Turbo not kicking in???

[Alton]

I will ask the next tech to go with me, scanner in place and test while under tow. When we head out on a long trip, as we are now, extra oil and fuel filters are taken along. The original filter was replaced only a few hundred miles ago---no difference in performance noted.

The EB is used every day, many times. I will never tow without one. I installed after market EBs on my '96 and the '03.

Your sign-off indicates that you may be a tech. If so, please have a look a my post #19 and please tell me what you think. By the way, there is no question in my mind that the techs that have looked at this thing have really tried to solve the problem.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Thanks much for all suggestions.

 

[sag2]

The EGR systems seem to soot up on the 6. 7. In fact, there is a special EGR cleaner the dealer is supposed to use that really cuts the soot when servicing. The PN is 68028729AA and it is $26. 60 per can. No dealers currently stock it, but it is available from Mopar.

 

[lubeguy]

there have been some issues with the the "throttle body" acting up and making a sound like the eb is coming on , but it ususlly isnt the brake coming on. ther have also been some coking of the turbo. making the mechanism very sticky.

 

[JohnBower]

According to the dealer, there are no flashes for the 6. 7's with the manual transmission. How did Alton get his flashed? I'm having the same problem that he is in that I tow a 9000lb TT and going up a 6% grade and in 5th gear, I would just barely hold the hill at 50 mph. I expect a lot more out of this truck than that.

 

[Alton]

Here is the information you're asking about, taken directly from my copy of the work order, Dated 09-06-07:

Hooked up scanner, perform PPTs. -- codes, P0405 Active, P0245C, P0254A. Monitor sensors, Call Star.

Reprogram PCM with Bootloader, than update with new calibration. R&R EGR pressure sensor, sensor ADN cleaned.



I don't believe having a manual or an automatic transmssion has anything to do with having a flash or not. If the engine is the 6. 7L, as opposed to the 5. 9, all of us are having or will have problems---count on it.

My truck was taken to a dealer in PA today because the CEL was on again. (This is the fifth dealer in various parts of the country that I've had to go to because of the CEL and poor performance) They told me they have stopped selling the 6. 7 because of too many problems and no fix is available. They cleared my CEL and sent me on my way.

By the way, if you can still pull 9,000 pounds up a 6 o/o grade and maintain 50mph in fifth, you are doing well compared to what I can do. I believe you will experience more degradation of performance over time.

 

[TAbbott]

Alton: I know it's a pain in the *** but don't give up just yet. When the 2002 big truck engines had to come out 2 years early because of a deal w/ the EPA, the manufacturers weren't ready for it. Those early engines were junk. Cats, Cummins, Detroits ... all of them. They finally seemed to get them running about half straight and then the new '07 regs came along.



The entire new heavy truck (class 8) market is still in the toilet from the pre-buy (everybody scared to death of the new stuff, bought ahead so as not to have to get the new engines). Sales are at about 45% of what they were in 06 if I read it right right, and still dropping because of a down transport market and everyone is still afraid of the new stuff.



Anyway, they will get it figured out. The techs will get used to seeing the same problems over and over they'll finally figure out what the problem is. The good news is that the bottom end of these engines are tough, as are the rods so they aren't gonna just let go like the Ford 6. 0 did. The basic design of the engine is sound. It's just the emissions crap that's gonna have some teething pains.



They'll finally figure out whats going on with the emissions stuff. I think in the interim they'll just end up changing some parameters in the ECM via a reflash, forget about trying to keep the '07 engines 2010 compliant and just make sure they meet the '07 regs --- which would be legal and hopefully solve the problem in the near term. They'll just end up with several little steps instead of the giant step they tried to take with the 6. 7.



There was a recent article in Transport Topics saying that Cummins has just decided against going to urea injection for the 2010 emissions regs for heavy trucks. They plan on sticking to SCR (selective catalytic reduction, which I believe is what they put on the 6. 7), so they must have a lot of faith in the concept. The other manufacturers have said they're goning to go the urea route.



