Moses Ludel
-
Posts
4,447 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Store
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by Moses Ludel
-
-
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:
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
-
Jeepstroker...The 3-speed manual transmissions offered for light duty trucks through the 1970s were replaced in the 1980s with the four- and five-speed light duty overdrive transmissions (T5 Warner, Aisin AX4, AX5 and AX15 and others). These became the base transmission offerings to meet emissions requirements and fuel efficiency.
In the 3-speed era, the most rugged transmissions were the T85 and T89 Borg Warner units and the Chrysler/New Process 3-speeds used in big engine muscle cars. None of these transmissions were designed to handle 800 horsepower. I will note that the T85 and T89, or the Chrysler muscle car units could handle an honest 400-425 horsepower.
From 1957 onward through the muscle car era, the "high performance" transmissions were always four-speed units like the Borg-Warner T10, the "Rock Crusher", the Saginaw GM and Muncie units and the Chrysler New Process transmissions. These were all-synchromesh on forward gears and designed for drag racing and even track use in the Corvette or Trans Am cars. The T10, in particular, was a popular swap into Jeep CJ 4x4s used for sand drags or hill climb competition with engines to 300 horsepower or so.
I believe that for 800 horsepower and a manual transmission, you need a heavy-duty truck transmission, one designed for the bigger Ram 2500/3500 with a Cummins diesel engine or even a medium-duty truck. Shafts, bearings, gear size and tooth contact area, the overall stamina for the kind of torque you describe requires the use of an NV4500 or NV5600 transmission.
In fact, there are many XJ Cherokee models with the NV4500 behind a modified 4.0L engines. Advance Adapters can furnish adapters for this transmission to the stroker 4.0L engines you build. In my Jeep CJ Rebuilder's Manual (Bentley Publishers), I feature an NV4500 in a CJ-7 Jeep with a Dana 300 transfer case. I also used this transmission in a Toyota Land Cruiser FJ40 with a 350-plus horsepower 383 Chevrolet stroker V-8, the 4x4 is featured in my Toyota Truck & Land Cruiser Owner's Bible. I used a fresh Toyota transfer case behind it. For 800 horsepower, I would use an Advance Adapters' Atlas II transfer case.
In my view, there was never a 3-speed manual transmission built to handle torque and horsepower in the 800 HP range. Even WWII GMC "deuce-and-a-half" 4x4 trucks built from 1942 forward used the GM SM420 four-speed with compound low gear. This SM420, by the way, has been a very popular Jeep 4x4 retrofit transmission since the 1950s, usually attached to a Chevy V-8 engine conversion or at least a V-6 transplant. Jeep used the BW T98A truck four-speed in many '50s to 1971 models, replaced by the T18 four-speed option in the '70s. Four-speed truck transmissions were always more rugged than the base 3-speed offerings, including the Jeep CJ's BW T90, T86, T14 or T15. And none of these truck four-speeds are as strong as an NV4500 or NV5600.
Is there a reason why you would not consider the NV4500 5-speed transmission, a conversion that many have done with the XJ Cherokee, Jeep CJ and the Wranglers? Why the need for a three-speed manual transmission? Again, a more rugged three speed automatic transmission (GM Turbo 400, Chrysler 727A Torqueflite or a Ford C-6) could be built to barely withstand this kind of horsepower.
Moses
-
Connercop...I purposely geared the Ram 3500 to reach 2000-2100 rpm at 65-69 mph highway speeds. The "new" torque peak rpm (2100) with the Max Energy program is in step with maximizing fuel efficiency at the torque peak. In my case, 65 mph is 1980 rpm, 2100 is close to 69. This is with 34.6" diameter tires and 4.56:1 gearing.
In addition to mileage, my aim is to see 500K or more trouble free miles out of this Cummins 5.9L and squeeze as many miles out of the 48RE as possible before I personally pull it and do the rebuild. (When the transmission needs rebuilding, I have a list of Sonnax upgrade parts planned to extend its life for the next go-around.) The way I drive and tow, the 48RE is still quite viable at over 140K miles. I did tow your gross vehicle combination weight for about 600 miles total, several round trips during a shop equipment move. The route included an 8 percent grade with a standing start at its base, which we did five times...and the 48RE has survived to this point.
