webslave

Yes sir, we live out in the "country" and that, indeed, is the "wave" (a quick toot on the horn). A bit annoying that by the time it actually toots you are past the friend you are "waving" at...

Always check my fluids twice a month, minimum, although I must admit the TPMS has me spoiled...just go to the EVIC to get the latest pressures for an "eyeball" on the actual pressure of each tire.
I change my oil once a year or sooner if the unit tells me to. The first EVIC notice on mine came after 9,300 miles. It comes on once per year, usually after 8500-9200 miles. I live out in the boonies so a "short drive" for me is 34 miles, usually 50-150 miles for stores/shopping. No "stop and go" short trips, so I get much longer life. I've had my oil tested (years ago) when I had the Hemi Commander and I've come to trust the EVIC system. The oil tests actually indicated that I was good to go for even longer, but, the EVIC warning is what I use, as it comes on with a frequency I can live with and I know from previous testing that the oil is still good at that point.

No spoilers for me, but, I did put the bug shield on. I do a lot of highway driving (even the two laner to town is 55mph) and all of my cars that didn't have the bug shields showed thousands of dings along the hood's edge. I'd rather the bug shield take the impact and when it gets really nasty looking, off it comes and a new one goes on as opposed to trying to get the leading edge or the whole hood painted and not have the paint match (I ran through 2 bug shields on my '96 Caravan and was working on a 3rd). You are correct that they do squat for the "bugs on the windshield", but, they do protect the hood from dings. As for the mud flaps...the same thing. Out here in the wilds, a lot of our roads are gravel. The don't do much for mud, but, they do slow the gravel down so that the rocker panels aren't all dinged up which helps control rust and we use salt in the worst of the snows down here. If you don't have a lot of gravel to deal with, I agree, they aren't as useful, but, for flying gravel and when they "chip and tar" our township roads, they do the job.

If it is like my other MOPARs, it has the connector, but, in most cases, it is under the overhead console. My Jeep's unit plugged into a master termination along with the over-head lights and the rain sensor. All of it under the overhead console. It is much easier (cheaper) to use ugly connectors and hide them behind the headliner or console, now that most vehicles have an overhead console, than it is to miniaturize a connector and have it look nice, but, exposed. Even the units that have an on/off switch (my Jeep did), the switch, itself is integral to the mirror (a tiny button on the back of the mirror not accessible to connect to...I suppose you could try to disassemble the mirror, but, it is not designed to be taken apart), but, the connector is buried either under the headliner or behind the console. I suspect the DJ's is under the overhead console...

He He He He Thanks for doing this for all of us. I really appreciate it, as I'm sure all the others do as well. Love my touchscreen DRL control.
Peace.

I would agree with Journeyman425. The only thing that bothers me a bit, is what happens if someone orders the DRL from the factory, but, is delivered without the code having been installed at the factory? Surely, there must be a technical "fix" that would allow the activation in the event of a "miss" by the factory...? I, personally, have refused delivery of a vehicle because it was shipped without the options I ordered... As an explanation, we order and pay cash for our cars. I have 4 vehicles and two drivers; it isn't necessary for us to "get a vehicle now", so, we order exactly what we want and won't accept anything else. So, in that case, I would have refused delivery of the DJ and made them order a new one; I can't imagine Dodge biting the bullet on the cost of making the "dud" and not having a "fix" for adding the code. It, probably though, is a tightly controlled "secret" to keep the changes to a cost item, but, I think that is a big mistake on Dodge's part. What is the true cost, if the process was freely available, to keep some customers happy? It is that type of thought that losses customers. I've been a MOPAR man for the better part of half a century. My last purchase (the DJ) may, in fact, be my last MOPAR purchase. I'm still miffed at MOPAR on my DJ. I ordered and paid for the roof rails and "tow package" only to find out on delivery that neither one is actually usable despite the fact I paid for them. I paid for the roof rails; what's with not including the cross bars so that I could actually use them? Same thing with the "tow package"; I ordered the package intending to use it, and I come to find out that there is no hitch and the wiring is just "chucked" into the back storage area...? When I found that out (on delivery) I refused delivery until the dealer knocked off the price of those "options"; they, too, were scratching their heads at the lack of customer appreciation that that kind of "service" represents. It would be like ordering a Ram HD pickup with the HD tow package to find out that it didn't come with the bed for the back or a tow hitch; extra cost my #%$#. OK, I'm off that soapbox now, I just get really irritated when I think about it. I, out of pig headedness, still haven't purchased the cross rails or hitch; I won't give MOPAR the money for them, just out of principle. I've still got my RAM CTD and at least in 2011, it still came with the bed and hitch

