Moses Ludel

Paul, following the logic and even the consumer or legal issues involved here (i.e., the Jeep KJ being capable of towing as consumers would expect and the vehicle maintaining its "normal" resale value), the simplest solution for Chrysler is to assure that the same measure used in the U.S. is acceptable to UK VOSA. At the U.S., the Mopar tow hitch furnished and installed under the N46 recall apparently complies with the U.S./NHTSA agreement. Acceptable distance between the tow bar and the fuel tank must be part of that Chrysler/U.S. NHTSA N46 agreement. A similar agreement between Chrysler and UK VOSA would make that same tow hitch an acceptable solution for the current UK safety recall. Since Chrysler has designed and supplied the special non-towing cross brace for UK VOSA safety recall requirements, that device could be an option for owners who currently do not want a tow hitch installed on their Jeep KJ models. Those with the Witter or other tested and approved UK aftermarket hitches could also be considered here. If you want to keep your Witter or other aftermarket hitches, and if they meet the safety standards and fit dimensionally like the Mopar tow hitch, then that could be an option. If the Witter or other aftermarket hitches do not fit or match the build of the Mopar tow hitch, those who currently tow could at least get their Witter or other UK aftermarket hitch replaced for free with the accepted Mopar tow hitch described under the Chrysler/U.S. NHTSA N46 solution. Considering the facts shared by UK members at this forum topic, this is not a complicated situation. Am I missing something here? The only thing that needs to happen is for Chrysler and UK VOSA to agree that the U.S. NHTSA N46 solution is acceptable. Moses

Janet, if logic prevails, the properly rated Mopar tow hitch and the cross-brace should each be considered solutions for the safety concern. You found clear statements/documents that your KJ Cherokee is suitable for towing under UK standards. If Chrysler and VOSA simply work with the existing facts and the precedent set by the NHTSA/Chrysler agreement at the U.S., there could be a quick and sensible resolution. Moses

Welcome to the forums, Mario! These kinds of issues are usually electrical connection problems. For Jeep vehicles in the 1990s, there is a common trouble spot at the connector behind the instrument cluster. This often causes gauges and warning lights not to function properly on the Jeep XJ Cherokee and Jeep Wrangler. The Grand Cherokee uses as similar wiring and connector setup. Here is how the problem is solved with the XJ Cherokee: http://www.4wdmechanix.com/How-to-XJ-Cherokee-Erratic-Gauges-Fix.html. Read the article and see if this could be your problem, a good place to start. Sometimes, just cleaning the plug contacts with electrical cleaner and re-installing the connector plug with dielectric grease is enough to cure the problem. Otherwise, as I did, you can replace the connector and splice in a new one. I would first try disconnecting, cleaning and reconnecting the plug at the instrument cluster. If the problem goes away but comes back much later, you can consider a new connector plug. Regards! Moses

That does look like confirmation, Janet. If so, Chrysler and UK VOSA need to work out a safety solution similar to the U.S. NHTSA agreement. The U.S. solution is installation of a Mopar rated and functional tow hitch, which forum member "belvedere" and others have described. The tow hitch solution is the N46 recall agreement between Chrysler and U.S. NHTSA. The Mopar tow hitch solution for the UK should be rated to comply with the Jeep KJ tow capacity as recommended by Chrysler. If non-towing KJ owners want to opt for the cross brace installation instead of the tow hitch (i.e., they don't want a tow hitch for some reason), that could be part of the UK agreement. Owners who do want a tow hitch could have the Mopar tow hitch installed to comply with the safety recall and use their vehicle for towing if desired. Upon resale of the vehicle, if the KJ has a cross-brace in place and the new owner wants the approved Mopar tow hitch, the tow hitch could be retrofitted (at the new owner's expense) and meet the safety requirement. Moses

Jmyers...Sounds like the OD and Tow/Haul switch mechanism or circuit is faulting. The temp light flash could be as simple as a poor connection issue or intermittent open/short, although I still suggest checking the actual transmission and cooling line heat with a simple thermal gun test. That way you can eliminate concerns about a real overheat. In particular, make sure the transmission cooler is dropping the temperature properly. The check valve you describe is the cooler line anti-drain back protection for the torque converter, a subject that I've discussed at these forums and also cover in-depth at the magazine. Review this article and the Sonnax solution: http://www.4wdmechanix.com/Survival-Upgrades-for-Jeep-and-Dodge-Ram-Automatic-Transmissions.html. You do have the drain back problem that I discuss. Startup with no immediate gear engagement means the fluid has drained back and left a very low fluid level within the torque converter. As you'll discover in the article, there are also more valve body issues that can develop, in particular the manual (shift) valve sticking in Park. When you have that delay before gear engagement, the front pump bushing in the transmission is susceptible to running dry, causing premature front pump bushing failure. This is a Chrysler RWD transmission issue that dates back to the 904 and 727 three-speed automatics, predecessors to the later electronically controlled, four-speed automatics, including the most advanced, strongest and last of these transmissions, our 48RE. Moses