What I have learned is our trucks' sensitivity to weight, gearing and engine speed. I just returned from the Las Vegas SEMA Show. For those familiar with US. Highway 95 from Fallon, Nevada to Las Vegas, this is a peculiar road, and I'm sure you have them in your area as well. There is gradual climbing to Tonopah/Goldfield (the first 200 miles from Fernley). Goldfield is 6,100 feet, and Las Vegas is 2,184 feet, with 184.2 miles between these points. I ran the Ram with only auxiliary fuel, my unladen weight approaching 9,000 pounds with full fuel. Downhill for much of the 410 miles from Fernley to Las Vegas got me a whopping 24 miles per gallon! I only used 17 gallons over this section. On the return trip, same route, I used the 17 gallons to reach Beatty, only 120 miles from Las Vegas. The whole trip averaged 20.4 miles per gallon.
The moral of this story is that load and weight make a dramatic difference in mileage. In my experiences, loads decrease mileage far more than downgrades tend to increase mileage. I knew that when I added accessories, a lift and oversized tires, plus auxiliary fuel capacity, that the mileage would suffer. And it has. The direct gearing correction for the oversized tires would have been 4.10:1 when compared to the original 3.73 gearing. I will say with certainty that 4.10s would not have restored fuel efficiency and more than likely would have the 48RE on my workbench by now. Today, AAM offers 4.30:1 gearing (not available when I changed gears), and this might be worth a try. Or like your plan, I could try to squeeze larger tires under the fenders, perhaps a true 36" diameter. In the long run, that might be a better gamble, as we can restore tire size more readily than changing ring-and-pinion gear sets.
In earlier discussions, I mentioned the Gear Vendors overdrive as another option. You have a very busy setup with the six-speed manual transmission already, and perhaps the Gear Vendors overdrive would complicate this further. The entire premise is maximizing engine torque through split shifting, finding just the right gear for each occasion and load. To understand this premise more thoroughly, I suggest looking at the Gear Vendors approach: https://www.gearvendors.com/4x4dmanual.html. The charts confirm the sensitivity of gearing and its relationship to torque and horsepower. You can see how dramatically a subtle change will impact the balance.
When I installed the Hypertech Max Energy program with the highest output setting, the manufacturer was certain that there would be a substantial mileage gain from this single change. Unfortunately, to make that comparison would have taken me back to the stone stock truck, with no accessories, stock gearing and OE tire diameter. I made all of the current modifications before trying the Max Energy programming. If you do make this upgrade with no other changes to your Ram truck, please share the gains! This would be valuable to others considering the software program re-tune.
Moses
-
Woodstock...The SEMA Show was huge and productive, I'm always glad to go, it's great to get home, too! Have HD video to share at the magazine, footage in post-production now.
The full transmission flush is useful in any case at this mileage. This could relieve a problem, and at the least, this will reduce risk of obstructions or sludge within the transmission. The cooler inside Wrangler radiators seldom clog, and if they do, engine coolant temperature generally rises or becomes erratic.
Critical ground points will be obvious: battery to engine, to the frame, to the body. Check these grounds and the PCM or transmission controller grounds. A simple check is the ohmmeter resistance reading from the battery to the device. For more accurate testing, ground circuits can be tested with a lamp load test. Here's more info on that test: http://forums.4wdmechanix.com/topic/429-testing-ground-and-wiring-circuits/?hl=%2Blamp+%2Bload+%2Btest.
I'm not sure about your climate. If humid, there is risk of poor connections and oxidation at plug connector contacts. (This can occur from water fording as well.) Connector oxidation is typically a "black" coating or tarnish at the contacts. This is difficult to remove and should never be scraped with sharp objects. A good electrical contact cleaner and Scotch Brite pads work best for me, and I start with "Fine" grade. Brush rather than scrub if you need to clean up small contacts. Larger ground eye-ring terminals and attachment points can be cleaned with a more aggressive approach. Battery acid corrosion cleans up well with baking soda, water and a brush. Wear eye protection and protect painted surfaces.
As for the time I allot to the forums, members' questions are always worth addressing! Members are a great bunch of enthusiasts, DIY mechanics and shop personnel seeking credible and even urgent answers. That's my job!