It really isn't a viable option any longer. There was a period, a couple of years ago now, when MOPAR changed the design of the hitch. That period between the old hitch and the new ones being produced was long; a year or there abouts. During that time, everyone was screaming for a hitch for their car and I'm sure every nook and cranny was searched to try and fill the demand and I doubt that you'll find one that was "overlooked" and laying about.
Now as for why they changed; the answer is strength and towing liability. As long as you used MOPAR's custom trailer hitch, things would be OK, but, as soon as someone wanted to use a bicycle rack or hitch platform, an adapter had to be used, that adapter being a right angle bar/receiver combination. As soon as the adapter is used, the tow rating of the hitch went into the dumpster; adapters reduce a hitch receiver's rating anywhere from 30 to 60% depending on the adapter type. MOPAR, legally, would have been off the hook because the hitch equipment came with such a warning (I don't have one, but, I'm sure there was some sort of "legalese" that warned of none standard usage) and the adapters would have come with the warning also, but, that wouldn't have mitigated the legal hassle and the customer dissatisfaction of having 4 bikes spread down a highway, other cars insurance companies suing because they hit said bikes, etc. or that load platform with a generator attached, bouncing merrily down the roadway. Way to cure the problem? Redesign the hitch to what you see today...the standard horizontal receiver. A known entity, very strong, many attachments designed for them and, unfortunately, butt ugly and a hazard to your shins. It isn't just a DJ issue, almost any vehicle that wasn't designed to be a tow machine (and most vehicles, the DJ included weren't designed as tow machines) have body designs that require said receiver to stick far enough out to clear the bodywork when accessories are hung from them. I've towed RVs for more years than I like to think about and boats before that, and machines that are designed to be tow machines have the bumpers and bodywork designed around the receiver so that it doesn't protrude.

Starter system again... You are getting power to the solenoid (that's what is making the clicking sound), but, no high amperage to the starter motor itself (needs that to spin the starter motor). If that is the starter relay clicking, then the starter interlocks (key recognition and shifter) apparently aren't the culprit. Temperature related; could be a broken wire. Heat the insulation (like from a hot engine; the starter motor wiring virtually lays on the engine) and it expands and may break a circuit, once it cools down (contracts) the wires touch again allowing it to start. Could be corrosion on any of the connections (same temperature effects). Could be the starter itself... Could be the starter relay trying to make the high amp connection and failing. You say you're not a car person nor mechanically inclined, so, much in the way of trouble shooting is moot. You could start at the starter motor and work up to the battery; check all connections to make sure they are tight (it is possible that when they worked on the starter before they didn't tighten everything) and look at the electrical connections to make sure they aren't corroded, if they are, and you have a wrench that fits, take off the nuts and clean off the corrosion. If there isn't any corrosion and the wires seem to be OK, then the next time it happens, try tapping (not pounding, but, a good solid tap) on the solenoid (mounted to the starter motor) and try it again; sometimes tapping will free a stuck pinion. Other than those "non-mechanical" checks, a shop is your best recourse. Sorry, any other suggestions I would have would involve a bit more mechanical experience, a good set of tools, and at least a VOM test meter. It isn't a major motor issue, but, just being limited to the starter system isn't a help since you have to have that working to get it to run...as you well know.

