STOP ORDER on all Manual Jeeps [Update: software flash fix arrives in March]

[mackh4x0r]

Why is 6th worthless?

The idea is when driving on normal roads, shift into 6th as soon as you are rolling at a normal speed that keeps the engine RPM above 1000 RPM or so. It's not meant for hill climbing per se or for passing, just for keeping the vehicle rolling in constant motion while keeping engine RPMs low for maximum fuel economy.

My vehicles have always spent 95% of their time in 6th, usually shifting 1 -> 3 -> 6. If you start slowing down in 6th, then you drop a gear or two.

This may sound silly, but it's basically what the AT does.

I use 6th all the time on the highway. Unless you're never going highway speeds, 6th is def useful.

Sponsored

 

[mackh4x0r]

Not sure if anyone else who has a manual on order got this email, but Jeep just sent me one with a message about the Y01 recall.

We are contacting you to inform you that your manual transmission (Jeep Wrangler/Gladiator) order has been delayed due to a safety recall. The recall campaign number is Y01 for the clutch pressure plate. The repair is currently being developed. Shipment of these vehicles is expected to re-start in March 2021. Customer sold orders will be prioritized for shipment.

The recall on your vehicle will be resolved prior to delivery to your dealership.

We understand the excitement to get behind the wheel of your new (Jeep Wrangler/Gladiator). Should you have any questions, please contact your selling dealership or customer care at 800-853-1403.

We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Thank you for your loyalty and passion for the Jeep brand.

FCA Recall Assistance

Pretty much confirms what JeepCares and others in this thread have been saying. Was thoughtful for them to send.

Lol, I got this as well. Except it had my name wrong on the email.

 

[MaineBumpkin]

Interesting, no e-mail yet and when I add my Wrangler to my Mopar garage it shows no recalls. I'd like to think this could be good news but I doubt it

 

[Cutterone]

I think the problem I'm having is we are all trying to justify the second recall on our clutches to fix one of the main parts of the clutch assembly that is either weak, insufficient, or defective. No hose replacement, line bleed, or software workaround is going to alter the physical part that seems to be the root of these issues. Unfortunately Jeep sure isn't going to pony up gobs of $$$ to replace what 30-40 thousand clutches, so us manual owners are SOL and just hoping ours never have an issue, an issue that shouldn't be one on $50K vehicles and on a transmission design that should have been perfected and foolproofed over the last 100 plus years! Sorry rant over...

 

[JeepCares]

it would be helpful if Jeep could notify those who ordered as well as the dealers. She called the dealer and they were clueless.

We are in the process of completing an outbound program to notify customers who ordered a vehicle that is affected.
The dealerships have already been notified. They have many resources available to them to check upcoming recalls.

Kaitlin
Jeep Cares

 

[angrynewyorker]

Interesting, no e-mail yet and when I add my Wrangler to my Mopar garage it shows no recalls. I'd like to think this could be good news but I doubt it

Unfortunately you are in the same boat as the rest of us. Mine has been built for a couple of weeks and shows no open recall, but it sits and waits for the flash which is coming sometime in March. The only people whose Jeeps won’t be held up for it is those that are built after the flash becomes available. @JeepCares has covered this in a few posts, and I have also received a phone call from Jeep confirming this as well.

 

[daveprice7]

Why is 6th worthless?

The idea is when driving on normal roads, shift into 6th as soon as you are rolling at a normal speed that keeps the engine RPM above 1000 RPM or so. It's not meant for hill climbing per se or for passing, just for keeping the vehicle rolling in constant motion while keeping engine RPMs low for maximum fuel economy.

My vehicles have always spent 95% of their time in 6th, usually shifting 1 -> 3 -> 6. If you start slowing down in 6th, then you drop a gear or two.

This may sound silly, but it's basically what the AT does.

I don't see any mileage gains between 5th and 6th and when you factor in traffic, slight curves or any incline in the road, 6th is gutless and highly situational (straight, flat, high speed open road, which I don't have around here). It just makes more sense to me to leave it in 5th than constantly shifting up and down a gear to hypermile. I'd much rather have that little extra grunt before needing to downshift. Perhaps I'd appreciate 6th more if it wasn't paired with 3.45s, but as it stands I don't bother with it.