The best outcome is as I described in my last reply. At the U.S., Chrysler/Mopar has offered a safe hitch assembly for the KJ "Liberty" and Grand Cherokee models since their release. To simplify the N46 safety concern, Chrysler and NHTSA apparently agreed that installation of this Mopar hitch would suffice as a suitable safety barrier for protecting the fuel tank. At North America, in particular the U.S., there was no limitation placed on the use of this Mopar hitch for towing. (The vehicle has a stated tow capacity or trailer weight limit, and the hitch must meet or exceed that capacity.) When fellow forum member "belvedere" initially posted this topic, the described solution made sense with regard to the U.S. market KJ Liberty models. Janet later enlightened us that in the UK, a hitch-less brace was substituted for the Mopar hitch to meet the VOSA safety requirement. Janet found her KJ suitable for toting horses as an equestrian. Other forum members from the UK have noted using their KJ Cherokee as a tow vehicle for toting caravans and work trailers. Replacing an existing trailer hitch with a cross brace changes the vehicle's use. This raises key questions: Please clarify for me whether towing with a KJ Cherokee prior to this recall was considered an acceptable practice at the UK. Was the KJ marketed and sold new with the understanding that it could be used for towing? Since UK forum members have mentioned specific brands of tow hitches available for the KJ Cherokee models, were these hitches sold and installed at the UK as a common and acceptable practice? Did they meet a safety standard that assured owners that the KJ Cherokee is an acceptable tow vehicle? Did the hitch installation practice meet UK VOSA standards and guidelines? Simply put, was the KJ considered a bona fide tow vehicle at the UK under VOSA standards? Prior to the fuel tank safety recall, did the KJ Cherokee meet VOSA standards for towing the trailers that UK forum members describe? I'm unfamiliar with UK/VOSA standards and what VOSA regards as safe practices. I'm also unclear how these Jeep vehicles were represented by Chrysler and its dealers for purchase and use at the UK. Forum member "Paul" shares his point of purchase experience regarding the KJ's towing ability. Paul also mentions materials presented by the dealer at the time he purchased his Jeep new...These are the clear issues in the current dilemma. From what UK forum members have shared, this sounds like a rush to judgment by Chrysler and VOSA on how to resolve a safety issue. Both Chrysler and VOSA need to weigh the impact on Jeep KJ Cherokee owners and work out a suitable and reasonable solution. Moses

Jmyers...Welcome to the forums...First off, you have an earlier 2007 with the 5.9L Cummins engine and 48RE four-speed automatic. Sounds like you might have an issue with either the Tow/Haul switch mechanism at the lever or within the circuit for the Tow/Haul mechanism. Also, on my '05 3500 with the 48RE, the Tow/Haul function can be reprogrammed (a software reflash) to serve as an overdrive lockout. In this case, the Tow/Haul function and button circuit is converted to a switch for opting in and out of the OD mode. As an aside, I have considered re-flashing my Tow/Haul to be an OD lockout. The Tow/Haul mode, other than boosting the shift apply pressures, is not to my liking other than its grade hold function, which can be accomplished with braking then manual downshifting and hold. (I do like Tow/Haul for providing downgrade support, including intuitive downshifting and holding in the lower gears with a load in tow.) The knocking back and forth between overdrive and 3rd gear, however, is always brutal on any four-speed overdrive automatic, whether Chrysler, Ford, GM, Aisin or ZF. I would prefer being able to simply switch out the overdrive mode and hold 3rd gear when desired, like on long upgrades or even downgrade compression braking. Instead, I'm altering my speed to protect the transmission from knocking between OD and 3rd gear. Does your setup have a function for both OD lockout and Tow/Haul mode? Please clarify the normal function for your transmission with regard to OD and Tow/Haul modes. I can provide insight into deeper problems in the system or within the transmission itself, but that might be premature if the issue is an intermittent short in the OD or Tow/Haul button mechanism or that wiring circuit. The transmission temperature, unless you have an aftermarket gauge on the transmission pan, requires troubleshooting. If the transmission is actually hot enough to trigger the alarm, that's a problem. So if that sensor system is accurate, and you have an actual overheating problem, I would suspect transmission cooler clogging. How many miles do you have on the truck? These coolers are prone to clogging at higher mileage if debris like clutch friction or band material and thrust wear from within the transmission finds its way to the cooler. Another issue is a defective thermal valve at the cooler when stuck in the cold operation bypass mode. Fluid circulates around the cooler instead of through its core. I would perform some tests...With the truck warmed after a good run, preferably under load, take an infrared thermometer and probe the input side of the transmission cooler and supply line from the transmission. (The cooler is in front of the radiator on the 5.9L Cummins applications.) This can be done with the engine idling and in Park with the parking brake set. Probe from under the hood, don't get under the truck. Then probe the return line in the same way. There should be a distinct drop in temperature between these points across the cooler. Also check the core of the cooler at different areas. See if there are any hot or cool spots. You can probe the transmission case and the transmission oil pan temperatures with the engine shut off after a loaded run. The infrared thermometer can be held some distance from the heat sources to protect yourself. Chock wheels if sensible, set the parking brake, make sure the transmission is in Park, the usual precautions before crawling under the truck. Avoid hot areas and risk of burns. A thermal sensor/gun is a valuable troubleshooting tool. It doesn't have to be an expensive one. I use mine for many automotive troubleshooting chores. Moses