Admittedly, unsprung weight is a detriment to fuel mileage, but... I have to agree with the two posts above. If you already have the styled magnesium/aluminum alloy wheels on your DJ, you will have to spend big $$$$$ on a lighter wheel. There are materials that are lighter (carbon fibre, nano tubes, certain ceramics), but, their cost is prohibitive to automotive wheels. The best design would be a carbon fibre disk; you've seen them on racing bicycles and university "ultra high mileage" experimental vehicles. The cost is astronomical and then with a solid disk you introduce brake overheating in everyday use and handling issues due to the plate design. Couple the solid disk wheel with an "ultra low resistance" tire and you'd be in business. Of course, the tire would be very thin, only one center sipe and would not corner well or handle rain and the ride would be abysmal. You'll also notice that race cars, where mileage and handling are paramount, still use "mag" wheels - there just isn't anything better that is within reasonable cost versus return parameters for strength, brake cooling, air flow, cost and ease of manufacture. The current technology has gone about as far as is possible until costs for some of the exotic materials come down to the point where the economics of owning them would be balanced by any increase in mileage. The current "exotics" would probably result in mileage improvements measured in thousandths of mile...you'd never recoup your investment in several lifetimes. That's why you'll only see those "improved" wheels and tires on vehicles where cost is not an issue and their use is only for certain road and weather conditions just to earn a title or award for acheivement...
Lightening your wheels with another "mag" wheel that is, maybe, 6 ounces lighter, would not show any measurable mileage improvement over what is currently mounted to your DJ. A DOT approved (or whatever passes for the DOT up north) tire that is rated for lower rolling resistance would be your best bet and even that, IMHO, is more an advertising gimmick as opposed to something that you could actually measure at the pump. The DJ is already designed to produce the best "mass produced" mpg available within those cost vs. results restraints...remember, the impetus now is for the industry to meet fleet "high mileage" targets; anything the industry can do to increase the mileage of their cars allows them to produce the much more in demand SUVs and trucks, typically low mileage vehicles. The DJ, itself, is a heavy vehicle and nothing you do to unsprung weight will make it a "high mileage" vehicle given the platform that rides on that unsprung weight. If a lighter wheel would make any impact on the mileage, and the cost wasn't prohibitive, it would have come from the factory with it mounted.

Admittedly, unsprung weight is a detriment to fuel mileage, but... I have to agree with the two posts above. If you already have the styled magnesium/aluminum alloy wheels on your DJ, you will have to spend big $$$$$ on a lighter wheel. There are materials that are lighter (carbon fibre, nano tubes, certain ceramics), but, their cost is prohibitive to automotive wheels. The best design would be a carbon fibre disk; you've seen them on racing bicycles and university "ultra high mileage" experimental vehicles. The cost is astronomical and then with a solid disk you introduce brake overheating in everyday use and handling issues due to the plate design. Couple the solid disk wheel with an "ultra low resistance" tire and you'd be in business. Of course, the tire would be very thin, only one center sipe and would not corner well or handle rain and the ride would be abysmal. You'll also notice that race cars, where mileage and handling are paramount, still use "mag" wheels - there just isn't anything better that is within reasonable cost versus return parameters for strength, brake cooling, air flow, cost and ease of manufacture. The current technology has gone about as far as is possible until costs for some of the exotic materials come down to the point where the economics of owning them would be balanced by any increase in mileage. The current "exotics" would probably result in mileage improvements measured in thousandths of mile...you'd never recoup your investment in several lifetimes. That's why you'll only see those "improved" wheels and tires on vehicles where cost is not an issue and their use is only for certain road and weather conditions just to earn a title or award for acheivement...
Lightening your wheels with another "mag" wheel that is, maybe, 6 ounces lighter, would not show any measurable mileage improvement over what is currently mounted to your DJ. A DOT approved (or whatever passes for the DOT up north) tire that is rated for lower rolling resistance would be your best bet and even that, IMHO, is more an advertising gimmick as opposed to something that you could actually measure at the pump. The DJ is already designed to produce the best "mass produced" mpg available within those cost vs. results restraints...remember, the impetus now is for the industry to meet fleet "high mileage" targets; anything the industry can do to increase the mileage of their cars allows them to produce the much more in demand SUVs and trucks, typically low mileage vehicles. The DJ, itself, is a heavy vehicle and nothing you do to unsprung weight will make it a "high mileage" vehicle given the platform that rides on that unsprung weight. If a lighter wheel would make any impact on the mileage, and the cost wasn't prohibitive, it would have come from the factory with it mounted.

