 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / April 20062000 2500 w/cummins Which trans is better?
Automatic, 5 speed, or 6 speed? A dealer offered me a 2500 extra cab with long bed and the Banks Power after matket performance package. 92k miles and towing package $14,995 with automatic. Should I take it? > Automatic, 5 speed, or 6 speed? In general, the 6spd. The 47RE was barely adequate for the Cummins (and caused the engine to be de-tuned accordingly), and the NV4500 (5spd), while a decent transmission, had issues with 5th gear going away due to the vibrations that the engine could induce. The NV5600 (6spd) was a better match, gear-wise, to the narrower RPM range of the Cummins, as well as being capable of holding more torque. > A dealer offered me a 2500 extra cab with long bed and the Banks Power > after matket performance package. > > 92k miles and towing package $14,995 with automatic. > > Should I take it? Nope... not unless some transmission upgrades were a part of the package. In stock form, behind a stock engine, the 47RE will hold it's own, as long as it's not asked to tow heavy and often. Start turning up the power to the engine, and not proportionally upgrading the transmission, is asking for trouble. Or - if you think $15K for that truck is a good deal, and can absorb a $2,500-$3,000 transmission re-build (with better-than-stock parts), then go for it. >> Automatic, 5 speed, or 6 speed? > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > $2,500-$3,000 transmission re-build (with better-than-stock parts), then > go for it. Thanks for the quick reply Here is the banks web site for the engine addons: http://www.bankspower.com/app.cfm?appid=AD01 I think the system was professionaly installed. Did dodge sell trucks with the Banks? It seems to have the total package I am not sure if it does have the torque converted, but I would assume it would. The previous owner had a fifth wheel and towed a lot. I do not think someone would go to all that trouble and expense to not have the torque converter added with the package. There are a couple of switches added under the dash I am not sure what they are. I think they are the brake add ons. I switched one on and the engine started sounding different like exhaust was being diverted. GB > Did dodge sell trucks with the Banks? Nope - never. Some dealerships may have chosen to, but they assume the same responsibility as a customer - ie. DC denying a warranty claim because of enhanced fueling. > The previous owner had a fifth wheel and towed a lot. I do not think > someone would go to all that trouble and expense to not have the torque > converter added with the package. Sounds like you're talking yourself into it. That's fine - but just go into it with the presumption that you may need to put some $$$ into the transmission... > There are a couple of switches added under the dash I am not sure what > they are. I think they are the brake add ons. I switched one on and the > engine started sounding different like exhaust was being diverted. It probably has an exhaust brake on it... that's also an issue with the automatic. DC didn't certify an auto trans for use with an exhaust brake until '06. In addition to the potential for having the exhaust brake engage without the TC being locked (which will just heat the fluid, and not really provide much engine braking), there was component wear due to the force being applied in the opposite direction. >> Did dodge sell trucks with the Banks? > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > not really provide much engine braking), there was component wear due to > the force being applied in the opposite direction. What about transmission cooler? There is one on it. Does that not help? In addition I saw I fan attached to the bottom of the truck adding more cooling to something. I guess I need to look underneath. Maybe better to not use the exhause brake at all? One would think that Banks would engineer their products to not do abnormal wear and tear on the vehicle to help prevent legal action taken against them,. Any tips for transmission fluid better than ATF 3? Synthetic? Here is a FAQ on their exhaust brake: Is the Banks Brake compatible with a Banks PowerPack on a turbo-diesel? The PowerPack components are completely compatible with the Banks exhaust brake, and in fact, many customers install both a power system and Banks Brake at the same time. Will exhaust backpressure from a Banks Brake hurt my engine? No. Diesel engines, in particular, are designed and built to withstand extremely high cylinder pressures under load-that is, when the fuel/air charge is firing and pushing the piston down under full throttle. As opposed to backpressure, you could call this "frontpressure." In this mode, the piston, rod, and bearing withstand a load of as much as 2000 PSI, or more. The Banks Brake, when fully applied, exerts a backpressure of 38 PSI on the Ford Power Stroke, or 60 PSI on the Dodge Cummins, or 55 PSI on the Chevy/GMC Duramax-infinitesimal compared to the power load (plus the power load is applied with extreme heat, while the brake applies no heat to the cylinder). So it should be very apparent that the Banks Brake causes no measurable wear on the engine. The real answer to this question is that a turbo-diesel engine is built to withstand huge pressure loads; it is lubricated against wear; and it is cooled by a