Understood, Janet. The loss of insurance and inability to drive your vehicles is a considerable concern. This issue is compounded by the consumer/owner impression that these vehicles were capable for tow use. Apparently, UK/VOSA has its own view of which vehicles are safe for towing. Chrysler and UK VOSA need to work out a clear and universal remedy for all KJ owners. Optimally, for each party concerned, Chrysler will pursue these approaches: 1) getting tow status for the Jeep KJ at the UK, allowing fitment of the Mopar N46 hitch solution, or 2) devising an acceptable safety brace or device that meets the safety recall demand and will still allow for fitment of a safe tow hitch, including the Mopar N46 tow hitch assembly or the hitches that several forum members have previously purchased in the UK, or 3) get VOSA to recognize Mopar and certain aftermarket tow hitch/brace assemblies as an acceptable remedy for the N46 safety recall demand. Fully agreed that in the meanwhile you all need to use your vehicles and have access to insurance. Livelihoods, transportation needs and your investment in these vehicles are real considerations. Thanks for taking the high ground, Janet. See if that works in an expedient timeframe. I'll continue to provide space for the course of action and forum post content that you deem necessary. Note: As the administrator/moderator of these forums, I use discretion when statements become libelous or overly inflammatory. I understand the sensitive nature of this situation and the Jeep KJ owner stakes. The emotional charge is fully justified, and I'm a proponent of our right to free expression. At this point, maintaining the high ground has merit. Give Chrysler and UK VOSA an opportunity to sort out what must be a conflict between a vehicle's known capabilities (based upon recognized Jeep KJ tow capacities at the North American market under U.S. NHTSA standards) and the UK/VOSA interpretation of the N46 safety recall requirements. As this N46 dilemma resolves, I look forward to ongoing Jeep KJ topic posts and replies from UK and European forum members. Thanks for your enthusiastic participation! Moses

Paul, I certainly understand the frustration expressed by each of the European and UK members who have joined these forums and posted at this topic. I encourage this free discourse and information exchange. These forums provide an opportunity for sharing information that in this case should lead to a sensible solution. I recommend that you not post Mr. Zanlunghi's personal or corporate Email address. Mr. Zanlunghi has a clear message from numerous consumers and an opportunity to do the right thing here. His role is within a corporation, and the overall responsibility to meet customer needs lies with Chrysler/Jeep® and Mopar™. Janet Brown sent Chrysler a clear message, and others have supported her position. Chrysler has the opportunity to make remedy around your expectation that Jeep KJ models are suitable tow vehicles within their capacity and load limit. Mr. Zanlunghi's office has committed to a response, and his office now has a mounting stack of letters from individual owners. Chrysler, whether through Mr. Zanlunghi or other staff, has a responsibility to provide a suitable solution here. Janet Brown took the high road and presented Chrysler with facts, details and an opportunity to respond. Stick to the high road here. Thanks, Moses

