Water in Transmission from 4WD'ing, is this covered under manufacturer Car Warranty?

[ShadowsPapa]

This diff whine was immediately after the new transmission was installed (on the way home after picking up the car).

My father had a nissan years ago that got diff whine and it was because the case hardening on crown wheel and pinion in the rear diff had failed.

Given my jeep did not have any of that noise prior to the new transmission installation, i am wondering if the transmission gears are causing the whine?

I think you are saying ring gear and pinion in the differential.

A whine is very objective - what some say is a whine others will say is nothing but normal gear noise. So it's impossible to say if it's abnormal or not.
In any case, if there is an abnormal whine from the transmission, that's not the shop or installers.
That's a transmission issue outside of the scope of installation.
The transmission won't or can't cause a differential gear whine (ring and pinion in the states) so if there's a new whine, it's the new transmission doing it.

If the breather hose was connected prior to your adventures, and your adventure knocked it off - you were doing something really wild to cause anything to reach up there and knock it off. It could sit there for years and never come off.

Sponsored

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Definitely. I don't discriminate. Are you saying you can guarantee your work done is better than factory setup from the new?

My work will be at least as good. Proven over the years. (And by perfect scores by judges in contests. In the Plymouth Troubleshooting Contest, the judges looked for precise placement of all wires, hoses, plug wires and more - everything has to be exactly as it came from the factory, including how hoses and wires cross each other, were placed in clips, etc.)

And yes, because of my quality of work, people send me work from all around the country for repair or restoration.
I was known as a top mechanic in Iowa, sought after even by Iowa's biggest Jeep dealership. Yes, my work is generally that good. Customers in one shop I worked in would come in and go to the service manager and request that I be the one to work on their vehicles. Not bragging, just telling as it actually was. Some of us are really that good. I suspect there are thousands out there like that.
Some people just can't handle that it's that way and refuse to believe some are better than others, and some really do actually perform top quality work.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

My thumb of rule is to replace rear main seal each time the transmission are removed.

That's fine, but in his case, it would be an extra charge, not covered under warranty.
I'm not saying the idea is bad - it's actually fine/good, but it won't be covered is all I'm saying.

Highly possible when they took the transmission out, the rear main seal went bad because of hot and cold from the high water causing the seal to give out prematurely

Transmission removal has no impact on a rear main.
Hot/cold from high water can't have any impact on a lip type seal. Not possible. It's a rubber seal, with a lip. Going from hot (engine temps) to lower quickly won't cause seal damage or leakage, otherwise, we'd be seeing axles seals, transmission and transfer case seals, and seals on all sorts of cars and trucks go bad every time they get into cool water.
Going from hot to cold has no impact on that sort of seal - it's that simple.

He'd also have to be in the water for a period of time for water to get that high in the bell housing and against the engine at that height. It takes some time since they aren't wide open. They aren't "sealed" but even with cars from years ago, the water wouldn't get that high instantly. it's sort of like putting a hole in a bottle and submerging it - it takes a while for water to get in because it's fairly well mated surfaces and a plug in the bottom without a hole to let water "rush in".
And for the water to be at the seal level, you'd be driving through water that was at the height of the front engine pulley/vibration dampener, not just pushing a wave that deep ahead of you, but water literally at that depth. You'd be flinging water all over in the engine bay, the driveshafts and pinions would be submerged. That's fine, but if the water hurts the rear main, then it's also taking out every other seal under there. And it won't.

 

[troverman]

I'm of the opinion the OP should have his transmission fixed under warranty. The primary advantage of these vehicles is their superior off-road performance. Jeep's marketing is based exactly upon that, not ride quality, interior opulence, handling, or acceleration. It is not unreasonable to ford through that much water. Normal procedure for fording is enter the water slowly and proceed under steady throttle to try to create a small bow wave, which lowers the depth of the water beneath the vehicle. There will obviously be exceptions to everything, but I don't think he was in at an unreasonable depth. For the record, I have forded water in over the top of the hood in my 1992 Range Rover, which was fuel injected with a ZF automatic transmission. The vehicle came factory with raised axle breathers and was rated to ford water "to the tops of the tires." I did have a snorkel but no harm ever came to the drivetrain from doing this repeatedly.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Remember - a warranty is for "defects in materials and workmanship".
And frankly, after seeing a pattern here, and the fact that's not the first time he's gotten into muck and mud, if i was a dealer, I'd say no based on observations of all posts over the months.