As I said earlier...if you want one get one. I had a 2008 Jeep Commander Hemi Limited. I did have the plenum off ... In fact the dealership tore the whole engine down (twice) trying to figure out why the engine was throwing a P013A error continuously. In the 5 years I owned that Jeep, they never did figure it out (I drove almost 158,000 miles with the check engine light on), but, in both the tear downs, the entire engine was spotless and I used that Jeep for towing a 6500 lb. travel trailer for most of those miles. In fact, the whole reason I have the DJ is the company did a "buy back" of the Jeep to maintain "good relations" with me; I've bought a lot of vehicles from that one dealership and I've only been local to him for 8 years while being a MOPAR man for as long as I can remember since my early 20's. They did right by me; took them awhile, but, they came through. As for having the plenum off my 3.8? Why would I take it off? The vehicle ran fine from the day I bought it and if it weren't for the body giving up the ghost, it would still be running (didn't burn any oil between changes the entire time I owned it). That's my point; why worry about a problem that has no impact on the purpose of owning a "people mover"? I've got a friend that has the same Jeep (his is black, mine was brick red) and he's never had any issues with his Hemi. 198,000 miles on his clock, most of them towing; so, not every Hemi is dead on the side of the road from a dirty plenum or mildly coated valves. There are many of those Hemi's on the road and I would imagine you would have to look really long and hard to find one with an oil catch can on it.
I've kept many cars well past their "Best used by" dates and mileages and never (except the Chevelle I raced with) had an oil can, nor did I suffer any measurable, quantitative, engine issues regarding power or driveability. If the oil can is your answer to what you perceive as an issue, then install one. I've got a '76 Eldorado that has burnt oil on everything past the butterfly valves. Still starts, even after sitting for 10 months, on the second try and purrs like a kitten. Engines do not have to be "spotless" to achieve their purpose which is to get from point a to point b as economically as possible. IMHO, the only time a "spotless" engine will outperform another is when the final outcome of the race is measured in tenths of second, not pertinent to getting mom to the local grocery store. As I mentioned before, the oil can is a great idea, but, labor intensive for a problem that 99.99% of the population won't be affected by. A die hard racer or backyard mechanic might be inclined to add one, needed or not, as they don't mind spinning a wrench, but, the average user that is already perturbed about maintenance costs for the life of the vehicle is not apt to want to pay to have it maintained, that's the impetus behind synthetics and their longer oil change intervals. With the complexity of modern automotive equipment, there are fewer and fewer "shade tree" mechanics willing to invest the time to learn the new systems or invest the time and money in the tools and expertise needed to do the maintenance. Newer engines burn cleaner, last longer and stay cleaner than the engines of yesteryear...and they do it all with the equipment they come from the factory with. Are there things you can do to improve what the factory gives you? Sure, but, for a given purpose, the added expense above and beyond what is "standard" shows diminshing returns on the investment for most of them and added cost to the purchaser. I remember when a loaded Mercedes was "sky high" elegance at around $15,000, now you can't buy an econobox for that. I had heart failure when I put my "dream truck" together for towing my 5th wheel. $61,000+ delivered. If you start adding everything that would make the automotive system "great" or "top end", then you wouldn't be able to afford it.
I'm all for you getting one, but, I'll leave my stock system alone. I get great mileage, the car starts when I want it to and takes me where I want to go and all without any additional maintenance needed by me from "add ons" that won't affect what I'm looking to get out of the vehicle. It isn't a race car and I don't expect to keep it more that 15-20 years (I may not even live that long; I'm 62 now) and my "filthy" 500 cu in engine that's 38 years old ('76 Eldorado) still runs just fine with 327,000 miles on the stock engine.
None of the above is "theory"; honest to goodness wheels on the ground experience.