Aside from emission legality and getting a vehicle smog legal at California, New York and many other states now, the four-cylinder engines seem the limit for a lighter 4x4 truck. Fit-up for the 5.9L Cummins (ISB or "In-Line-Six") engine would be troublesome, and the Cummins ISB engine is not even a candidate for Ram 1500 model frames or geartrains. From what I've seen, the successful swaps are the 3.9L "bread truck" engines or Cummins 4BT. Here is a listing from an aftermarket rebuilder that includes both "off-highway" (construction) and automotive/truck applications: http://www.pilotengines.com/servlet/Categories?keyword=Delivery-Cummins-3.9L-B-Series. This is not the cleanest burning engine but very reliable. The engine that I had targeted for the magazine's very own XJ Cherokee was the 3.9L Isuzu diesel four. Later, larger versions of this engine have very clean tailpipe readings and can put out considerable power. In my research for 50-State legal possibilities, California had closed the window on this kind of swap in 2009, as the Isuzu applications are medium duty truck chassis, and the XJ Cherokee is "passenger car/light truck" category for emissions. That left me with the Euro turbo-diesel passenger car engines like the Volkswagen TDI, and I lost interest. Here's the Isuzu 3.9L in its many forms: http://www.busbeetruckparts.com/isuzu-engines?gclid=CjwKEAiA7ZajBRCpur2xi47n1zkSJADqV2WlR3X_K333j_iVS2-PDri4Mp76xe6Y8Uz4nlxdfYoIFhoCsVTw_wcB. Or try this complete run-down for Isuzu engines and applications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Isuzu_engines. There is a firm that makes an adapter for the 3.9L Isuzu to a 700R4 GM transmission, and my guess is that they enjoy a reasonable market for those who don't face smog obstacles. We should be able to do this swap legally as before 2009 in California—only required a change in fuel type on the registration! Better tailpipe emissions are clear, which is supposedly what smog agencies care about. Either the Cummins 4BT or an Isuzu 3.9L or bigger inline four sound appealing! For weight savings, the Isuzu inline four diesels have the advantage. In either case, the flywheel is massive and heavy. Moses

Biggman100...I have provided a PDF covering 1994-96 Dodge Dakota truck front axles. Note that the Dakota 4x4 is the "N5" model designation for parts purposes. There were three OE axle ratios available: 3.23, 3.55 and 3.90 for these front axle differentials. As you can see from the axle differential and parts descriptions, there was no factory limited slip available. Rear axle limited slip was available: Front Differentials for 1994-96 Dodge Dakota Trucks.pdf From a quick parts glance, the rear axles are 8.25" Chrysler and available as open differential or limited slip, looks like a multi-plate Trac-Lok. If you have the 8.25" rear axle in your trucks, there is currently an 8.25" article at the magazine from when I rebuilt the XJ Cherokee axle and upgraded with an aftermarket ARB Air Locker. You should recognize this axle: http://www.4wdmechanix.com/Moses-Ludel-Rebuilds-the-Jeep-XJ-Cherokee-8.25-Chrysler-Axle.html. See if it looks familiar. Available rear axle ratios in the Dodge Dakota N1 (2WD) and N5 (4x4) were 3.21, 3.55 and 3.90. (Yes, the 3.21 is matched to the 3.23 front axle ratio.) The Chrysler 8.25" has wide aftermarket coverage for ring-and-pinion and axle ratio changes and options. (I did 4.10 and could have gone to 4.56 with aftermarket offerings.) Your Dodge Dakota front axle, however, is a relatively small 7.25" ring gear Chrysler design. Similar to the 8.25", the 7.25" may not have much aftermarket support for gear ratio changes unless the Dodge Dakota is more popular than I realize. Other than possible AWD car/van applications, this Chrysler 7.25" front axle could be a Dodge Dakota truck design only. You can research the aftermarket ring-and-pinion offerings for the 7.25" front axle and let us know what's out there. If lift kits and oversized tires were popular enough on the Dakota, there may be sources for other gearing options on the 7.25" N5 front axle. Otherwise, you have the OE ratios, period. The XJ Cherokee with the 8.25" rear axle uses the common Wrangler/Cherokee Dana 30 front solid beam axle. This does not interchange with your IFS front axle Dodge Dakota setup nor will Dana gears fit a Chrysler built axle. Moses

Hi, Joel...This sounds like a classic case of a cooling system thermostat stuck open. If so, the simple fix is to replace the thermostat. Obviously, this is a good time to flush the cooling system if necessary. Make sure there is adequate anti-freeze in the system and that it has circulated thoroughly through the engine, radiator and heater core. I'm guessing that you're in a cold climate. The 2.5L diesel in a 1997 model Jeep must be at Europe or an export model. This engine was not a U.S. market option. You're lucky to have a diesel XJ Cherokee! Can you share details about the performance level of your Cherokee? Let us know if the thermostat cures the cold engine and no heater issue...If you need parts illustrations or part numbers, we can provide them! Moses