I wouldn't care so much if it weren't for the fact that reverse is in the wrong spot and it requires the lockout and I can't just replace the knob with a regular steel ball.

 

[DanW]

I didn’t read all 13 pages here so my apologies if this has already been posted, but I found that Jeep Cares replied over on the Gladiator Forum.

https://www.jeepgladiatorforum.com/...-flash-fix-arrives-in-march.40499/post-655484

I know as an owner of a new 2021 JLU Willys I have zero interest in having my Jeep detuned.

This is my 3rd new Wrangler since 2009 and a tune strikes me a bandaid for a weak link. I haven’t complained here before but I’ve owned at least 6 new vehicles with manual trans in the last 25 years, and my 2021 JL is my least favorite. It’s too light and has little to no feel at the friction point.

I rather split the cost of an upgraded clutch. Even that sort of annoys me, because while I enjoy driving 3 pedals, the $2,400 mark up for the ZF auto would have been a stretch for my budget. That’s mainly what swayed me to the manual. I know paying to fix a brand new Jeep that’s under warranty sounds ridiculous, but detuning seems worse.

Our 2009 JKUR manual (solid for +50,000 miles) when we traded it in on our factory ordered 2012 JKUR auto.

You have to understand the de-tune and how it works. Your engine will not be detuned unless it there is a big problem. It won't be a mild detune that will be hard to detect. It will be a full-on limp mode that will be unmistakable. Otherwise, it wouldn't allow for cooling down the clutch mechanism.

I'm hoping to get mine immediately upon its release, so I'll report back after the drive home.

For those who didn't click:



The problem here is how the software calculates the temperature of the clutch. If it's done well, it will be unnoticeable; if it's done poorly who knows under what circumstances torque will be reduced because the software believes the clutch is getting too hot.

Remember, since there is not a temperature sensor on the clutch, it's all based upon modeling and calculations of what the software thinks the temperature of the clutch is.

Very true. But as you said, if done right, it can work. The temperature increase should be pretty linear based on the amount of slip, and testing can reveal that down to a pretty narrow margin of error. It will depend on how well they did the testing. It could be that the delay to March is because they are still doing the testing and have not finalized the algorithm. But only the engineering team knows.

That said, if the temp that triggers it is set pretty high, there can be a wider margin of error without resulting in a trigger for the life of the vehicle, under normal conditions.

One nice side benefit is that it might be a good indicator of a worn out clutch for those who don't really know how to feel that, such as certain family members of mine who just get in and drive and don't know there's a problem until it strands them somewhere. Just a thought.

Overall, I don't think what they are doing with this is overly complicated, from an engineering standpoint. Pretty simple, really. They just need to wire a few of them up with sensors, stress them and collect the data. Then adjust the parameters in the program. Not hard when you have the engineers and resources. They have literally tens of millions of dollars in equipment with which to work, along with teams of engineers whose sole job is to solve problems.

 

[DanW]

I don't see any mileage gains between 5th and 6th and when you factor in traffic, slight curves or any incline in the road, 6th is gutless and highly situational (straight, flat, high speed open road, which I don't have around here). It just makes more sense to me to leave it in 5th than constantly shifting up and down a gear to hypermile. I'd much rather have that little extra grunt before needing to downshift. Perhaps I'd appreciate 6th more if it wasn't paired with 3.45s, but as it stands I don't bother with it.

I wouldn't care so much if it weren't for the fact that reverse is in the wrong spot and it requires the lockout and I can't just replace the knob with a regular steel ball.

6th works ok for me, but I'm on mostly flat land. I do see an advantage in certain conditions. On a long highway run at 65mph, I see about 1mpg advantage in 6th. Add hills to the mix and I think 5th is at least as good, maybe slightly better. As my Jeep has broken in, it has gotten better. It can pull mild hills in 6th, but loses the mpg advantage, making it equal or even slightly better in 5th. I'm running 4.10 gearing and 35s. If I were running 33's, I'd be perfectly fine with 6th and I think it would be more like 1.5mpg advantage and it would pull hills a little better.

