Transfer Case Failure x 2

[TCDiesel]

Strength......

 

[12LaramieHO]

Been following this...…. And I'm "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" also! This is straight up "Bravo Sierra", not to be confused with "Bravo Zulu".
I agree with Learjet.
Immediately, before this goes too much farther, check your states "Lemon Laws", find out what your rights are. This situation, if it had occurred in California as stated, you would be getting a new truck or ALL your money back, including taxes, registration, fees and any other expenses spent on the purchase of said vehicle or you would have a brand new truck. I know California Consumer attorneys would have a Hay Day with this one. All it is, is the cost of time dialing a few phone numbers.
Don't just go quietly into the night...……..
Second I cannot believe with the weight tickets and scales verification, FCA could even remotely imply this truck was overloaded. Something isn't right, it doesn't add up and maybe it's bigger than just this truck and that's why they don't want to own this.
Just my 2 cents worth.

And THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!
Good Luck and let us know what happens.
~Chad

 

[Ozymandias]

Keep the Loaner, do a Deal with your Dealer.

As he is willing to take the sec. Tc out of his own pocket to satisfy you as his customer he might is willing to give you a fair price for that to. Could be a win-win for you.

IMHO I wouldn't like too to keep a truck that has blewn the TC twice within 2kM.

 

[NIsaacs]

These TC cases were reject because they failed pressure testing, their was 1000s of them.
View attachment 111278

Who rejected them, Ram or Borg-Warner? Most of those case halves are not even drilled.

 

[NIsaacs]

View attachment 111269
It's good to hear from all of you that this a one off.

I agree FCA didn't do proper analysis. I did aircraft maintenance in the Navy for 25 years. We would have never put an aircraft back into service without a complete Engineering Investigation on a failure like this. I knew there was a high probability of a second txfr case failure when the dealer told me they didn't have an explanation for the first.
I still think the shift linkage maybe a factor.

Regarding this truck I'm not keeping it unless FCA can explain and correct the defect. That will probably never happen. And getting FCA to buy it back is probably too much work. I'll work with the dealer first on a trade in. Either way I'm out a good chunk of money between sales tax registration and diminish trade in value.

The upside of this is I know the 2500 is capable of the job as demonstrated by our loaner truck and I really like the Cummins engine.

Photo: hours before the first failure. Loaded trailer is 13,500 lbs.

That truck should run off and hide with that load, on highway or off. This is what these trucks and t-case are capable of. First picture is a '16 Ram 3500, 30+k GCW, spun out in 4x4, second picture is '01 Dodge/Ram 2500, 23k+GCW spun out on the same hill. We made several trips on this road. Third picture, Ram tows Ram.

 

[TCDiesel]

Who rejected them, Ram or Borg-Warner? Most of those case halves are not even drilled.

Their was multi units involved in being rejected, Some were ATVs and others were 4x4 cases....The Owner of the company that rejected the cases did not disclose to Me why/who..He just called Me and wanted to let me know what can happen when X company put junk out the door. He did say the method used was new and the company that made the cases obliviously did not check the cases to the new standards. The Pic is Dec 18.

 

[kthaxton]

Their was multi units involved in being rejected, Some were ATVs and others were 4x4 cases....The Owner of the company that rejected the cases did not disclose to Me why/who..He just called Me and wanted to let me know what can happen when X company put junk out the door. He did say the method used was new and the company that made the cases obliviously did not check the cases to the new standards. The Pic is Dec 18.

So those cases may have absolutely nothing to do with Borg Warner?

 

[Cummins12V98]

Those and not what comes under our trucks, what are their application? Where is this pic taken? Those are all black ours are natural aluminum.

 

[TCDiesel]

Yes..... But they do machine work on BW and thier was containers full of TC for weeks rejected. they all came form the same supplier I'm Not going back daily for picture taking.

 

[TCDiesel]

The point being that odp fire last summer and other fire's May have changed the standard and these cases failed and the makers are stepping up on stronger Cases... Gzees

 

[Newsa]

Who rejected them, Ram or Borg-Warner? Most of those case halves are not even drilled.

