48RE + Exhaust Brake: Current Status

[FJfonda]

Indecision

I don't mind rowing... . except towing in rolling hills in heavy traffic. We'll see, need to make my mind up this week.

 

[ropinfool2]

Well I am one of the unlucky ones who bought the 03. 5 48re because I was told it was exhaust brake compatible. I was even offered it at time of purchase! I turned it down due to finances. I bought this truck to pull a large 5th wheel (should've bought the 3500!) and had every intention of adding the exhaust brake later when I could better afford it. Now I am extremely upset that I cannot add one without becoming my own warranty station. That is not why I bought a truck with a sticker price of $42,000. 00!!!!!!!!!!! Every time I drive it I get a little sicker and am starting to not want to drive it at all. I didn't pay sticker for it but according to KBB, I would lose $16,000. 00 if I traded it today!!!!! I for one cannot afford to do that. If I was offered a buy back I would take it in a heartbeat!! Then maybe I would buy the 600 cummins, only if it was exhaust brake approved with the auto but I would definately look at the GM products. I have bad knees and cannot drive a stick in the city, even with hydraulic clutches, for any period of time without being in pain. This truck is my daily driver, I have 15,500 miles on it since Sept. 1 but I am driving my old chev 6. 2 more and more. Thanks for letting me vent, I do appreciate the information being shared here. Keep it coming!! Also if anyone knows of a good way to get rid of this truck, without losing my shirt, let me know!! Thanks. John

 

[ACerf]

By Adding the "Brake Guard" to my truck has helped to slow the vehicle down, both going down a grade and on the flat, particluarly when towing my fiver. This reduces the braking effort, similar to air brakes. I had them installed on my truck at the last Rattling Ram rally this past October. Many of the TDR members here in the West are aware of this product.

 

[MojaveJoe]

FTC vs Brake Guard (May 2001)

I found ACerf's testimonial about Brake Guard intriguing. So I did a search for info on the product. While finding lots of info and positive statements I also found a webpage that suggests their advertising might be, let's say, slightly misleading:



http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2001/05/brakeguard.htm



I would be interested in ACerfs, or anyone else's, input relative to this article and their personal experiences with the product.



Thanx in advance from the "e-brake challenged"

 

[ACerf]

Brake Guard

I read the article about the Brake Guard that Joe posted. However, I have to say that I disagree with most of what it says. It is a known fact that the system does reduce stopping distance. And it does aid in helping slow down your vehicle with less effort.

Some of the TDR members in Rattlin Rams did some testing on there owe and verified that the system actually worked as designed. If you go to one of the presentations that Brake Guard gives, it states in the movie that the vehicle distance is reduced. Most of us knew about the law suit, but this court ruling was overturned, and all the data about this product is documented. I personally see the benefit from the product and would recommend it to anyone.



Ref: www.hd-400.com



This website tells the Brake Guard story. If you call brake guard they will gladly send you a copy of the ruling. Also, TDR is doing an article about the Brake Guard, which by the way the reporter loved it!

 

[MojaveJoe]

Thanks ACerf. Just the kind of response I was hoping for. I will have to look into this product as an e-brake alternative, atleast until the warranty runs out on my transmission and I take it to ATS for bombing



Regards,

Joe

 

[geusterman]

Maybe Carlton can jump back in here on this one. It has always puzzled me why we have to stick a softball into our tailpipes to utilize engine braking capabilty when a gasser does the same thing but from the intake side. Why not shut the air off to the engine? geusterman

 

[Carlton Bale]

Originally posted by geusterman

Maybe Carlton can jump back in here on this one. It has always puzzled me why we have to stick a softball into our tailpipes to utilize engine braking capabilty when a gasser does the same thing but from the intake side. Why not shut the air off to the engine? geusterman

It's a pretty simple answer: more power! An intake throttle produces vacuum in the cylinder. Atmospheric pressure is ~14 psi absolute, vacuum pressure is 0 psi absolute, so the most vacuum that can be produced is about 14 psi. The Jacobs Exhaust Brake produces a backpressure somewhere around 60 psi gauge, so there is a lot more power benefit.

 

[geusterman]

Simple answer for you maybe! Thanks Carlton. So maybe a quarter of the "holdback" power is available with vacuum. I would accept that if it were easy to engineer. Probably cooling or other issues jump in as well..... geusterman.

