The constant stream of TCM updates, when taken in context with the tc failures, is both unusual for this transmissions previous history and in terms of overall vehicle safety as measured against what is considered normal failure rates in live traffic. In context of this CRD application, it's an issue. If it continues to fail on live systems, at some point someone will be involved in an accident.

If the user who had his next egr valve failure denied warranty by the dealership hadn't contacted VM Motori, he wouldn't have them going on record saying that they believe the muffler is not the cause of EGR failures. You sometimes have to do these things, if for nothing else to get it on record. You just don't know when critical mass is reached and a government agency decides to look into it. Who is to say what motivates them to decide if ball joint failures are worse than TC transmission lockups in traffc.

Lets look at theis , 1
Just over 100 complaints lead to the LBJ recall, that affects 800,00 vehicles. That is very close to 1/10 of 1%. If we get 13 complaints we have 1% of the North American market complaining on the sudden stop danger that occurs when the TC/Tranny goes south. Someone IS going to get hurt over the tranny problems, we have a chance to prevent that by raising a stink now loud enough that the govt. and Dc can't ignore. At the very least when someone does get hurt our complaints and warnings done officialy will assist the victim/family secure funds to deal with the aftermath.

Jeger · **Posted:** Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:59 pm

cerich wrote:

Ranger1 wrote:

Quote:

I doubt if you will get anywhere since this is typical for ALL computer controlled diesel engines.

What's not typical is the incidents of TC locking up in dangerous traffic situations. Not normal at all. The constant stream of TCM updates, when taken in context with the tc failures, is both unusual for this transmissions previous history and in terms of overall vehicle safety as measured against what is considered normal failure rates in live traffic. In context of this CRD application, it's an issue. If it continues to fail on live systems, at some point someone will be involved in an accident.

If the user who had his next egr valve failure denied warranty by the dealership hadn't contacted VM Motori, he wouldn't have them going on record saying that they believe the muffler is not the cause of EGR failures. You sometimes have to do these things, if for nothing else to get it on record. You just don't know when critical mass is reached and a government agency decides to look into it. Who is to say what motivates them to decide if ball joint failures are worse than TC transmission lockups in traffc.

Lets look at theis , 1
Just over 100 complaints lead to the LBJ recall, that affects 800,00 vehicles. That is very close to 1/10 of 1%. If we get 13 complaints we have 1% of the North American market complaining on the sudden stop danger that occurs when the TC/Tranny goes south. Someone IS going to get hurt over the tranny problems, we have a chance to prevent that by raising a stink now loud enough that the govt. and Dc can't ignore. At the very least when someone does get hurt our complaints and warnings done officialy will assist the victim/family secure funds to deal with the aftermath.

You are right cerich, we need to look at this not only as an opportunity to get our vehicles fixed but more importantly as an opportunity to prevent someone from getting seriously hurt or even killed, if it hasnt happened already.

s_allcroft · **Posted:** Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:06 am

Maybe the SOFTWARE for our JEEPS in made by MicroSoft.. I mean MicroSoft does atleast as many software updates.. Perhaps MORE...

F 31 Recall/ EGR Repair cost me 3 MPG!

Who is online