That said, if I could change the ratios, I'd do two things. First, I'd change reverse. It is just too tall. No way around it. Then, I'd shorten 6th just a little and then shorten 5th slightly to even the spacing of the ratios. Maybe even a slight adjustment to 4th. But I'd leave 1st to 3rd right where they are. They are perfect, for me. 4th and 5th are fine, too, but I'd just move them to take advantage of a lower 6th.

But I honestly don't think much about it except in reverse or when someone else brings it up. Overall, it is fine in my Jeep. It certainly has not given me reason to re-gear to 4.56. It just wouldn't be worth even half the money it would cost.

 

[BroncoHound]

Why is 6th worthless?

The idea is when driving on normal roads, shift into 6th as soon as you are rolling at a normal speed that keeps the engine RPM above 1000 RPM or so. It's not meant for hill climbing per se or for passing, just for keeping the vehicle rolling in constant motion while keeping engine RPMs low for maximum fuel economy.

My vehicles have always spent 95% of their time in 6th, usually shifting 1 -> 3 -> 6. If you start slowing down in 6th, then you drop a gear or two.

This may sound silly, but it's basically what the AT does.

With every other manual transmission vehicle I've owned, I fully agree with this. However I don't find it to be the case with this Jeep, as the torque profile for this engine is totally wrong for the vehicle. It's so gutless below 2000rpm that my Jeep will rarely maintain a speed in 6th gear unless the conditions are ABSOLUTELY perfect, meaning straight road, no elevation gain, no wind, no traffic, no excess heat or cold. Alter any one of those criteria and my Jeep can't keep speed in 6th. I don't blame the transmission or the gearing; frankly I love where the gearing puts the RPM at any given speed. The problem is the motor really needs an adjustment to the powerband to make it useful in those revs.

 

[BroncoHound]

I think the problem I'm having is we are all trying to justify the second recall on our clutches to fix one of the main parts of the clutch assembly that is either weak, insufficient, or defective. No hose replacement, line bleed, or software workaround is going to alter the physical part that seems to be the root of these issues. Unfortunately Jeep sure isn't going to pony up gobs of $$$ to replace what 30-40 thousand clutches, so us manual owners are SOL and just hoping ours never have an issue, an issue that shouldn't be one on $50K vehicles and on a transmission design that should have been perfected and foolproofed over the last 100 plus years! Sorry rant over...

I share your frustration, and this is a somewhat cynical take but hey, it's 2021 and cynicism is so hot right now.

This whole issue is due largely to the fact that the manual transmission is a near extinct piece of technology. I've already resigned myself to the idea that my current Jeep is likely the last new vehicle I will buy with a manual transmission; in 7-10 years when I'm ready for another new vehicle there likely won't be anything that interests me still offered with 3 pedals. It's no different than so many other technological advancements in the automotive industry of the bygone era. For example, take when fuel injection was first becoming a thing. Plenty of folks still swore by carburetors because, like many who still prefer manual transmissions today, it kept the driver/owner more connected with the vehicle. People liked adjusting their A/F ratio with a screwdriver and didn't want a computer doing the work for them. But, eventually, the technology of fuel injection advanced to the point where an argument just couldn't be made to keep producing a vehicle with a carb. The manual transmission is headed to a similar fate.

Now that isn't the cynical part, as it's just a matter of progress and advancement and change. It's inevitable. The cynical part is that the engineering effort for the manual transmission in the JL platform is pretty sorely lacking and it's fairly easy to understand why. I've spend the better part of the last 10 years working in an engineering capacity on engineering teams (though my educational background isn't in engineering; long irrelevant story) so I can say with confidence that, speaking in generalities, the one thing a young engineer hates more than anything else in this world is working with old tech. Engineers are trained to drive technology forward, to advance systems and processes to the cutting edge of their industry, and they are filled with the ideas that they are going to change the world while they're in school. So from the perspective of an engineering team in the automotive industry, implementing an archaic piece of technology into their new and advanced model of vehicle is an insult. To me it's pretty obvious that the least amount of effort (and very little enthusiasm) went into the manual transmission on the JL. So it's no surprise to me that the fixes for a major issue that arises with this platform gets the least amount of effort necessary. It's a small piece of their sales market and the engineers really aren't going to be passionate about fixing a system that none of them really want to be working on in the first place.