If your riding "team" can see its way into the Baja No Pinch tool, fiddling with tire mounting and loose spokes will not be so daunting. In my T63 Michelin tire mounting video, I touched on "spoke tuning". Could be your spokes are just loose, and if so, careful restorative tightening without distorting the rim is possible. I like to do this with the tire off. You can even use the wheel shaft as a makeshift "truing stand". The trick with tuning spokes is to not over-tighten at one area of the rim, which can distort the "round" of the wheel. Keep in mind this is a hub with a suspended rim, and over-tightening a spoke can pull the rim out of center. Avoid tightening spokes with the rubber rim band and tube in place, as turning rusty spoke nipples will chew up the rim band and even the tube. Tire dismounting and mounting, wheel truing and chain tension setting, consider all of this basic survival skills when riding in the outback. Your neighborhood is much like ours, I can ride 120 miles at a stretch without crossing a paved road. I'm due for a chain and sprocket set on my XR650R and will share details, likely a video of that project. Came as a surprise, but apparently the teeth on the aluminum rear sprocket had worn the teeth narrow. The side-float of the chain allowed too much chain movement laterally, which chewed up the rubber chain guide, and the replacement will be part of the pending project. I'll do some research on the best aftermarket solutions. Have been considering an aluminum body/steel tooth rear sprocket to extend service life. The fresh uncorked engine and hotter camshaft are putting out ponies, add to that the racks and bags plus the 6.3 gallon Acerbis fuel tank, all in all has produced an added load on the final drive system! Time to pay here, a 60-mile brisk highway ride on Sunday finished off the rear sprocket. I actually sensed this intuitively and decided to convert to the Borrego tail rack, dropping to the two saddle bags for lighter riding ventures. In the process of this easy changeover (thanks, TCI Products for a simple, interchangeable rack system!), I discovered the rear sprocket damage. I will hold to the tank bag and light tail rack system unless planning a lengthy campout. These Honda XR650R motorcycles are deceptively powerful bikes, especially at our level of tuning! Not surprisingly, all of the extra add-ons did not diminish the performance level. The rear sprocket shows it. Moses

You're reading this right, Biggman100. The resistor is the motor speed controller. Using a digital volt-ohmmeter, I would check the voltage reading at each of the four blower switch terminal connectors (LOW, N1, N2 and HI). Set the heater blower switch in each of these speed positions, hold the meter's negative probe to ground and the positive probe to the terminal stud for the switch position you're testing. You should get varied voltage readings for each switch position. You could have a defective heater/blower switch or resistor. The resistor acts like a rheostat, with each switch position providing more or less resistance. This translates as the amount of voltage supplied to the blower motor, which changes the motor/fan speed. I'd target the blower control switch and rheostat, since the blower motor itself seems to work fine with direct current applied. Keep us posted! Moses

On the radar screen...I've not been there, the name of the park comes up often in hardcore wheeling circles from the East Coast. Thanks much for sharing and opening this topic, Biggman100. Feedback from users of the park is certainly welcome! Moses

Every once in a while we stumble onto some down to earth humor and genuine entertainment. All dirt bike riders who are now 50-or-older or will someday be that age will appreciate this 8-minute time out. Congratulations to these Down Under riders who know how to have a good time—and obviously have their priorities in order! Enjoy! Moses

I wondered about the stamina of these products. Thanks for clarifying, Biggman. Maybe we need to look at true commercial grade equipment...Anyone have experience with a cost-effective, stronger bead breaker that is portable enough for field use? Do we need to make a prototype and share the dimensions and materials? Winter is coming, a good time for welding projects! I'm willing... Moses

The bikes and riding venue look incredible, David! Your Honda XR650R motorcycle is a standout, for sure... You'll like the bigger rear tire, my T63s are doing very well, you'll need to adapt with regard to "dual-sport" versus true "dirt" tires. I've been looking at the Baja No Pinch tire mounting tool, it would have been useful in your recent scenario. The tool made Dirt Rider magazine's Product of the Year for 2014: http://www.bajanopinch.com/baja-no-pinch-tire-tool/. Since you ride together and have a very cool support vehicle in the Yamaha Rhino, the Baja No Pinch with the spindle adapters (fits all common axle bores) would be a good "club" investment. Carried in the Rhino tool pack, you could each benefit from this device in the field. Just add tire spoons for dismounting and a quality tire tube patching kit! Trust your peg bolts are up to grade, there's the replacement bolt upgrade, which I believe you already installed, right? Very pleased that you're riding and enjoying that Honda XR650R. Like a U.S. dual-sport conversion, the Euro version with street legal equipment does not diminish the bike's wicked potential! Be safe and keep us posted, you're gaining on the dirt riding. It would be interesting to share impressions about your extensive asphalt riding experience and the transition/comparison to riding dirt. Do I see a hot new topic here? Moses

