48RE Thrust Washers

[ACerf]

Read article in "Drive Lines" magazine where Advanced Transmission Operations, in Rancho Cordova, Ca. Changed out the "trust washers" with "trust bearings" on an 04' 48RE. He claims that after only 4,000 miles the thrust washers showed a lot of wear. I remember reading a thread about someone modifying the thrust washer by drilling some holes in it, allowing the oil to flow thru the washer to prevent oil shear. I wonder if replacing the thrust washers with thrust bearings would do the same thing?

Another item ATO did not like was the transmission cooler. It runs antifreeze from the engine, and transmission fluid through it. Coolant and transmission fluid are separated, and the purpose of this is it allow the antifreeze to get the transmission temp down. When if comes apart inside, you are going to get antifreeze in the trans fluid. He says to replace the cooler with conventional air-to-fluid transmission cooler. I think in this case if you take care of your vehicle you may never have this problem. :--)

 

[XcumminsX]

 

[bmoeller]

Originally posted by ACerf



Another item ATO did not like was the transmission cooler. It runs antifreeze from the engine, and transmission fluid through it. Coolant and transmission fluid are separated, and the purpose of this is it allow the antifreeze to get the transmission temp down. When if comes apart inside, you are going to get antifreeze in the trans fluid. He says to replace the cooler with conventional air-to-fluid transmission cooler. I think in this case if you take care of your vehicle you may never have this problem. :--)

Yes, the transmission cooler is made that way, but so is the engine oil cooler. Some intercoolers/aftercoolers are still being made that way also. Most charge-air-coolers (CAC) are air-to-air (ATAAC) now. More efficent.

 

[ACerf]

So, is this good or bad?

 

[bmoeller]

They can fail, but it doesn't seem to be much of a problem. I've been around lots of different pieces of farm equipment and trucks, and have yet to see a cooler failure personally.



John Deere, for instance, has been using water cooled engine oil coolers since at least the '60s, when the 4000 series tractors came out. Maybe before. They also used water-to-air after coolers up until the '90s, when they started switching to ATAAC.



I don't think you really have much to worry about. Mine is still original on my Ram, to my knowledge. Both the engine cooler and transmission. Over 180k miles, and no problem to date.



Wet-sleeved engines (the B-series is not one of the them) only have 2 or 3 o-rings the seperate the crankcase to the cooling system. You'd have a better chance of a cavitation problem (assuming the SCAs (coolant additives) weren't kept up), than a cooler failure.

 

[lmills]

Large trucks run the same set up. They don't seem to worry about it as they rack up 1million plus miles. Sounds to me like the guy is brand biased to a different company

 

[ACerf]

Thanks guys, I think I will put to rest my worries about the cooler.

What about the thrust washers issue... . I should not have mixed the two subjects in one thread.

 

[bmoeller]

http://turbodieselregister.com/foru...threadid=100548&highlight=48RE+thrust+washers

 

[ACerf]

Thanks bmoeller. I have seen this post before. But he does not answer the question as to how this can be fixed so it doesn't happen again. I sent him an email the first time I read it, but he never responded. He is just suggesting that we carry and extra thrust washer with us. That is a good idea, but I want to get it fixed when it goes out and not have the problem again. So is the Thrust Bearing the answer??

 

[curatchko]

99 percent of the vehicles on the road use a trans cooler inside the radiator so no big deal there.



On the thrust washer, isn't there something about it only being utilized in 1st gear, or something to that effect??

 

[Bill Stockard]

Dodge and Cummins have run "test mules" equipped with the 48RE for hundreds of thousands of cumulative miles in towing and non-towing situations all over the US. If the thrust washer was a big problem, it would have shown up... I'll take my chances.



Like posted above, oil to coolant coolers have been used in vehicles for years without a major problems. Also an oil to coolant cooler is more efficient than an oil to air cooler and stabilizes the oil temperature better in cold weather.



Bill

 

[curatchko]

Good point!!!



I think the first time this was brought up about 6 months ago, it was more of an accusation that DC 'designed a failure' into the trans.....

 

[Stefan Kondolay]

Bill first put up the post on our website discussion fourm section about this very thing, Since then , Chrysler has superseeded that part number 3 times already. They have had a total of 4 different part numbers. These are the numbers we have listed to date,

52854037AA

52854037AB changed to this

52854039AA

then they wanted you to try this # 2801315

When we ordered this latest # to look at it Bill kind of laughed when it got in . He thought is was interesting that since the 48 RE front half is very similiar to the 1968 727 hemi cuda trannys , that the thrust washer was the same as the one found in the hemi cudas back in 68. Oh by the way, he threw the thrust washer in the garbage where he said it belonged. Some of you guys may think that Chrysler does not have a problem and that when DTT put up the post back in February of 04, it was a marketing stunt as many of the aftermarket claimed. Some still make snide remarks and roll their eyes. For those of you that have been following these topics or that may already be facing this situation you may appreciate the updated heads up.



Here a bit of an interesting thing that Bill has found , in the last brand new 48 transmission he that worked on it had a different thrust washer than any of the part numbers listed above. However, this thrust washer is not listed in any Chrysler parts list and the dimensions are completely different fron any of the others ones. Bill could tell from the assembly that it was a brand new oem transmission. This washer was 250 thou wider . It is very apparent to Bill that Chrysler is trying to disipate the load. The other option they have is to and re-call all the 48's they have in the field and try and fix this non-existent problem at millions of dollars OR wait until these puppies are off warranty and make millions of dollars.



I know that Daimler Chrysler's R&D facility in Indianapolis has contacted Bill twice, once about 3 or 4 months ago and again about a month and a month and a half ago requesting his data and to pick his brain. While he was happy to send them the data, he did not comment or tell them what we were doing.



I mean realistically, to listen to some you could believe this is no problem, to guys like Bill who see these trucks every day the parts don't lie and he knows better. Aside from the fact that he has personally spoken to Chrysler more than once at their instigation , the changing Chrysler part numbers pretty much confirms they know about it also.

 

[XcumminsX]

whats the best way to break the stock thrust washer?

 

[CumminsBu]

Originally posted by XcumminsX

whats the best way to break the stock thrust washer?

Let the dealer tincker with it.

 

[ACerf]

The statement that DTT is making, makes me think that ATO in Cordova Calif. maybe on to something. Changing the washer to a thrust bearing! I want to speak with them when I get a chance to see how this is working out. I can not believe that DC can not come up a fix, and they are spinning there wheels looking for a soluction!



Picked up my Mag-Hytec Diff cover and transmission Pan today!... . Can't wait to get started!

 

[Floor It]

My thrust washer at 21,000 miles was SHOT!! This is not a joke, this is a real problem. Bill does have the fix for it. If you think AH, I'll be alright- THINK AGAIN!!



John