As for your frustration that this kind of issue shouldn't be seen on a $50k vehicle in 2021 with a 100-year old piece of technology, sadly it's nothing new for Chrysler. The stock dual mass flywheel put between the G56 transmission and the Cummins Turbo Diesel from 2005-2018 was immediately and widely known to be a design that couldn't handle the torque of the Cummins. It was done to quiet the interior noise due to the G56 being an aluminum housing and the push from Chrysler to create a quieter cabin in the diesel pickups. The 05-07 5.9L diesel could barely be kept under control with the stock flywheel design but the 6.7L that was introduced in mid 2007 had a torque profile that would easily push the flywheel to separate. Was Chrysler's solution to create a better design or come up with a new way to achieve holding strength and acceptable cabin volume levels while allowing the engine to continue to evolve in the platform? No, instead they derated the 6.7L Cummins engine for the next ELEVEN MODEL YEARS before finally just giving up on the manual transmission altogether and joining the other members of the Big 3 and only offering automatics behind their medium duty diesels from 2019 on. So this behavior out of Jeep is definitely not out of character for the company or the industry.

 

[four low]

The only reason "Stellantis" will keep a manual is to compete with the Someday Bronco, otherwise the BeanCounters will erase it.
The cure is a " single - mass" ancient tech flywheel...we can do that ourselves

 

[BroncoHound]

6th works ok for me, but I'm on mostly flat land. I do see an advantage in certain conditions. On a long highway run at 65mph, I see about 1mpg advantage in 6th. Add hills to the mix and I think 5th is at least as good, maybe slightly better. As my Jeep has broken in, it has gotten better. It can pull mild hills in 6th, but loses the mpg advantage, making it equal or even slightly better in 5th. I'm running 4.10 gearing and 35s. If I were running 33's, I'd be perfectly fine with 6th and I think it would be more like 1.5mpg advantage and it would pull hills a little better.

That said, if I could change the ratios, I'd do two things. First, I'd change reverse. It is just too tall. No way around it. Then, I'd shorten 6th just a little and then shorten 5th slightly to even the spacing of the ratios. Maybe even a slight adjustment to 4th. But I'd leave 1st to 3rd right where they are. They are perfect, for me. 4th and 5th are fine, too, but I'd just move them to take advantage of a lower 6th.

But I honestly don't think much about it except in reverse or when someone else brings it up. Overall, it is fine in my Jeep. It certainly has not given me reason to re-gear to 4.56. It just wouldn't be worth even half the money it would cost.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned flat land. My Jeep is also a Rubicon 4-door on 35's with the factory 4.10 gearing. I bought the Jeep last summer while I was spending time down in Texas selling a rental house. At sea level and nice and flat, I found 6th gear useable on the freeway. However as soon as I took a road trip back home to Montana, I quickly found out that once you get to elevation any little change in the environment made 6th gear worthless. Especially now in winter, I rarely get out of 4th gear. Now that's fine; 4th gear is 1:1 direct so it's a strong, capable gear to be in for highway driving and this engine sure loves to rev, but it is still a very different driving experience than most manual transmission vehicles that came before it where, like COBill mentioned before, you generally find yourself in your tallest overdrive as quickly as you can for long cruising.

I keep thinking to myself that this engine really needs about 150hp and 100tq (which would only be about 100hp/60tq to the wheels because the parasitic loss in these Jeeps is among the highest of any vehicle on the road) and a modified cam or torque profile through tuning to bring the torque on 500-750rpm earlier. In a perfect world, that is...

 

[Cutterone]

The only reason "Stellantis" will keep a manual is to compete with the Someday Bronco, otherwise the BeanCounters will erase it.
The cure is a " single - mass" ancient tech flywheel...we can do that ourselves

So there are 2 centerforce clutch options I see, which one is the best to replace our sketchy stock ones?