This is good mileage in either case...Often, a bigger engine can often save fuel in a working truck. I have always liked inline six-cylinder engines for their inherent balance and torque potential. Long-stroke engines like the Chevy 292 or Ford 300 produce very good torque. Years ago, the Chevrolet/GMC 292 inline six was one of my favorites for torque output and dependability, although its piston travel was debatably threatening to the life expectancy of the engine. Despite its many merits, the 292 seldom outperformed or delivered better fuel efficiency than the over-square 283, 327 or even 350 V-8s. The Ford 300 inline six, with tremendous torque, often used more fuel than a comparable truck with a 302 V-8. Sometimes, "There's no substitute for cubic inches!" Sounds like the Dakota 3.9L V-6 has a lot going for it. Not sure how the weights compared between the two loaded trucks. If similar, the 3.9L V-6 certainly did a respectable job! Moses

Thanks for clarifying, Biggman...I was trying to be tactful. It sounds like what one could expect from an "alcohol" fuel, here are some details about acetaldehyde: http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/hlthef/acetalde.html. This is a mild, non-committal version as we would expect from this agency. I'm sure there are other accounts with more conclusive evidence that acetaldehyde is toxic, carcinogenic and developmentally harmful. It has been argued that the real beneficiaries of ethanol fuel are corn producers and refineries. Human beings and livestock might be better off eating corn than feeding it to internal combustion engines. I'd like to see figures on how much vital soil and cropland have been shifted to ethanol fuel production. There are people starving that could use the food version of corn, and silage grade corn can feed domestic animals. Cropland is vital, and the soil bank shrinks every year. Moses

Both models use the Model 18 Spicer transfer case. Frames are different due to inline six-cylinder (FC170) versus F-head inline four-cylinder (FC150) engines. To clarify, here are the frame dimensions for each, you can measure what you have in the barn finds. The FC170 cab is obviously bigger: Jeep FC150 FC170 Frames.pdf I thought of your "find" while filming at the 2014 SEMA Show. Here is a "treat", the FC170 set up for a harsh winter in your neck of the woods. Tracks are not "stock", obviously a contemporary upgrade: You can open the brief video to full-screen viewing...Enjoy! Moses

Wow, very low mileage on this one, KeriOkie! For a Cummins Ram truck, this is a great find, barely broken-in! I looked at the pics. Other than color, you have essentially the same truck we bought new as an '05 model ten years ago. If the truck is bone stock and you're after mileage, your "new" Ram 3500 is in the best form it will ever be. With the 48RE automatic and 3.73 axle gearing, if you run the engine between 1600 and 1900 rpm, you will gain maximum fuel efficiency. As others like Megatron note, don't do heavy throttle dead starts or hold the transmission in lower gears under high rpm sprints. Running empty, using mild throttle at this rpm range can yield 23-24 mpg if that's your aim. I have recommended engine tune reprogramming for modified and weightier models that have already gone over the cliff with fuel efficiency losses. For stone stock gearing, stock tire size, no lift or colossal add-ons, Chrysler had this truck dialed for fuel efficiency in stock form. Yes, the Hypertech 'Max Energy' programmer bumps up horsepower and torque but at a higher rpm (2100 rpm torque peak instead of 1600). If you experiment with this approach, there is a high, mild and stock performance setting. Megatron talks about a programmer that has push-button settings, which would be handier than the software "reprogramming" necessary to change modes with the Hypertech setup. Try driving the truck as-is and enjoy it for a bit before considering any modifications or changes. Assuming it has stock engine programming now, you're in business for power and fuel efficiency within the 1600-1900 rpm range. For fuel efficiency, the closer to 1600 rpm, the better! My very best mileage when stone stock without a load was 25 mpg, done over a 500-plus mile test (Reno, Nevada to Portland, Oregon) with varied road and load conditions, driving mostly between 1600-1800 rpm. All of us need to keep in mind that extracting latent horsepower and torque from a turbo-diesel like the ISB Cummins comes at a price: heat and fuel consumption. If we boost horsepower or torque and stay in the throttle to realize these gains under severe loads, the result is engine-killing heat and huge losses in fuel efficiency. If you intend to push an ISB Cummins diesel, I heartily recommend a pyrometer, installed pre-turbo in the exhaust manifold (without leaving drill or tap debris in the manifold!) to monitor maximum exhaust manifold temperatures! Apply less right foot pressure to lower temperatures. Keep us posted on this gem of a find! Moses

