I'm pretty sure they could engineer a clutch to hold 40 more ft lbs of torque if they wanted to. My guess is they wanted to take operator error out of their warranty claims as much as possible.

 

they prolly already had all the clutches made up when they discovered the problem, so it was cheaper to punch in a program............ looks good on paper......

 

They reason for not putting in a better clutch was the cost.

 

the stock dodge clutchs arent worth a dime. even under stock form. common dodge this is BS

 

X2 cost..... was prob easier to reprogram the ecm's to a lower hp/torque setting than to put a heavier clutch in to handle the hp/torque. but then again its business and more cost effective to keep a cheaper clutch and "get by" with the lower hp.

 

Well, now with all this intelligent input, I wonder if the truck manufacturers are listening? There seems to be a lot of thought that cost was the crux of the problem; in other words, the truck makers didn't want to spend the money on a simple thing like a heavier clutch with stiffer springs. I'd like to hear their input on this, but then they probably don't tune in to these forums too often. Anyone have any thought in this regard?

 

If i remember correctly the detune of the torque was a last minute change and it doesnt cost anything to change a setting to limit power. The flywheel isnt the best either.

 

The thing is, it wouldn't cost Chrysler a dime to put in a slightly better clutch to handle the difference in torque. If they wanted to go that route, they tell the clutch manufacturer to meet the new specs and they make adjustments to make it work. It's not like Chrysler would have to buy an aftermarket clutch, the clutch manufacturer undoubtedly has much better R&D than any aftermarket clutch outfit. We're talking simple changes in the manufacturing specs and you have a clutch that will work fine.

We've reached the point in power with these new trucks that the rest of our drive trains are not as over built as they were in the past with 160-300 horse trucks. Would you want to send a truck out with a powertrain warranty that had enough low end power to do damage if someone missed a shift every time they drove it? Imagine the "super truckers" out there dumping the clutch with the throttle down every time they shift, enough low end power and something's gonna give eventually.

In short, I firmly believe cost has everything to do with the lower tq on the manual, just not because of the clutch itself, but rather the warranty numbers on the rest of the drive train.

 

The drivetrain on the 03 and up is exactly what guys are using on sled pullers so drivetrain isnt the issue. They have larger stronger drive shafts, ujoints, transfer case, rearend. The only downside is the transmisson has a aluminum case and under extreme stress will crack.

 

Would you warranty a rear end for 72,000 miles of sled pulling? How many miles does a full on sled pulling truck actually get with the sled on it?

I know that all trucks have pretty stout running gear, but I also know how a manufacturer looks at the data from warranty repairs and how they look at reducing those numbers. You have to remember how many thousands of trucks are put out there and when they analyze the repairs needed they can see exactly where they need to change things. It's all numbers to them, if they can cut operator error related repairs on rearends by one percent with a fraction less power, they're gonna do it and save a million dollars.

---AutoMerged DoublePost---

For example, let's say drivetrain related repairs broke down to 60% manual trucks and 40% auto trucks, you're gonna do something different.