webslave

Obviously, your exhaust shop did not look very closely because there already is a resonator before the split. I like my music too much to even consider touching my exhaust.

Go for it then. Post up the results. Hope it does not go haywire and close off completely. Personally I think it would be way more restrictive than the stock muffler and resonators. Back pressure be damned I guess.

I said it once before. Save the corn for the humans and animals. A complete waste of money, time and resources.

2013 DJ R/T, 2011 RAM 2500 HO CTD LongHorn pickup, 1976 Cadillac Eldorado convertible, 1989 Limited Edition Custom Chrysler LeBaron turbo convertible and (it won't fit in the garage...) a 2014 Thor Tuscany 40RX motorhome with the 450 HP/1250 ft lb torque Cummins Turbo 8.9 litre.
Won't go into the tractors, ATVs, etc. Lots of "toys" and 106 acres to play with them on.

Ditto on the "some states require them". I think more and more states (27 now at one count) are going that route, and I for one, agree with safety concept. I turned my lights on with the wipers back eons ago when first learning to drive. Any inclement weather, rain, snow, dust storms, etc., anything I can do to be more visible to other drivers is increasing my safety. While you may think that DRLs cover the bill, what about the back end of the vehicle? I suspect it won't be a lot longer before "lights on for safety" will be set from the factory and won't be able to be switched off, most motorcycles, IIRC, come that way now. I don't use my headlights on sunny days on the cars, probably should (I do have DRLs and won't own a car without them), but, the before I release the air brakes on the motorhome, the full set of lights go on. In fact, I wish that they were automatic...motor on, all lights on; it would save me having to remember (though it is automatic now).

Ditto on the "some states require them". I think more and more states (27 now at one count) are going that route, and I for one, agree with safety concept. I turned my lights on with the wipers back eons ago when first learning to drive. Any inclement weather, rain, snow, dust storms, etc., anything I can do to be more visible to other drivers is increasing my safety. While you may think that DRLs cover the bill, what about the back end of the vehicle? I suspect it won't be a lot longer before "lights on for safety" will be set from the factory and won't be able to be switched off, most motorcycles, IIRC, come that way now. I don't use my headlights on sunny days on the cars, probably should (I do have DRLs and won't own a car without them), but, the before I release the air brakes on the motorhome, the full set of lights go on. In fact, I wish that they were automatic...motor on, all lights on; it would save me having to remember (though it is automatic now).

Ditto on the "some states require them". I think more and more states (27 now at one count) are going that route, and I for one, agree with safety concept. I turned my lights on with the wipers back eons ago when first learning to drive. Any inclement weather, rain, snow, dust storms, etc., anything I can do to be more visible to other drivers is increasing my safety. While you may think that DRLs cover the bill, what about the back end of the vehicle? I suspect it won't be a lot longer before "lights on for safety" will be set from the factory and won't be able to be switched off, most motorcycles, IIRC, come that way now. I don't use my headlights on sunny days on the cars, probably should (I do have DRLs and won't own a car without them), but, the before I release the air brakes on the motorhome, the full set of lights go on. In fact, I wish that they were automatic...motor on, all lights on; it would save me having to remember (though it is automatic now).

Ditto on the "some states require them". I think more and more states (27 now at one count) are going that route, and I for one, agree with safety concept. I turned my lights on with the wipers back eons ago when first learning to drive. Any inclement weather, rain, snow, dust storms, etc., anything I can do to be more visible to other drivers is increasing my safety. While you may think that DRLs cover the bill, what about the back end of the vehicle? I suspect it won't be a lot longer before "lights on for safety" will be set from the factory and won't be able to be switched off, most motorcycles, IIRC, come that way now. I don't use my headlights on sunny days on the cars, probably should (I do have DRLs and won't own a car without them), but, the before I release the air brakes on the motorhome, the full set of lights go on. In fact, I wish that they were automatic...motor on, all lights on; it would save me having to remember (though it is automatic now).