The warranty is with FCA. Not BW.

But the pictures are probably not from FCA?

 

[ram17]

2 low mileage blown transfer cases???? As many have said there is more to this case than meets the eye. Some of the possibilities are as follows - 2 defective transfer cases (very likely), mechanical defect in the vehicle somehow manifesting in the TC (possible), defective original TC and improper installation of second TC (possible), inadvertent overload, 4WD engagement etc (unlikely).

 

[DonFitzwater]

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!! This is ridiculous. These transfer cases have been bulletproof. I haul a 500 gallon water tank every other day, in 4x4, on pavement and of all the trucks I currently own and have owned, have NEVER had transfer case in a Dodge/Ram explode. Keep in mind winter is a hell of a long time in interior Alaska so I'm running 4x4 waaaaaaaaaay more than most. It gets clicked into 4x4 in late October and stays until late April. I've often times had the 500 gallon water tank full AND had auto haulers with cars/trucks or skidsteer loaded up climbing 13% grades.

This guy is having a problem and we know what HE has told us and that is all. We know NOTHING else. Until more real facts, not CNN facts, show up in this thread, it's all just opinions............and we all know about opinions.

 

[Cummins12V98]

"We know NOTHING else. Until more real facts, not CNN facts, show up in this thread, it's all just opinions............and we all know about opinions."

Agreed! That is why I asked for a paper trail.

 

[TCDiesel]

O Boy.. I just wanted to show proof that the standards have changed in TC cases... I'm keeping My answer to the OP problem open.

I do think that odp picture is something that should never happen and their has been other fire's ... I was happy to see that someone cared in TC standards are required and changes made.

 

[Ozymandias]

Well, the customer shouldn't be the Beta Tester.

 

[DonFitzwater]

Well, the customer shouldn't be the Beta Tester.

I don't think he is.

 

[SCF Truck]

I don't think he is.

Photos from my dealer which were sent to FCA. Doesn't tell me much.

 

[EDankievitch]

Those pics show me that the unit was not fully engaged into gear. the only way you can have that much force to brake and bend the shift fork is the gear is not fully in. It's riding on the incline that helps align the gears so they can slip into each other. If the unit was fully engaged there would be NO force on the shift fork. You could remove it all together. All the torque would be transmitted through the gear. The gears did not fail. That said something did not allow or was causing the shift fork pull the gears part. Was the linkage adjusted wrong? did the case fail/ stretch not allowing full engagement? I can't answer that. I don't see the case failing there are too many out in the field that have not failed. I can see the linkage being miss adjusted and or something is allowing the engine or the cab to move under load and that could pull the unit out of gear. Years ago I blew my TC on my ford ranger. The shift fork had worn out and wasn't allowing it to get fully into gear. I finally slipped while trying to back up a hill. It never slipped going forward. That said someone is missing something very big in this truck for 2 TC units to fail the exact same way.

 

[SCF Truck]

Those pics show me that the unit was not fully engaged into gear. the only way you can have that much force to brake and bend the shift fork is the gear is not fully in. It's riding on the incline that helps align the gears so they can slip into each other. If the unit was fully engaged there would be NO force on the shift fork. You could remove it all together. All the torque would be transmitted through the gear. The gears did not fail. That said something did not allow or was causing the shift fork pull the gears part. Was the linkage adjusted wrong? did the case fail/ stretch not allowing full engagement? I can't answer that. I don't see the case failing there are too many out in the field that have not failed. I can see the linkage being miss adjusted and or something is allowing the engine or the cab to move under load and that could pull the unit out of gear. Years ago I blew my TC on my ford ranger. The shift fork had worn out and wasn't allowing it to get fully into gear. I finally slipped while trying to back up a hill. It never slipped going forward. That said someone is missing something very big in this truck for 2 TC units to fail the exact same way.

I agree with your assessment. I've maintained this was a suspected the problem from the start.
No one is listening and FCA has denied the warranty. I'm disgusted with their behavior. Get off your A$$ FCA and figure it rather than blame me for operating the truck as designed.