As I said earlier...if you want one get one. I had a 2008 Jeep Commander Hemi Limited. I did have the plenum off ... In fact the dealership tore the whole engine down (twice) trying to figure out why the engine was throwing a P013A error continuously. In the 5 years I owned that Jeep, they never did figure it out (I drove almost 158,000 miles with the check engine light on), but, in both the tear downs, the entire engine was spotless and I used that Jeep for towing a 6500 lb. travel trailer for most of those miles. In fact, the whole reason I have the DJ is the company did a "buy back" of the Jeep to maintain "good relations" with me; I've bought a lot of vehicles from that one dealership and I've only been local to him for 8 years while being a MOPAR man for as long as I can remember since my early 20's. They did right by me; took them awhile, but, they came through. As for having the plenum off my 3.8? Why would I take it off? The vehicle ran fine from the day I bought it and if it weren't for the body giving up the ghost, it would still be running (didn't burn any oil between changes the entire time I owned it). That's my point; why worry about a problem that has no impact on the purpose of owning a "people mover"? I've got a friend that has the same Jeep (his is black, mine was brick red) and he's never had any issues with his Hemi. 198,000 miles on his clock, most of them towing; so, not every Hemi is dead on the side of the road from a dirty plenum or mildly coated valves. There are many of those Hemi's on the road and I would imagine you would have to look really long and hard to find one with an oil catch can on it.
I've kept many cars well past their "Best used by" dates and mileages and never (except the Chevelle I raced with) had an oil can, nor did I suffer any measurable, quantitative, engine issues regarding power or driveability. If the oil can is your answer to what you perceive as an issue, then install one. I've got a '76 Eldorado that has burnt oil on everything past the butterfly valves. Still starts, even after sitting for 10 months, on the second try and purrs like a kitten. Engines do not have to be "spotless" to achieve their purpose which is to get from point a to point b as economically as possible. IMHO, the only time a "spotless" engine will outperform another is when the final outcome of the race is measured in tenths of second, not pertinent to getting mom to the local grocery store. As I mentioned before, the oil can is a great idea, but, labor intensive for a problem that 99.99% of the population won't be affected by. A die hard racer or backyard mechanic might be inclined to add one, needed or not, as they don't mind spinning a wrench, but, the average user that is already perturbed about maintenance costs for the life of the vehicle is not apt to want to pay to have it maintained, that's the impetus behind synthetics and their longer oil change intervals. With the complexity of modern automotive equipment, there are fewer and fewer "shade tree" mechanics willing to invest the time to learn the new systems or invest the time and money in the tools and expertise needed to do the maintenance. Newer engines burn cleaner, last longer and stay cleaner than the engines of yesteryear...and they do it all with the equipment they come from the factory with. Are there things you can do to improve what the factory gives you? Sure, but, for a given purpose, the added expense above and beyond what is "standard" shows diminshing returns on the investment for most of them and added cost to the purchaser. I remember when a loaded Mercedes was "sky high" elegance at around $15,000, now you can't buy an econobox for that. I had heart failure when I put my "dream truck" together for towing my 5th wheel. $61,000+ delivered. If you start adding everything that would make the automotive system "great" or "top end", then you wouldn't be able to afford it.
I'm all for you getting one, but, I'll leave my stock system alone. I get great mileage, the car starts when I want it to and takes me where I want to go and all without any additional maintenance needed by me from "add ons" that won't affect what I'm looking to get out of the vehicle. It isn't a race car and I don't expect to keep it more that 15-20 years (I may not even live that long; I'm 62 now) and my "filthy" 500 cu in engine that's 38 years old ('76 Eldorado) still runs just fine with 327,000 miles on the stock engine.
None of the above is "theory"; honest to goodness wheels on the ground experience.