Exactly. A lot of us "old timers" built cars (yes, I built race cars in the late '60s and early '70s) and there were many things that "became legend" during those times. More air was one, but, even in those days, more air didn't do you any good until you re-jetted the carburetors or added additional carburetors to add the additional fuel to take advantage of it. To really take advantage of it, you needed to also alter the cam's duration for intake and exhaust, add a bigger exhaust system (headers, straight through pipes, low-flow mufflers, etc) to get rid of the exhaust so that you could get more air and fuel in quicker, etc.
Enter the modern day computer controlled systems. You can put more air in the system, but, it won't use it due to the variable venturi effect of the throttle body. The MAP will only allow the amount air to be used such that the "perfect" air/fuel mixture is maintained. Put more fuel in the mix, the computer will retard the engine and lean the injectors until it evens out. A new cam won't even buy you anything because the computer will again control spark (firing) and fuel (injectors) to maintain its "ideal".
CAI? Sure, it will make your car sound "meaner", but, no real gains in hp or mpg. CAT back exhaust? Again, more noise, the "meaner" sound, but, put it on a dyno and you've got nothing but sound effects. Anything a "shade tree" mechanic can do will do mostly zip for actual "performance"; the best improvements would be gained by turbo charging or putting a blower on it, but, that involves re-engineering the heads and block and re-programming of the computer to take advantage of the added compression ratios. I had a Jeep Commander with the Hemi and went that route just playing around. Had it dyno tested before and after. Zero change in hp at the wheels and zero change in long range fuel economy; in fact short range fuel economy suffered for awhile because "putting my foot in it" made it sound so much better...didn't go faster, it just sounded like it was. I actually, after about a year, put the stock air box and snorkel back on and re-installed the stock exhaust so that I had back the "peace and quiet" of the original Commander; without any performance enhancement the noise was irksome. I had forgotten all that I had learned building cars in the good old days.
Lesson learned? Yes you can tear the stock air cleaner off and install a CAI that will sound meaner, but, require more maintenance than the stock unit for no gains except noise. You can install a CAI for the added noise and possibly incur a short lifespan on the exhaust parts, but, again, no real gains. Until and unless you do something with the computer, it will regulate the "simple changes" so that there are no changes. Start messing with the computer and you can actually destroy the engine - check some of the diesel folks and their "extreme" tuners and the FEDS have stepped in so that those tuners are now regulated or banned for emission reasons. There are some things you can do for "improvement"; those of you without the larger brakes could upgrade the rotors and calipers. Those of you that don't like the ride can experiment with various spring packages and shocks, but, over-all "performance" is governed by the computer and the computer is quite capable of changing enough parameters that anything else you do will be either no gain, or engine damaging. The engineer's of today's vehicles do everything they can to "balance" hp, comfort and efficiency (mpg) and there really are no "miracle" cures that you can add off the shelf as a "bolt on" addition.

I can understand the frustration of someone who has legitimate concerns and is looking for support. The forum members have been very good at giving advice when posters are specific in those concerns. It's the posters who never explain what problems they have and only offer negative comments about a product or company who make it difficult to assess their legitimacy. A lot of times they only post a few times and we never hear from them again. Of course they get a lot of satisfaction when they disrupt the relationships between the forum members or get under somebody's skin. There are a lot of sections on this forum which answer any questions or offer the opportunity to address concerns if they are in fact legitimate without appearing to be trolling. jkeaton explained this in his first response and I agree with him. Trolls are the bane of many forums!

Turbochargers, for the most part, are "old tech". Been around for a lot of years (I've got an '89 LeBaron with Turbo; mid-80's IIRC when Chrysler started playing with them) and as long as the company doesn't try to over-boost the system, longevity isn't that much of an issue. Mine is an '89; still stock, but, I've always run synthetic oil and only rarely get seriously into the boost (mostly in passing). A lot of turbo issues can be attributed to old oil, cheap oil, or sticking your foot into the boost at every opportunity. Those bearings do spin fast and they are not designed (in general purpose passenger vehicles) to be run like CART series cars with WOT all the time. As for the Ford EB issue? They tried a water cooled twin turbo system and IMHO, did too good a job with the inter-cooler; it is so "cold" that it condenses the moisture in the air and then injects into the cylinders, hence, the misfires and lack of power. They'll get the kinks worked out, maybe smaller inter-coolers or using the hot side of the water pump for warmer water to reduce the condensation (I'm not a turbo engineer, but, those two areas would be where I'd look first).
There are lots of "first year" engines that have issues and those are encountered by all the auto makers. New engines are usually a "miracle" of the latest technology and materials and there is no way that an auto maker can foresee all the various scenarios and thrashing the public will heap on those cars and engines. Would I stay away from a turbo car? Nope, I've got two, the '89 LeBaron and my 2011 Cummins Turbo Diesel in the RAM 2500 Long Horn, both of them proven tech on established engines. Would I rush out and buy the very first year of a Pentastar turbo? Nope. Then again, I wouldn't rush out and buy the first year production of any new engine, turbo or not (I waited until the Pentastar went through it's "growing pains"). I learned my lesson on a 1972 Toyota Corona; first year for their overhead cam 2 liter...they made the valve guides too small and it cost me two days of being without the car while it was in the shop getting a new head, pistons, arms and crank. Didn't cost me dime, but, the sound of that engine eating valves at 70 mph is indelibly etched in my mind...the look on my wife's was priceless :-D