 

[Hootbro]

I'm of the opinion the OP should have his transmission fixed under warranty. The primary advantage of these vehicles is their superior off-road performance. Jeep's marketing is based exactly upon that, not ride quality, interior opulence, handling, or acceleration. It is not unreasonable to ford through that much water. Normal procedure for fording is enter the water slowly and proceed under steady throttle to try to create a small bow wave, which lowers the depth of the water beneath the vehicle. There will obviously be exceptions to everything, but I don't think he was in at an unreasonable depth. For the record, I have forded water in over the top of the hood in my 1992 Range Rover, which was fuel injected with a ZF automatic transmission. The vehicle came factory with raised axle breathers and was rated to ford water "to the tops of the tires." I did have a snorkel but no harm ever came to the drivetrain from doing this repeatedly.

He still sucked in water. Is that due to a design defect or maybe he actually forded too deep regardless of what he says or thinks?

I do not think this is in the realm of like the early Ford Raptors that owners bent their frames doing jumps that emulated Ford advertising at the time.

 

[Blade1668]

9. And this is the most important...can anyone explain how a breather hose which has a one way valve and is located up on top of the engine comes off the top of a transmission in the first place given its a new transmission?

Also, have any of the naysayers actually seen how this breather hose is connected to the transmission? Its a push on plug (like a small spark plug connector). You can pull it off with two fingers whilst under the car.

Im going to argue that the breather hose is not adquitely connected to the transmission...it should have a hose clamp not a push on cap!

At the end of this post is a picture of what the transmission breather connector cap looks like. Some of you will argue thats a spark plug cap...google jeep transmission breather connector and you will eventually find this image...its exactly what the cap on my jeep transmission looks like.

Ive watched a few videos on preparing jeeps for deep water, ive not yet seen one that says anything about changing the transmission breather hose (because the top of it is already up in the engine bay on above the engine)...so i wasnt expecting this to be an issue.

This is where I relocated the vent for front axle, transmission and transfer case to on my XJ it is around 1.4 meter high. The rear axle and fuel tank are vented to over fuel cap level that can extend to top of roof. As a general rule I don't ford above the tires that is over 30 cm lower than the vents.

Prior lessons learned with that vehicle. (90XJ) lesson two, I don't trust any one who works on my vehicles with what they say the did.oNow the businesses you have there, it might be different. I check that what is said to be done is done. I've had one dealership I went to in Germany, I would recommend from past experiences with them. Not any help for you though.

 

[Cburd61]

Uh, quite a few do it - even Jeep says it's ok.
Where in the world are you getting your info - youtube??

 

[troverman]

He still sucked in water. Is that due to a design defect or maybe he actually forded too deep regardless of what he says or thinks?

I do not think this is in the realm of like the early Ford Raptors that owners bent their frames doing jumps that emulated Ford advertising at the time.

I respect the manufacturer's position, and they shouldn't be charged with paying for a component that failed due to use outside the intended or stated scope. However, when the book says "30 inches max water depth" that leaves a bit of leeway. Nobody can accurately measure the exact depth of water at the exact path they will drive. Even someone doing due diligence and wading into the water on foot with a measuring stick that spot checks might miss a little dip that increases depth momentarily by 6" or so.

Pretty hard to say if he was in too deep or not; we don't have actual photos or video. A bow wave in the front will make the water appear deeper and its not actual depth. Another real question is whether the shop that already messed with the transmission correctly reinstalled the transmission vent. Jeep should be happy that people are using the product as intended and not just posing. Jeep should study the failure and design better ways to prevent these problems in the future.

 

[Hootbro]

However, when the book says "30 inches max water depth" that leaves a bit of leeway. Nobody can accurately measure the exact depth of water at the exact path they will drive. Even someone doing due diligence and wading into the water on foot with a measuring stick that spot checks might miss a little dip that increases depth momentarily by 6" or so.

We have a saying at my work, "there is no tolerance to the tolerance". If someone is unsure of the path they are taking is not 100% within spec, then they should not be on it or accept the risk that may be adverse. That is called risk management.