 

[Truckn]

I share your frustration, and this is a somewhat cynical take but hey, it's 2021 and cynicism is so hot right now.

This whole issue is due largely to the fact that the manual transmission is a near extinct piece of technology. I've already resigned myself to the idea that my current Jeep is likely the last new vehicle I will buy with a manual transmission; in 7-10 years when I'm ready for another new vehicle there likely won't be anything that interests me still offered with 3 pedals. It's no different than so many other technological advancements in the automotive industry of the bygone era. For example, take when fuel injection was first becoming a thing. Plenty of folks still swore by carburetors because, like many who still prefer manual transmissions today, it kept the driver/owner more connected with the vehicle. People liked adjusting their A/F ratio with a screwdriver and didn't want a computer doing the work for them. But, eventually, the technology of fuel injection advanced to the point where an argument just couldn't be made to keep producing a vehicle with a carb. The manual transmission is headed to a similar fate.

Now that isn't the cynical part, as it's just a matter of progress and advancement and change. It's inevitable. The cynical part is that the engineering effort for the manual transmission in the JL platform is pretty sorely lacking and it's fairly easy to understand why. I've spend the better part of the last 10 years working in an engineering capacity on engineering teams (though my educational background isn't in engineering; long irrelevant story) so I can say with confidence that, speaking in generalities, the one thing a young engineer hates more than anything else in this world is working with old tech. Engineers are trained to drive technology forward, to advance systems and processes to the cutting edge of their industry, and they are filled with the ideas that they are going to change the world while they're in school. So from the perspective of an engineering team in the automotive industry, implementing an archaic piece of technology into their new and advanced model of vehicle is an insult. To me it's pretty obvious that the least amount of effort (and very little enthusiasm) went into the manual transmission on the JL. So it's no surprise to me that the fixes for a major issue that arises with this platform gets the least amount of effort necessary. It's a small piece of their sales market and the engineers really aren't going to be passionate about fixing a system that none of them really want to be working on in the first place.

As for your frustration that this kind of issue shouldn't be seen on a $50k vehicle in 2021 with a 100-year old piece of technology, sadly it's nothing new for Chrysler. The stock dual mass flywheel put between the G56 transmission and the Cummins Turbo Diesel from 2005-2018 was immediately and widely known to be a design that couldn't handle the torque of the Cummins. It was done to quiet the interior noise due to the G56 being an aluminum housing and the push from Chrysler to create a quieter cabin in the diesel pickups. The 05-07 5.9L diesel could barely be kept under control with the stock flywheel design but the 6.7L that was introduced in mid 2007 had a torque profile that would easily push the flywheel to separate. Was Chrysler's solution to create a better design or come up with a new way to achieve holding strength and acceptable cabin volume levels while allowing the engine to continue to evolve in the platform? No, instead they derated the 6.7L Cummins engine for the next ELEVEN MODEL YEARS before finally just giving up on the manual transmission altogether and joining the other members of the Big 3 and only offering automatics behind their medium duty diesels from 2019 on. So this behavior out of Jeep is definitely not out of character for the company or the industry.

I don't buy it. The manual transmission is still being advanced and not much less modern than an ancient centrifugal clutch you find in most automatic transmissions.

I do agree with a lot of things you said, but I don't think its oldness that is driving out the manual transmission. I think it's the lack of desire to drive them reflected in reduced sales. Manuals used to have a gas mileage advantage and even a shifting speed advantage, but they don't anymore. So the only people still choosing to buy them are those of us that enjoy it or respect the simplicity (like a carb).

If you think about it, even today with such modern technology, the manual transmission is far more robust, easier to maintain, and probably less of a source of quality issues than most automatics (funny given this thread is about a broken manual).

42,887 units affected. This basically means Jeep sold 42k manual transmission jeeps in the last 3 years. Not sure what percentage that is, but with an average purchase price of 35k, thats about $1.5B. So we'll probably continue to see another generation of Manual Transmission.

Sponsored