If the fluid is getting close to the "low" line, then going downhill will draw the fluid to the front of the reservoir, exposing the contacts for the sensor to the air, triggering the "Brake" light. When the car levels out, the fluid once again covers the contacts, turning the light off. It doesn't require adding fluid all the way up to the "Full" line...just enough (was ~2 ounces for me; I kept adding ~.5 ounce at a time until it stopped illuminating) to make the fluid level high enough going downhill to keep the contacts covered. The addition of a couple of ounces of brake fluid will not cause an overflow condition when putting new pads on, but, will keep the "Brake" light from coming on. We live in the mountainous area of south central PA and it took me about a week to figure out what was going on. I've since put new pads on the car and the fluid line is still just at the "Full" line, even after adding almost 2 ounces to keep the "Brake" light off.

If the fluid is getting close to the "low" line, then going downhill will draw the fluid to the front of the reservoir, exposing the contacts for the sensor to the air, triggering the "Brake" light. When the car levels out, the fluid once again covers the contacts, turning the light off. It doesn't require adding fluid all the way up to the "Full" line...just enough (was ~2 ounces for me; I kept adding ~.5 ounce at a time until it stopped illuminating) to make the fluid level high enough going downhill to keep the contacts covered. The addition of a couple of ounces of brake fluid will not cause an overflow condition when putting new pads on, but, will keep the "Brake" light from coming on. We live in the mountainous area of south central PA and it took me about a week to figure out what was going on. I've since put new pads on the car and the fluid line is still just at the "Full" line, even after adding almost 2 ounces to keep the "Brake" light off.

It's a highly useful feature for a two-driver car like our Journey is. With the 300M, pressing the unlock button on the remote puts the mirrors, driver's seat and the radio presets all back to my settings. When my wife uses the car, they all go back to her settings with her remote. Certainly not necessary but it is very, very convenient. JKeaton is correct in that those features are usually reserved for flagship models. The Durango, Grand Cherokee, and Chrysler 300 represent their respective top of the line.

Definitely agree, and hence the reason, I'll never own a "Flex Fuel" vehicle. I'm one of those, by personal preference and economic/scientific evidence, that still believes that corn belongs on the table, either as the vegetable/grain/oil itself, or suitable feed for animals for consumption, and not subsidized and put in a gas tank for less power, higher cost, more maintenance issues and dubious benefits to our oil importation problems.

I'm not sure the breaking down of Ethanol plays much of a role... From experience, I have two antique cars; a 1976 Cadillac Eldorado and a 1989 Chrysler LeBaron Turbo that is factory custom (options not available on the 1989 LeBaron) and both are only run once a year, so the gas sits for years before I run it low enough to "fill up". Both use Ethanol fuel (the only fuel available in my area) and I've never had an issue, and I don't use any Stabil like additive. The last time I got gas for the Cadillac was in 2010 (36 gallon tank) and the last time I got gas for the LeBaron was in 2012... For most folks, the breakdown of Ethanol is a non-issue. It does break down and it is hydrophillic, but, over a long period of time, not a matter of weeks or months.
Today's cars are designed to use Ethanol; all of the seals are designed to handle it and the vehicle is engineered to use a certain octane (regular 87, certainly not 91). Using a higher octane or paying more for non-Ethanol fuel is just flushing your money down the drain. If I had an older car, like the 1962 Avanti R2 that I've got my eye on, then non-Ethanol fuel becomes more of an issue since the rubber parts in its fuel system isn't designed for the corrosive effects of Ethanol and the valves are not designed for lack of lead as a coolant.

I'm not sure the breaking down of Ethanol plays much of a role... From experience, I have two antique cars; a 1976 Cadillac Eldorado and a 1989 Chrysler LeBaron Turbo that is factory custom (options not available on the 1989 LeBaron) and both are only run once a year, so the gas sits for years before I run it low enough to "fill up". Both use Ethanol fuel (the only fuel available in my area) and I've never had an issue, and I don't use any Stabil like additive. The last time I got gas for the Cadillac was in 2010 (36 gallon tank) and the last time I got gas for the LeBaron was in 2012... For most folks, the breakdown of Ethanol is a non-issue. It does break down and it is hydrophillic, but, over a long period of time, not a matter of weeks or months.
Today's cars are designed to use Ethanol; all of the seals are designed to handle it and the vehicle is engineered to use a certain octane (regular 87, certainly not 91). Using a higher octane or paying more for non-Ethanol fuel is just flushing your money down the drain. If I had an older car, like the 1962 Avanti R2 that I've got my eye on, then non-Ethanol fuel becomes more of an issue since the rubber parts in its fuel system isn't designed for the corrosive effects of Ethanol and the valves are not designed for lack of lead as a coolant.