No different if on the trail and someone miss judges a line and slides into a obstacle.

Water is probably one of the most difficult things to gauge and guess what it will do.

 

[troverman]

We have a saying at my work, "there is no tolerance to the tolerance". If someone is unsure of the path they are taking is not 100% within spec, then they should not be on it or accept the risk that may be adverse. That is called risk management.

No different if on the trail and someone miss judges a line and slides into a obstacle.

Water is probably one of the most difficult things to gauge and guess what it will do.

No, the liability falls on the manufacturer to build in some leeway. Even fire truck aerial ladders have a rated capacity and a non-published safety capacity, meaning they know it might be overloaded at some point. If Jeep says 30", they should build in a bit of extra fudge factor. And they probably do.

 

[Wheelin98TJ]

No, the liability falls on the manufacturer to build in some leeway. Even fire truck aerial ladders have a rated capacity and a non-published safety capacity, meaning they know it might be overloaded at some point. If Jeep says 30", they should build in a bit of extra fudge factor. And they probably do.

When trying to prove a warranty claim, the burden of proof is on the customer.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

So we're saying that because critical safety equipment, where life and limb is at stake, has a large built-in fudge factor, it's ok to assume everything about my car or truck has a 20% factor built in. So I can go through 36" of water, since the marketing says 30".
i can tow 7,000 because the book says 6,000 and we all know for a fact there's a huge margin built in. My tires say 2800 pounds maximum load - what a hoot, I know there's a large margin built in so it's ok if I load them up to 3200 pounds.

But I go back to - there's a pattern here, and if there's one thing I'm not bad at according to experts, it's pattern recognition. There's a pattern of use of this particular Jeep.
We also know that water fording isn't the same as trudging through water at any speed, with any amount of mud or debris. Fording is entering the water slowly and slowly increasing speed to form a bow wave just ahead of the vehicle. A bow wave, IMO, doesn't look quite like what's in the picture. It's a bow, curved.
We have no clue what speed the water was entered at (but can safely assume a few things based on months of posts), how fast the Jeep was going through the water, it's described as "muck" so it's not just water. How far did the wheels sink into the muck, so was it the 30" of water plus the tires sinking in 3" or so?
At one point, the Jeep went into mud, and instead of being pulled back out (the smart thing if it was very deep) it was pulled through (so how much of the mud was forced up into places it wouldn't normally go).
Back to the water - if it was muck as described, it's quite possible mud and muck and debris were thrown up over things under the Jeep if there was enough speed.
Again, fording isn't going fast, it's slowly increasing until there's a bow wave, then continuing through at a steady speed.
Some like to see how fast they can get through water - and we've seen posts here describing the damage later.

This is a work truck, yet is subjected to conditions many here would reserve only for a fun Jeep off-roader, not a work truck one must depend on.
Is this a first Jeep? Was it bought, the book totally ignored, it got built and take out willy-nilly into mud and muck and water? We don't know, do we?

Sorry, for me, we're missing too many pieces, and yet we're saying "it's got to be warranty".
And comparing water fording depth to critical safety equipment to prove there's a large margin built in so it's ok to go over, we know for a fact it's ok, just wrong.

 

[troverman]

In my opinion, that avatar photo looks photoshopped, but who knows.
You are naive to think that most manufacturers don't build in a certain amount of fudge factor, though.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

In my opinion, that avatar photo looks photoshopped, but who knows.
You are naive to think that most manufacturers don't build in a certain amount of fudge factor, though.

Naive LOL - what a hoot.
I know they do - I've been involved in design, testing and so on. I know there's built in margins.
I designed the computer control systems for CCC's turbo compressor controllers - and had to make them work in Russia's coldest and hottest environments - and failure was NOT an option. Gazprom, a huge multi-million dollar contract. Not a single failure was allowed.

For a consumer to say "I know there's margins, so I don't really need to be that careful" is bull crap. And to think that the manufacturer should cover something under warranty "because we all know there's a margin built in" is also bull crap.
They say xx" of water fording - then that's all they can be held to.
And again, we don't know what the heck he's done for a fact. He's all over the place with it.
If you have read every single post he's made, there's just so much missing, or not being said.
There's a history here. And a pattern.

Sponsored