radiator. Your brakes aren't. Every time they are applied, they heat and they wear. They're designed that way-to be replaced. Using the engine to slow your truck is much more practical and efficient. It also saves brake wear and extends brake life between brake jobs. http://www.bankspower.com/FAQs_brake.cfm It does not seem they address the compoent wear you mention due to reverse force being applied. I guess I need to call them about that. Thanks again for your time in helping me out and educating me on this stuff. GB > What about transmission cooler? There is one on it. Does that not help? In some circumstances - but it's not going to do a bit of good when the torque of the engine overcomes the ability of the clutches (particularly the TCC) to hold against that torque. > Maybe better to not use the exhause brake at all? The number one concern about operating an exhaust brake with an automatic is keeping the torque converter locked while the brake is engaged. If they don't have a separate lock-up controller, then yes, I'd be concerned about it's use. It's fine to use, but you need to pay attention to your drivetrain, and know when your torque converter unlocks, so that you disengage the brake. (And the problem is, with a stock vehicle, the TCC unlocks the instant you touch the brake pedal). > Any tips for transmission fluid better than ATF 3? Synthetic? Not really... sure, a synthetic fluid (ATF+4, or Amsoil) won't break down as quickly when subjected to high temps, but it won't do anything for the transmission's holding ability, which will be taxed when you romp on it with all the extra torque. Think about it this way... Banks is claiming a 288ft.lb. increase (and they're usually fairly accurate with their numbers). That year engine, with an AT, made 460ft.lbs. (I think) - so you're talking over a 50% increase in torque. Given that this isn't the 60's anymore, is it reasonable to assume that a particular component will withstand 150% of it's rated capacity? > It does not seem they address the compoent wear you mention due to reverse > force being applied. I guess I need to call them about that. They don't mention transmission issues at all... nor do they mention anything about it in their PowerPack kits. Oh, I guarantee when you call them, they'll offer you all kinds of goodie$$$ for your transmission. They just recently entered into the torque converter world, so I'm sure they'd love to sell you one of their billet converters.... won't do anything for the rest of the clutches in the stock 47RE, but it'll at least make sure the TCC isn't the one to start slipping first (nah - that'll be the OD clutch) Of course - this is all based on the assumption that the previous owner didn't touch the transmission. If he did, then it's a different story. Just one of the things to look forward to when buying someone else's problems :) >> What about transmission cooler? There is one on it. Does that not help? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > disengage the brake. (And the problem is, with a stock vehicle, the TCC > unlocks the instant you touch the brake pedal). I called the company and they do implement a device that call "SmartLock" that is suppose to control whent he torque converter locks up. I would assume the truck has one since the seems to have a whole package deal. >> Any tips for transmission fluid better than ATF 3? Synthetic? > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Just one of the things to look forward to when buying someone else's > problems :) I had a word with the previous owner today. He said he put these goodies put on from DTT exhaust brake controller and smart lock controller. Also their torque converter. From their web site: a.. 30-40 percent more power transfer b.. 100 degrees less heat c.. 1-2 MPG Fuel economy improvement d.. Unsurpassed torque multiplication and fluid coupling e.. Increased transmission life http://www.dieseltrans.com/dodge/transmission_components.htm He also said he put on a Banks Power Pack, Automin chip, and BD Exhaust brake. Also change the rear end to 3.73 gears. Says it now puts out 340HP and 600 ft lbs of torque >> What about transmission cooler? There is one on it. Does that not help? > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Just one of the things to look forward to when buying someone else's > problems :) >> Did dodge sell trucks with the Banks? > > Nope - never. Some dealerships may have chosen to, but they assume the > same responsibility as a customer - ie. DC denying a warranty claim > because of enhanced fueling. I found this concerning warranty claims The Law Federal law sets forth requirements for warranties and contains a number of provisions to prevent vehicle manufacturers, dealers and others from unjustly denying warranty coverage. With regard to aftermarket parts, the spirit of the law is that warranty coverage cannot be denied simply because such parts are present on the vehicle, or have been used.The warranty coverage can be denied only if the aftermarket part caused the malfunction or damage for which warranty coverage is sought. Disputes in this area usually boil down to arguments over facts and technical opinions, rather than arguments over interpretations of the law. Federal Warranty Laws 1.The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. 