I'm not sure the breaking down of Ethanol plays much of a role... From experience, I have two antique cars; a 1976 Cadillac Eldorado and a 1989 Chrysler LeBaron Turbo that is factory custom (options not available on the 1989 LeBaron) and both are only run once a year, so the gas sits for years before I run it low enough to "fill up". Both use Ethanol fuel (the only fuel available in my area) and I've never had an issue, and I don't use any Stabil like additive. The last time I got gas for the Cadillac was in 2010 (36 gallon tank) and the last time I got gas for the LeBaron was in 2012... For most folks, the breakdown of Ethanol is a non-issue. It does break down and it is hydrophillic, but, over a long period of time, not a matter of weeks or months.
Today's cars are designed to use Ethanol; all of the seals are designed to handle it and the vehicle is engineered to use a certain octane (regular 87, certainly not 91). Using a higher octane or paying more for non-Ethanol fuel is just flushing your money down the drain. If I had an older car, like the 1962 Avanti R2 that I've got my eye on, then non-Ethanol fuel becomes more of an issue since the rubber parts in its fuel system isn't designed for the corrosive effects of Ethanol and the valves are not designed for lack of lead as a coolant.

Yes, there is a latch...I remember looking at it when we bought our '13. It is quite robust, too. I guess they don't want it flying open in the event of a collision. I haven't looked at mine close enough to see how to open it if the pull tab gets ripped off, but, there should be some way to access the latch (just like there is for the passenger front seat). If the suggestion from Milous doesn't work, I'll try to get out to mine or look in the service manual to see if there is another pathway to the latch for the service folks.

I think what most people are annoyed about are two things... Why have software to control something when not only is it not there, there isn't any way to get it. Most every "option" whether ordered from the factory or not, can be dealer installed. Don't have the oil cooler? The dealer will be happy to charge you for it and install it. Don't have the luggage rack? Again, the dealer will be more than happy to install it for you (for a fee). Don't have the custom wheels? Order them from the dealer. Want DRLs? You're SOL. That's what most people are upset about. I don't think most want them for free, but, they are being told that there is absolutely no way to get the stock DRLs. Whether you like them or not, whether you think the aftermarket looks better, the fact of the matter is that if for some reason you a) didn't know that option was available when you ordered your car b)you bought from dealer stock but want to "upgrade" your purchase or c) you just plain thought that they came with the ability (and they do), there is, apparently, no way after the vehicle leaves the assembly line to have them installed. Evidently, the only thing on the car that can't be installed/fixed/replaced after the car leaves the building.
As for aftermarket, as opposed to stock, I'll take stock. If for some reason I want them off; I turn them off or on via UConnect. The stock look fully integrated to the car (they are). Aftermarket units will always look like "aftermarket" additions since they aren't vehicle specific and they have to be added to the vehicle in places that don't look "designed in". Aftermarket also requires some knowledge of wiring to get them installed properly and with the CANBus, there is always the chance that you can place a load on a monitored line that the system isn't set for and whatever splices you make are subject to weathering and faults. There are also many folks out there that want DRLs, but, don't know which end of wire stripper to hold, let alone how to find a "hot only when running" wire that is bundled up in the wiring harness wraps or how to tap into the power distribution block without melting down the whole bus or how to get them mounted so that they aren't dragging the ground or hanging by their wires after the first freeze or rain. The stock DRL is built in; nothing to fudge, nothing to kludge and if there is a problem with them, the dealer will take care of them under warranty. Yes there appears to be a lot of "angst" and I suspect as more "new" buyers find out they may have been hoodwinked by Dodge (I think they have been based on my reasoning in the first paragraph), there will be new folks wringing their hands and wondering whether anything new has been found for getting them to work. Short of locking the thread, folks are going to be coming here and venting (that's a forum's number one use; whether that is the intention or not). I, fortunately, have a '13 and got mine working. I don't come back to this thread often, but, I do "check in" sometimes just to see if anything's changed. If you aren't interested in the thread, you can always just skip it... For those of you that want your DRLs activated, I hope, that through enough customer pressure, something may, eventually, be done for you. I don't think a law suit is the way to go, but, I'm not into the "sue'em" type mentality, but, maybe enough email complaints to the corporate office will get something moving for you.