Moses
-
Hi, jeepstroker!…Can’t think of any manual 2 or 3-speed that will handle 800 horsepower. (An Atlas II transfer case, by itself, would be a 2-speed that could handle this torque.) For 800 horsepower, racers use a racing version of the Powerglide 2-speed automatic transmission. Advance Adapters might be able to configure an adapter for the 4.0L Jeep engine to a Powerglide or the GM Turbo 350 or 400 3-speed automatics, which can be rebuilt and upgraded to handle this high horsepower. Manual transmissions that can handle the torque you describe typically use a 4-speed, 5-speed or 6-speed “truck” type platform.
Also, Jeep used the Chrysler 727A automatic, a three speed. This same transmission design was also used behind Dodge/Plymouth 426 hemi muscle car engines and in Dodge class A motor homes. You could adapt a 727 Torqueflite from a late 1980s to 1991Grand Wagoneer to the Jeep engine. The AMC 360 V-8 is the same bellhousing pattern as your 4.0L. A racing build 727 Torqueflite could handle 800 horsepower. You will also need a transfer case that can handle this torque is you are running 4WD and low range. The Advance Adapters Atlas II, well tested in 4x4 truck and Ultra4 racing, can handle this kind of torque.
If you still want a manual transmission, you need an NV4500 or NV5600 truck transmission for this kind of torque and horsepower…See NV4500 adapters to the 4.0L engine at Advance Adapters: www.advanceadapters.com. Any passenger car or light duty/compact truck or Jeep XJ Cherokee/Wrangler transmission will not handle this horsepower. Advance Adapters can supply the adapters and likely a rebuilt NV4500 transmission. There will be driveshaft length changes needed.
Moses
-
Connercop...In the PDF I provided on the 2006 Ram models, I also found that there is only a listing for the 3.73 gears with the 6-speed NV5600 transmission. Your rpm at 60-65 mph in overdrive (6th gear) would indicate otherwise. Here is the NV5600 ratio data for the 2006 models from the PDF linked above:
TRANSMISSION: NV5600—MANUAL, SIX-SPEED OVERDRIVE
Availability____________________________________Std. with 5.9-liter high-output diesel engine
Description_________________________________________________Synchronized in all gears
Gear Ratios
1st_______________________________________________________________________3.21
2nd______________________________________________________________________1.83
3rd______________________________________________________________________1.41
4th_______________________________________________________________________1.00
5th_______________________________________________________________________0.82
6th_______________________________________________________________________0.63
Reverse__________________________________________________________________4.44
Overall Top Gear Ratio_________________________2.72 with 3.73 axle; 2.99 with 4.10 axle ratio
Note that the final drive ratio is a 2.72:1 equivalent in 6th gear overdrive with the 3.73 axle. With 4.10:1, the final drive ratio equivalent in overdrive (6th) is 2.99:1. Your tires should be in the 31.4" to 31.6" diameter range depending upon wheel rim width and tire manufacturer. Let's use 31.5" as a baseline. At 65 mph, this translates to 1886 rpm for the 3.73 ratio axle in 6th gear and 2073 rpm for 4.10:1 axle gearing in 6th gear. There is a distinct difference. Your data for 65 mph (speedometer presumed accurate), with the corrected tach rpm, is clearly the 4.10:1 axle.
You can very simply determine the rear axle ratio with the vehicle's rear axle and tires perched safely off the ground. Mark a tire and the driveshaft position with chalk. Rotate both wheels simultaneously one exact revolution forward while counting the driveshaft rotations. You need to rotate the wheels together in order to cancel the differential's effect. (Sometimes this will occur naturally if you have a limited slip axle.) This is the actual ring gear rotation. The pinion shaft will multiply the number of rotations based upon the ring-and-pinion gear tooth counts. If the driveshaft rotates 3.73 times, you have 3.73 gears. If the driveshaft rotates 4.10 times, you have 4.10 gears.
Another way to do this is with the differential cover removed, like when you're changing the lube with the wheels off the ground. Mark the ring gear or tone ring and rotate it exactly one rotation while counting the pinion shaft/driveshaft rotations. You'll once again be looking for either 3.73 or 4.10 rotations of the pinion shaft/driveshaft to one rotation of the ring gear.
Moses
Jeep KJ Liberty N46 Recall Trailer Hitch Fix
in Jeep® Liberty, Commander, Patriot and Compass
Posted
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