I think Cummins is using the 6. 7 in the smaller trucks as test mules to long term test the systems they're trying to perfect prior to putting them on the big rigs in 2010. If they can't get it perfected soon, they'll just loosen up the constraints a bit and try to come up with some new anwers, because endless warranty claims are just too expensive to keep dealing with, and the '07 requirements seem to be able to be met fairly easily (Duramax ?)



I think ultimately you'll be happy with the 6. 7, although I bought a 5. 9 just to stay away from the emissions stuff. Hang in there...

 

[TAbbott]

Alton: Here's a quote from Steve Charleton, Executive Director of Heavy Duty Engineering at Cummins as quoted in Transport Topics October 1, 2007edition, which I think supports what I said above and may explain part of the problems you are experiencing:



"By taking more air out of the system, that will send lower volumes of oxygen to mix with the diesel, which means the fuel that is burned will be at a much higher concentration that will burn away NOx and diesel particulates at a much better rate than '07 engines. "



Think that might create a little soot? Can you say EGT's? They'll probably have it perfected by 2010..... If I were you I'd keep squealing at them until they fixed my truck or bought it back. If it came to that on large numbers of units, I think the fix is probably available and it's just have them meet '07 specs for now... . If Chrysler is responsible for the engine's warranty repairs as part of their agreement with Cummins, I'm sure there will be pressure brought to bear quickly, which would be good news for you.

 

[Alton]

TAbbot: Am I mistaken in believing that the quote by Steve Charleton could also be interpreted as saying it is extremely likely we will experience even lesser mpg than we now have on the 6. 7s?? I'm running about 15 o/o less with the 6. 7.

I'm not nearly ready to give up on Cummins. They will find the right combinations for a proper fix. Chrysler has heard my squealing and I definitely have their attention. Never before have I received responses as quickly. I've had 3 communications in less than 48 hours.

There are times that I long to have my '03 back. My policy in the past has been to never buy a "new model" anything. However, my hatred of the 6 speed manual in my '03 caused my impulsive act. Now, I wish that my order had been for another 5. 9.



Your posts are very much appreciated.

 

[JohnBower]

How did you get to someone at Chrysler about the 6. 7's? I believe that the more people that are complaining the sooner something gets done. If you could let others know who your contacts are I would probably help. There aren't that many others with 6. 7's and 6 speed manual transmissions. I have talked to the Dodge service manager and he in turn talked to the local area Chrysler rep but since I don't have any CEL's or other trouble codes, they can't do anything.

 

[Alton]

John,

Enter the following in the address bar of your browser:



My Dodge: Official Dodge Owners website - Warranty, Vehicle Specs, Service Contracts, Financing, Dealers



On the left side of the screen you'll see a place to insert the last 8 digits of your VIN. Click on Go. (if you want to see what they have to say)



To send them an email, look straight up from the word GO and you will see, in white letters, CONTACT US. Clicking there will bring up a screen that offers a variety of subject matter. Look towards the bottom, click on Customer Assistance. Another screen will give you the option of phoning or email contact. If you choose Email, have the last 8 digits of your VIN handy.



I suggest you make it abundantly clear that you expect a reply, posthaste.



Good luck.

 

[Alton]

John-

I'm darned if I know how that address made it to my last posting but here is the correct address:



My Dodge: Official Dodge Owners website - Warranty, Vehicle Specs, Service Contracts, Financing, Dealers



Sorry about that.



Alton

 

[Alton]

Well, I'll be damned!!! I'll try again. If it come up the same as the last two times,I'll send you and anyone else that wants the address a private email.



My Dodge: Official Dodge Owners website - Warranty, Vehicle Specs, Service Contracts, Financing, Dealers

 

[Alton]

John,

I have sent a private email to you via TDR. Let me know if the address comes through.