As I said earlier...if you want one get one. I had a 2008 Jeep Commander Hemi Limited. I did have the plenum off ... In fact the dealership tore the whole engine down (twice) trying to figure out why the engine was throwing a P013A error continuously. In the 5 years I owned that Jeep, they never did figure it out (I drove almost 158,000 miles with the check engine light on), but, in both the tear downs, the entire engine was spotless and I used that Jeep for towing a 6500 lb. travel trailer for most of those miles. In fact, the whole reason I have the DJ is the company did a "buy back" of the Jeep to maintain "good relations" with me; I've bought a lot of vehicles from that one dealership and I've only been local to him for 8 years while being a MOPAR man for as long as I can remember since my early 20's. They did right by me; took them awhile, but, they came through. As for having the plenum off my 3.8? Why would I take it off? The vehicle ran fine from the day I bought it and if it weren't for the body giving up the ghost, it would still be running (didn't burn any oil between changes the entire time I owned it). That's my point; why worry about a problem that has no impact on the purpose of owning a "people mover"? I've got a friend that has the same Jeep (his is black, mine was brick red) and he's never had any issues with his Hemi. 198,000 miles on his clock, most of them towing; so, not every Hemi is dead on the side of the road from a dirty plenum or mildly coated valves. There are many of those Hemi's on the road and I would imagine you would have to look really long and hard to find one with an oil catch can on it.
I've kept many cars well past their "Best used by" dates and mileages and never (except the Chevelle I raced with) had an oil can, nor did I suffer any measurable, quantitative, engine issues regarding power or driveability. If the oil can is your answer to what you perceive as an issue, then install one. I've got a '76 Eldorado that has burnt oil on everything past the butterfly valves. Still starts, even after sitting for 10 months, on the second try and purrs like a kitten. Engines do not have to be "spotless" to achieve their purpose which is to get from point a to point b as economically as possible. IMHO, the only time a "spotless" engine will outperform another is when the final outcome of the race is measured in tenths of second, not pertinent to getting mom to the local grocery store. As I mentioned before, the oil can is a great idea, but, labor intensive for a problem that 99.99% of the population won't be affected by. A die hard racer or backyard mechanic might be inclined to add one, needed or not, as they don't mind spinning a wrench, but, the average user that is already perturbed about maintenance costs for the life of the vehicle is not apt to want to pay to have it maintained, that's the impetus behind synthetics and their longer oil change intervals. With the complexity of modern automotive equipment, there are fewer and fewer "shade tree" mechanics willing to invest the time to learn the new systems or invest the time and money in the tools and expertise needed to do the maintenance. Newer engines burn cleaner, last longer and stay cleaner than the engines of yesteryear...and they do it all with the equipment they come from the factory with. Are there things you can do to improve what the factory gives you? Sure, but, for a given purpose, the added expense above and beyond what is "standard" shows diminshing returns on the investment for most of them and added cost to the purchaser. I remember when a loaded Mercedes was "sky high" elegance at around $15,000, now you can't buy an econobox for that. I had heart failure when I put my "dream truck" together for towing my 5th wheel. $61,000+ delivered. If you start adding everything that would make the automotive system "great" or "top end", then you wouldn't be able to afford it.
I'm all for you getting one, but, I'll leave my stock system alone. I get great mileage, the car starts when I want it to and takes me where I want to go and all without any additional maintenance needed by me from "add ons" that won't affect what I'm looking to get out of the vehicle. It isn't a race car and I don't expect to keep it more that 15-20 years (I may not even live that long; I'm 62 now) and my "filthy" 500 cu in engine that's 38 years old ('76 Eldorado) still runs just fine with 327,000 miles on the stock engine.
None of the above is "theory"; honest to goodness wheels on the ground experience.