Very interesting, Megatron...Let us know how this fits up and works out. Apparently, you eliminate the weighty damper in the process? Please update, would be great to upgrade and get rid of the "vibes" in the process... Moses

Megatron...Very curious how the aluminum driveshaft does. I have an OEM driveline vibration, too, and would like to lighten up the driveshaft while remedying the problem. Who makes the alloy driveshaft? Off the shelf or custom built? Also curious whether you're changing out the rear axle pinion flange to accommodate the 1480 joint. There's a crush sleeve on the 11.5" AAM pinion shaft. If you change the flange, use care to secure the flange without altering the crush sleeve's thickness. The crush establishes the pinion bearing pre-load. Let me know if you have to change the pinion flange. I'll provide some insight around installing a new flange without lousing up the preload on the pinion bearings—and at the same time, making sure that the pinion nut (install a new one, they are self-locking type) is secure. This can be done! Moses

Great to see your post, Megatron!...I do understand busy and welcome your return, always worthwhile to other members and the large number of guests who frequent our forums! Thanks for the thoughtful questions and the humor that never ceases to put a smile on my face when I read your comments. I spent time at the 2014 SEMA Show visiting with the Sonnax crew. Sonnax, as I've shared in the past, has the "fixes" for OEM quirks in automatic transmissions. They have a variety of valve body plus major hard parts upgrades for the 48RE. (Click to my coverage of the Sonnax valve body fix for the 48RE.) The key tech person at Sonnax walked me through their line of "survival" items for the 48RE transmissions. Since I do my own manual and automatic transmission rebuilding, when (not if) the time comes, Sonnax will be my source for upgrade parts and, more specifically, the survival items needed for the Chrysler/Ram truck 48RE automatic transmission. The good news: According to Sonnax, my favorite source for identifying and fixing the minor and major quirks in automatic transmissions, the 48RE is a great transmissions! This uplifting view will come as a shock to those who cruise truck forums and find the cryptic remarks and negative comments about these transmissions. Even in stock form, the 48RE bears the legacy of the A-727 three-speed automatic transmission, stepped up from a three-speed to a four-speed overdrive. The overdrive design went through the A518, 42RE, 46RE and 47RE iterations before Chrysler boastfully claimed that the 48RE was its most rugged automatic transmission built to date. (This coincided with a boost to 610 lb-ft torque and 325 horsepower from the Cummins 5.9L HO engine.) This statement was reason enough for our purchase of the 2005 Ram 3500 4WD Quad-Cab with HO Cummins new in the fall of 2004. The truck just celebrated its tenth birthday. There must be some truth to this, as both Sonnax and BD improve and upgrade this transmission. BD would otherwise be selling a conversion kit for installing an Allison automatic behind a Cummins diesel engine...On that note, I stumbled onto such a mate-up. A local CAT and heavy equipment repair facility bought two used 12-valve Cummins 5.9L ISB engines with Allison automatics attached. The source: worn out UPS delivery vans that went to scrap. Anyway, with our confidence restored in the 48RE, and your healthy "investment" in the BD transmission with all of its performance and durability modifications in place, transmission fluid does come up as a survival and maintenance concern. I cleave toward BD's recommendation on this one: OEs know their transmission needs. Without reducing the merits of Royal Purple or Amsoil products in the least, and I have used Amsoil in many performance applications over the years, the key to automatic transmission survival is a quality fluid that will work with the friction materials in the clutch assemblies and also overcome the critical issue of foaming. This insight came years ago around the issue of Ford Type-F transmission fluid versus GM Dexron. Those of us with indelible grease under our fingernails recall the horror stories about using the wrong fluid in a Ford versus GM automatic transmission. Eventually, Ford got tired of making a proprietary issue out of friction materials that demanded the use of a special ATF. When I rebuilt vintage automatic transmissions professionally in more recent times, I was relieved to find that parts suppliers provided replacement clutch packs with Raybestos "universal" friction materials. These frictions could survive with popular, readily available Dexron-based ATF chemistry. Today, Ford recommends Dexron-Mercon ATF for its contemporary transmissions. So, it's not about the planetary gear sets, bearings, thrusts or the heat factor, as a multitude of modern synthetic ATF brands can satisfy these needs. The role that synthetic ATF plays is clear. When I began promoting Mobil 1 ATF synthetic in the 1980s, data revealed a 50-degree