2302(C)) This federal law regulates warranties for the protection of consumers. The essence of the law concerning aftermarket auto parts is that a vehicle manufacturer may not condition a written or implied warranty on the consumers using parts or services which are identified by brand, trade, or corporate name (such as the vehicle maker's brand) unless the parts or service are provided free of charge. The law means that the use of an aftermarket part alone is not cause for denying the warranty. However, the law's protection does not extend to aftermarket parts in situations where such parts actually caused the damage being claimed under the warranty. Further, consumers are advised to be aware of any specific terms or conditions stated in the warranty which may result in its being voided. The law states in relevant part: "No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumers using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade or corporate name..." (15 U.S.C. 2302(C)). http://www.allaboutdiesels.com/index.php?view=warranty&PHPSESSID=9cbdc1fcfc9a807 39bc8868563444f96 >> The previous owner had a fifth wheel and towed a lot. I do not think >> someone would go to all that trouble and expense to not have the torque [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > not really provide much engine braking), there was component wear due to > the force being applied in the opposite direction. > I found this concerning warranty claims Yep. And when DC says, "Your aftermarket performance devices caused too much stress on the drivetrain, and that's the reason for the failure, so no warranty" - you can wipe the tears away with the paper you printed the M-M Act on... But you are also failing to see the spirit of the law yourself. The purpose for the law was to protect the consumer while not directly hurting the manufacturer. What it basically says is that you can use an aftermarket REPLACEMENT part without it affecting your warranty (unless the aftermarket part caused the failure) but it really offers no protection to those that choose to MODIFY their vehicle with parts that cause changes in operation from factory specifications or didn't exist at all. As Tom said, if you add parts that change fueling from factory specs, you have modified the engine beyond DC specifications and they cannot be held responsible for your modifications.  SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > >> Did dodge sell trucks with the Banks? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by > brand, trade or corporate name..." (15 U.S.C. 2302(C)). http://www.allaboutdiesels.com/index.php?view=warranty&PHPSESSID=9cbdc1fcfc9a807 39bc8868563444f96 > >> The previous owner had a fifth wheel and towed a lot. I do not think > >> someone would go to all that trouble and expense to not have the torque [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > not really provide much engine braking), there was component wear due to > > the force being applied in the opposite direction. > part caused the failure) but it really offers no protection to those that > choose to MODIFY their vehicle with parts that cause changes in operation > from factory specifications or didn't exist at all. And just to add to what Tom said (for the OP's digestion): It (in theory, anyway) places the responsibility on the warranty provider to demonstrate that the aftermarket part caused the failure. Now, that's a pretty gray area, subject to a lot of interpretation. The example I give is one that happened to me some time back... I had my '99 (under warranty at the time) in at the dealer for a suspected rear main seal leak. They informed me that it wasn't the rear main, but the oil pan gasket that was leaking - then told me it was $160 or so to replace it. They "claimed" that since I put a lift kit on the truck, the warranty was void. A quick mention of, "Well, according to M-M, that's illegal for you do to" cleared the issue right up. After a bit of backpedalling, they quickly agreed to cover the repair under warranty. That's a clear-cut example of an aftermarket part having nothing to do with a failure. Had I experienced a failed ball joint, for example - the conversation would have been much different. And in the end, does anyone have the time/patience/money to hire a lawyer and go to court? In most cases, no... (although some with complete engine failure, leading to thousands of dollars in repairs, have gone the legal route - with mixed results). The point is - in practical terms, the dealership has a pretty good leg to stand on if they refuse a powertrain-related warranty claim on a powertrain that's been modified from original specs. Note, too, that this isn't the same as "voiding" or "cancelling" a warranty. Only DC can do that, and only after inspecting the vehicle and determining either abuse, emissions tampering, or odometer fraud. What a dealership CAN do, is place restrictions on parts of your warranty - which is nothing more than a red-flag in the dealer system telling other dealers, "hey - before proceeding with a warranty claim on this vehicle, check into x, y, and z". The end result isn't much different, but a restriction on your powertrain means your A/C system is still covered (for example) - just like my oil pan gasket was covered, even though I'm fairly certain my vehicle was "flagged" for any kind of suspension work (as if the 38" tires weren't enough of a give-away) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.