I had 268,000 miles on my 3.8 liter V6 in a 1996 Grand Caravan. No catch can and the throttle body was spotless. If you run the right type of oil, keep it changed and keep your PCV cleaned, the amount of vapor will do nothing to improve the performance or driveability of the modern engine. The amount of fluid in the catch can can look very deceptive; ugh! that is going in my engine. The truth of the matter is that it comes from a mist that, under most circumstances also contains gas blow-by and the mixture is actually flammable and the cooling effect of that mist in the intake system is taken into account in the design of the intake system as a whole. Taking the mist out of the system will provide no increase in performance or savings in fuel mileage to the domestic automobile engine so there has been no "uptake" in catch can installations in the domestic market. Racing yes; soccer mom no.
I have no problem with catch cans... I used to build race cars and they were part and parcel of the "package" for the track. At high rpms, the engines on the track throw out huge amounts of mist and racing engines are expensive...expensive to the point that worn rings (increases blow by) exacerbate the problem and the catch can is a really good way to keep those engines in their best racing form for the longest amount of time between tear downs. I, IMHO, do feel that it is just one more maintenance point that isn't necessary in today's street cars and given the number of people that are going to extended change systems on their oils, it is a maintenance point that is likely to be ignored and if you think sucking oil mist may not be "cool", then imagine the engine that sucks down raw oil from a catch can that's been ignored... A PCV is cheap to produce and easy to clean and just as effective in the domestic street engines.
Again, if you want to run a catch can, by all means do. They are another solution to crankcase vapors and a good one at that. However, in the average lifespan of the domestic automobile engines and the way that they are used and maintained, there is absolutely no reason to have one of those instead of a PCV system in proper repair and a PCV is much easier (it is customary; how many folks, if they bought your 300C would even know what a catch can is, let alone that they had to do anything with it...) for shops to handle. They are all mounted in pretty much the same place and all work the same. A PCV will also let you know it has gone bad by the way the engine behaves, not so a neglected catch can.
When things are "different" or unusual, they cause problems. I had an Austin Healey with dual side draft SU carbs. Those carburetors had oil pans; one in each and each carburetor had a dipstick. Do you know how many people cussed at their British cars and the way they ran when all they needed to do was top up the oil in the carbs? Just an odd ball system that you wouldn't find on any other cars and would never even think about. Even British repair shops overlooked them frequently as the carb (SU) wasn't used on all models in any given year.
If you want one, install one. Make sure you inspect it regularly (at least every oil change) and keep it clean. I'll keep my "inspect or replace PCV every 100,000 miles" system. One less thing to worry about. I've put, literally, hundreds of thousands of miles on engines with the PCV system with no detrimenal impact to the engine or the engine's performance.

I don't know of a lot of people, whether they own a DJ or any other type of car, that bother to install catch cans. They are just one more point of maintenance and would perform little if any advantage to the normally aspirated engines found in most domestic automobiles. Even domestic turbos are not so fast that enough mist is generated or the taking out of the same would provide any hp or torque advantages.
For general information: an oil catch can is used to condense oil mist (vapor) created by rapidly spinning components in high performance engines; turbo driven race cars or normally aspirated race cars that run at high rpms for long periods. Under those conditions, the engines create enough oil mist that if a regular PCV was installed instead, the oil mist would substantially reduce the flash point of the air-fuel mixture in the pistons. A PCV unit, installed in all cars, recycles that "mist" (what little there is in normal use) through the intake system where it is burned with a very negligible impact on ignition. If you vented the vapor hose into atmosphere (against the law), you wouldn't be able to tell the difference aside from adding to air pollution. A catch can condenses it into, you guessed it, a can that must be emptied periodically to get rid of the residue.
That's a simplified explanation, but, unless you are racing your DJ and run at near red-line for hours on end, I find no reason for "most people" to ever even consider one, let alone install one. With today's modern transmissions designed to keep the engine in the <2k rpm range at cruise, a catch can isn't needed.