Fahrenheit drop in fluid temperatures by simply switching to a synthetic base stock. This is now an industry standard, as heat destroys automatic transmissions. Considering that BD recommends "OEM" fluids, and presuming in the process that BD uses OE compatible friction materials in the build, I would stick to the OEM ATF or its equivalent. Here, I want to be specific. When referring to "equivalent", I don't mean "compatible". We're concerned about the chemical engineering that goes into the replacement oil. We could get carried away here and toss in with Mopar as the only source for our ATF-4 fluid. I personally have used the Mopar ATF-4 and felt good about it. There are Mopar sources online and elsewhere that will whittle the price substantially, so price is not always the deal breaker. On the other hand, Mopar is not in the oil refining business, and its lubricants are private label products that come from reliable mainstream producers. Surely Mopar dictates that these ATF products meet the needs of its transmission designs and engineering. I'm not aware who fills the Mopar ATF-4 bottles with fluid, and if I knew, out of courtesy to the brand, I'd not broadcast the source. However, it's safe to say that there are traditional oil producers at North America that do make equivalent products. After engaging the debate on the Jeep AX15 manual transmission lubricant, a beaten to death topic across the 'net, I rediscovered something learned when I was a young adult and light/medium duty truck fleet mechanic in the late 1960s. I worked closely with NAPA commercial parts, including Valvoline oil products. The lesson was that companies like Valvoline offer specific lubricants for distinct applications. When everyone had an opinion about the correct AX15 lube, I turned back to Valvoline, and they have some interesting things to share! After debating AX15 transmission lube to the point of exhaustion, I came up with the Valvoline manual transmission fluid catalog: Valvoline Transmission Lube Catalog.pdf. For automatic transmissions, here's the Valvoline approach: http://www.valvoline.com/products/consumer-products/automatic-transmission-products/automatic-transmission-fluid/. Lo and behold, they have a Chrysler licensed and approved ATF-4 transmission fluid! Here's the MSDS and some additional product details: Valvoline ATF-4 Product Information.pdf. So, you have pricing leverage at the least. Licensed and approved is well beyond "compatible". Valvoline ATF-4 is definitely an option. Would I take the Valvoline approach? Yes, if I could not find the Mopar label product at a reasonable fare. Is this Valvoline the same oil? Who's to say. I will say that many fleet operators have a strong affinity for Valvoline products. And what really matters here is two-fold: 1) what BD recommends for maintaining the warranty, and 2) how often you change fluid. The latter point is crucial, as automatic transmission fluid does break down. Most fluid changes are just the pan capacity drain and fill, which "replenishes the additive package" in trade parlance, it does not drain out nearly enough fluid to consider this a true change. "In the day", including my history with automatic transmissions, the torque converter had a drain plug or two, and this enabled draining the converter with each fluid change—not failsafe but surely a lot more fluid exchanged. Automatic transmission flushing machines have become popular, and that appeals to me. Some fast-lube centers offer this approach. Unfortunately, many of these facilities do not drop the pan or change the filter, which I find scary. Flushing plus a filter change make far more sense. Pan dropped, you can see debris and signs of wear in the pan. Unless instructed otherwise by the flushing machine manufacturer, I would clean the pan thoroughly and change the filter before flushing an automatic transmission. A remote filter with the BD transmission is actually a great feature. Presumably, the OE filter remains in place. Right? If this is a canister spin-on type filter, you can dissect the filter and check for metal and frictional material in the filter. I would periodically drop the pan, inspect the debris, clean the pan and change the filter. There is a periodic band adjustment on this transmission, which should be mentioned in the BD instructions or maintenance literature. Back to flushing, this is the only way to clean out the converter unless BD has an alternative like a drain plug(s) on the torque converter. Flushing is useful because the machine will exchange the fluid in both the transmission unit and the torque converter. The BD sounds like one durable, rugged transmission build! Your custom converter will help tremendously, too. Do you know the converter stall speed? You won't be shy about towing or any 5.9L Cummins mods now, and a 150K mile warranty is surely a sign of good faith on BD's part. If you're drawn toward the Valvoline ATF-4, confirm with BD that the "licensed and approved" by Chrysler statement is proof enough that the fluid meets BD's standard. Moses