It does seem to get better mileage and the gain of 5 HP and loss of 5lb of
torque from 5.2 to 4.7 looks to be a wash. But it does piss you off when
you take your brand new truck with 1200 miles on it and show them the
problem they look at you and say that aint right, but then tell ya to keep
an eye on it, theres no TSB's so we can't do anything and then send you on
your way. Well, I'm forcing them to open a trouble report for me today so
it is documented that the problem has been there from day one. Other than
this I absolutly love the truck so far.
>From: BoogYT1300@aol.com
>Reply-To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
>To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
>Subject: Re: DML: Re: Emulsion in the oil filler tube
>Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:52:12 EST
>
>In a message dated 12/10/99 8:31:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>GSWillhite@ualr.edu writes:
>
><<
> My feelings too Rich on the 5.2L. However, I feel DC is
> on to something good with the 4.7L. Its just a matter
> of time before DC or a DML'er comes up with this fix.
> I want them to fix it before that nice 5.7L? Cammer comes
> out. Of course if they want to go 5.9 or 6L........
> >>
>Thanks guys,
>Actually the engine runs great for a stock engine and the I think the trans
>is more efficient at retaining HP, but it just makes me mad that it
>everyones telling me "its normal"! Now that the trans computer has been
>reprogrammed it is not as bad.
>Even the guys on the XJ list are having these problems, they were told to
>just clean out the tube and wait till the techs get a TSB on it.
>I just wish they had the option of a 318/46RE. They are still putting them
>in the 2000 Ram. I saw one!
>I guess they all have their problems, I should have just waited another
>year.
> Oh well at least she rides like a dream, now that the alingment is right.
>ttyl
>Boog
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:47:51 EST