 

[DEdmiston]

Has there been any change in the status? Are the 48RE automatics OK for Jacobs exhaust brakes now?

 

[Carlton Bale]

Originally posted by DEdmiston

Has there been any change in the status? Are the 48RE automatics OK for Jacobs exhaust brakes now?

No, there is still no warranty approval. The software testing is still ongoing. If all goes well, some 2004. 5 vehicles and all 2005 vehicles (with the revised transmission hardware) could receive warranty approval after a service software/calibration flash is performed. If all does progress as planned, it would be available sometime after 2005 vehicles are available in August of this year. Sorry it isn't sooner.

 

[superdave]

Just read an article in Trailer Life magazine that says the exhaust brake is approved for dealer installation on the 48RE auto transmission in the new 2004 1/2 with the 325 HP Cummins. . Does not affect the warranty... At least according to the article.

 

[jrobinson2]

superdave

Carlton Bale is a better source

Carlton Bale

Cummins Product Engineering

He is one of the few inside guys on here

Jared

 

[Matt400]

Re: Could this have something to do with it?

Originally posted by RMcCulloch

There's another thread running (this one ) that seems to throw a different light on the Thrust Washer problem.



Could the lubrication problem described in the other thread have any bearing [pun intended ) on the Exhaust Brake issue?

That was an interesting thread... very informative but seems as though it has been pulled. I can't access it anymore. Could someone please post the link not to the thread but to the link that started the thread?



Carlton wrote:

I quickly read through the other thread. This is not the same thrust washer; the thread is referring to one that is loaded during positive power, not braking.

First- thanks for taking time to keep us Ram owners in the know, very refreshing getting first hand info.

About that other thrust washer... while it is not related to the braking issue, by chance has it been past on to DC for a look anyway?.



If the 05 48re gets all the needed attention for the compression side and know-one takes a look at the other then early trans failures could still be an issue.

 

[RMcCulloch]

Carlton,



I, too would like to express my deepest gratitude for your efforts to keep us informed.



As one of the 2003. 5 48RE/Jacobs-equipped drivers, your input has been especially critical in my efforts to use what I've got without breaking anything.



Hopefully, I'll be able to go a while longer before I have to shell out the ca$h for a rebuilt transmission.



It's too bad (for me, at any rate) that it will be most unlikely for any updates for those of my vintage.

 

[dandlwiley]

Like RMcCulloch we also thank you, and like him are VERY careful when using the Jake on our 48RE. We are trying to decide if it worse to continue to use it, or just go with an aftermarket fix. Or do we drive it untill it is out of warranty (warranty by dealer) or until it blows and then do the aftermarket. We're madder than he!! about the whole mess but there seems no recourse unless there are enough of us in the same situation to get a class action lawsuit going.



Linda and Dave

 

[Matt400]

Originally posted by dandlwiley

but there seems no recourse unless there are enough of us in the same situation to get a class action lawsuit going.

I wouldn't go there, if you won you would get pennies on the Dollar while the lawyers got the big bucks.

If I were you I would run it as is but only when really needed. After all the new brakes are so big they had to build new wheels

 

[dandlwiley]

Just spouting off in frustration! Not happy withthe way the Jake works when we do use it. Thank goodness for the big brakes!

 

[RMcCulloch]

Linda and Dave,



Just remember to "downshift" before engaging the Jake: I've found that, when towing, this pint-sized Freightliner-wannabe of mine will usually be on the low side of 2250 RPM but the Jake is most effective above that engine speed.



Most of the time the drivetrain doesn't need the help but, when it does, a manual "downshift" (either out of OD or down to 2nd) will make it far more effective.



Keep an eye on the tach and keep it above 1600 RPM to insure lockup.

 

[Matt400]

Originally posted by RMcCulloch

Keep an eye on the tach and keep it above 1600 RPM to insure lockup.

Is that what the deal is on these??

I have been noticing situations during decel (OD off) in 3rd that it will unlock and I find that to lock it back up all I have to do is press on the pedal just a smidgen- not enough for fuel flow but just enough to move the TPS and she locks back up. Kinda weird feeling the truck slow up with pedal input and speed up when you let off.