I think what most people are annoyed about are two things... Why have software to control something when not only is it not there, there isn't any way to get it. Most every "option" whether ordered from the factory or not, can be dealer installed. Don't have the oil cooler? The dealer will be happy to charge you for it and install it. Don't have the luggage rack? Again, the dealer will be more than happy to install it for you (for a fee). Don't have the custom wheels? Order them from the dealer. Want DRLs? You're SOL. That's what most people are upset about. I don't think most want them for free, but, they are being told that there is absolutely no way to get the stock DRLs. Whether you like them or not, whether you think the aftermarket looks better, the fact of the matter is that if for some reason you a) didn't know that option was available when you ordered your car b)you bought from dealer stock but want to "upgrade" your purchase or c) you just plain thought that they came with the ability (and they do), there is, apparently, no way after the vehicle leaves the assembly line to have them installed. Evidently, the only thing on the car that can't be installed/fixed/replaced after the car leaves the building.
As for aftermarket, as opposed to stock, I'll take stock. If for some reason I want them off; I turn them off or on via UConnect. The stock look fully integrated to the car (they are). Aftermarket units will always look like "aftermarket" additions since they aren't vehicle specific and they have to be added to the vehicle in places that don't look "designed in". Aftermarket also requires some knowledge of wiring to get them installed properly and with the CANBus, there is always the chance that you can place a load on a monitored line that the system isn't set for and whatever splices you make are subject to weathering and faults. There are also many folks out there that want DRLs, but, don't know which end of wire stripper to hold, let alone how to find a "hot only when running" wire that is bundled up in the wiring harness wraps or how to tap into the power distribution block without melting down the whole bus or how to get them mounted so that they aren't dragging the ground or hanging by their wires after the first freeze or rain. The stock DRL is built in; nothing to fudge, nothing to kludge and if there is a problem with them, the dealer will take care of them under warranty. Yes there appears to be a lot of "angst" and I suspect as more "new" buyers find out they may have been hoodwinked by Dodge (I think they have been based on my reasoning in the first paragraph), there will be new folks wringing their hands and wondering whether anything new has been found for getting them to work. Short of locking the thread, folks are going to be coming here and venting (that's a forum's number one use; whether that is the intention or not). I, fortunately, have a '13 and got mine working. I don't come back to this thread often, but, I do "check in" sometimes just to see if anything's changed. If you aren't interested in the thread, you can always just skip it... For those of you that want your DRLs activated, I hope, that through enough customer pressure, something may, eventually, be done for you. I don't think a law suit is the way to go, but, I'm not into the "sue'em" type mentality, but, maybe enough email complaints to the corporate office will get something moving for you.

I find it interesting that laws are being passed left and right about cell phone use in moving vehicles, yet manufacturers are cramming more and more functions into a touch screen that requires you to take your eyes off the road to make any adjustment to anything. IMO, dials and knobs are much less distracting and easier to operate while driving.

Bunch of problems with the concept. Your phone, most likely, is not designed to port a static or live image of its desktop apps screen...possibly by mini-HDMI, but, I'm not aware of a phone with one of those ports; tablets, yes, but, phones, not likely. Even if you could find an app that would send such an image (either capture or live) via Bluetooth or USB, the UConnect software doesn't have the codex to handle that input. The UConnect doesn't clone your phone, it is designed to operate the phone functions (call, answer, etc.) via Bluetooth, but, it doesn't even read the contacts list; it downloads it to its temporary memory where it resides until you turn the car off. Perhaps, in the future, that capability (cloning your phone completely, including apps) will be out there, but, current tech is having trouble just handling Messaging...UConnect doesn't even do that, but, I think Ford's MS version in their system can. There is also a whole host of issues with the complete cloning of a cell phone; security and safety being the foremost of them. If it could clone your phone, what's to prevent you from viewing the latest television show or football game while cruising down the road?
So... Short answer: No
To be honest, for the security and safety reasons, I hope that technology never does make it to the car's front seat. Even with hands free telephone use, there are IMO, far too many distractions for the driver now and while, even I, curse a bit when I have to stop the car to make a major route change on the Nav screen, I can understand and applaud the software designers for that safety feature.

A good idea for this and any other instance where there is a questionable failure and there are multiple units that can be swapped around. If it (the problem) moves, then that's the culprit, if it doesn't, then it is back to square one. Beats the "shotgun" method where you pick a piece and hope that it is the problem.

Swap a coil around and see if, in fact, it is a bad coil before spending money on a new one.