 

[TAbbott]

Alton asked: "... it is extremely likely we will experience even lesser mpg than we now have on the 6. 7s?? I'm running about 15 o/o less with the 6. 7"



That's hard to say without knowing just how much "air" they plan on replacing with recycled exhaust. Chemically, I'm sure they know exactly how much oxygen they need to completely combust X amount of fuel under perfect conditions. They also obviously know the percentage of oxygen in the air and therefore how much fresh air the engine needs to ingest to get a complete burn --- theoretically. The problem comes with actually doing it --- getting precisely that much oxygen for that much fuel, no more no less.



The lessor efficiency comes from having to generate the energy needed to compress dead air (no oxygen in exhaust gases) that returns or produces no power. There was an efficiency loss when the first EGR engines came along, that had 20% exhaust gases in the inlet stream. On the '07's that went to 40%. You have to supply the energy necessary to compress those gases and get no benefit from them except they probably absorb heat and transfer it downstream to the catalytic converter and particulate trap.



If they raise that percentage to 60% (I have no idea what the new, proposed mix might be) then yes, I can't see how efficiency is going to do anything but fall unless they change the operating parameters of the engine.



You can get back some efficiency if you reduce the parasitic losses by slowing down the engine... make it run ever slower like some of the newer heavy truck engines that are designed to be lugged back and worked at 1000 rpms or less. They are headed that direction, I believe, as evidenced by the 6. 7 peak torque occuring at 1400 rpms where on the latest CR 5. 9's it was at 1600 rpms.



I predict that soon that peak torque number on the 6. 7 will fall to 1200 rpms and the operating range will be reduced by that same number or even more on the top end. The answer then becomes more and more transmission gears to keep everything in exactly the right rpm range for best efficiency and performance.



The biggest problem is that the systems are so complex and the technology new enough that you're on the "bleeding edge". A failure of any part of that complex system starts a downward spiral. That's why they say on the 6. 7 absolutely no fuel additives of any kind. They have to have a "known" fuel with precise and uniform characteristics or the whole system shuts down.



The systems will be upgraded and become more robust with time -- more able to handle more variables. It'll work, but until it does, those on that bleeding edge will suffer a bit. Stay after them Alton, I predict they'll get you fixed up and running right. It ran well in the beginning, and it should continue to do so if they just get their stuff together.

 

[Alton]

Update: Moved from New Hampshire to Harrisburg, PA. CEL on again. Checked in with the Dodge dealer in Mechanicsburg, PA. They were happy to check codes but forewarned there would be nothing they could do to cure the problem(s). Performed the usual tests, cleared the CEL, gave me a copy of the work order stating the following:



Checked and found fault code P2000- NOX absorber efficiency below threshhold.

No fix at this time--No repairs made.



From there on to W. Virginia, a total of 522 from Harrisburg. CEL on again. Hitched up the fifth wheel and headed towards So. Charleston, WV. It turned out to be a white knuckle trip. The turbo and the exhaust brake have stopped working. Going up any grade caused the engine to cough, jerk and sound awful. Going down the hills with just under 11,000 pounds aiding the pull of gravity was down-right scary.

We eventually made it to the dealer, dropped the fifth wheel behind their service department. They performed the usual tests, called Chrysler and were told to change the relay that causes the turbo/exhaust brake to engage/dis-engage. The GM gave the okay to steal a relay from a new truck on his lot. They test drove my truck after exchanging the relay and pronounced that I was ready to roll. Hooked up the fifth wheel, drove about a 100 yards and found nothing had changed--still no exhaust brake nor turbo boost. Called the dealer and got the okay to bring the truck back tomorrow morning. We had not gone more than a half mile and the CEL was back on

The saga continues, more later.

 

[Alton]

11-05-07

New turbo/eb installed a few days ago. EB functions fairly well but turbo back to where we were early on, not boosting to max efficiency. We're now in Arkansas trying to find a dealer with the G30 recall kit. I hope that will take care of my problems. We'll see!!