The above is spot on, but, I'll also add that if the wrong type of brake fluid was added to the master cylinder that it is also possible that the master cylinder's piston seals have deteriorated due to the wrong type of fluid eating the seals away. While you have your foot on the brake pedal, the seals are supposed to push the fluid out to the calipers. If the seals are rotting away, they allow the fluid to leak past them allowing the pedal to slowly go to the floor.
One more reason to make absolutely sure, before adding fluids to your car, that you make certain that it is the proper # (DOT 1,2,3,4, etc) or viscosity (less important for engine, but, critical for differentials and on some engines, the MSD Hemi's for instance, engine oil can also be fairly critical) and type (for transmissions and coolant). Since you probably haven't added fluids to the car since getting it, it is possible that the previous owner or the car shop where you bought it topped up the master cylinder with whatever was handy thinking that the problem wouldn't be noticeable for a while... Newer cars are far less forgiving for using the wrong fluids; entire systems are designed around certain chemistries and any change from the design specs can wreck the whole system.

I'm like jkeaton; 5 cars, 3 ATVs, 3 tractors and miscellaneous other engines (generators, log splitters, snow blowers, gas powered pressure washer, etc.). I'd spend the whole spring and fall changing oil if I did them all myself. Some like the truck (diesel; almost 3.5 gallons) can actually be cheaper at the dealership with the coupons I get in the email. I priced it out and it would cost me $77.95 to do it myself (oil at Walmart and MOPAR filter also at Walmart) that's without tax. Not to mention the hassle of hauling around some 20 gallons of waste oil to the recycle center... The last time I had the dealership do it, it was $80.95. My time and aching back are worth the $3.00 more... As the number of "toys" goes up, the "fun" of maintenance on all of them goes down...
Addendum: I do, however, manage the maintenance on 99% of my "horde"...I just take advantage of the coupons on the DJ and the truck; brings the price right down, even when I use synthetics (for the DJ).

I drive my tractor on Sundays....

Since the tire is an "emergency" temporary fix to a flat, the manufacturers can save a boat load of money by providing a "one size fits all" 16" space saver spare. The alternative, as in the "old days" was for the manufacturer to produce, store and supply steel wheels, spare tires and leave space for the various sizes of wheels in the design of the cars, during any given year in the design of the car. With the advent of the "one size fits all" space saver, the same spare on your DJ will fit the other MOPAR models also and thus MOPAR only needs one size for all of their models. Even in the "good old days", very few full sized spares came with styled wheels; they came with your basic weighs-a-ton stamped steel wheel. The space saver, saves space, saves weight (important for MPG) and manufacturing overhead. I'm just waiting for the run-flats to be perfected...then you won't even have a spare saving even more weight and cost. You'll get a flat and then have to drive the run-flat to the nearest tire shop to get it replaced...not too many years in the future. Further "down the road" will be the no-flat tire; it will never go flat or be under-inflated. They are working on that one, too. The trick will be, will we be able to afford the tech?

I had 268,000 miles on my 3.8 liter V6 in a 1996 Grand Caravan. No catch can and the throttle body was spotless. If you run the right type of oil, keep it changed and keep your PCV cleaned, the amount of vapor will do nothing to improve the performance or driveability of the modern engine. The amount of fluid in the catch can can look very deceptive; ugh! that is going in my engine. The truth of the matter is that it comes from a mist that, under most circumstances also contains gas blow-by and the mixture is actually flammable and the cooling effect of that mist in the intake system is taken into account in the design of the intake system as a whole. Taking the mist out of the system will provide no increase in performance or savings in fuel mileage to the domestic automobile engine so there has been no "uptake" in catch can installations in the domestic market. Racing yes; soccer mom no.
I have no problem with catch cans... I used to build race cars and they were part and parcel of the "package" for the track. At high rpms, the engines on the track throw out huge amounts of mist and racing engines are expensive...expensive to the point that worn rings (increases blow by) exacerbate the problem and the catch can is a really good way to keep those engines in their best racing form for the longest amount of time between tear downs. I, IMHO, do feel that it is just one more maintenance point that isn't necessary in today's street cars and given the number of people that are going to extended change systems on their oils, it is a maintenance point that is likely to be ignored and if you think sucking oil mist may not be "cool", then imagine the engine that sucks down raw oil from a catch can that's been ignored... A PCV is cheap to produce and easy to clean and just as effective in the domestic street engines.
Again, if you want to run a catch can, by all means do. They are another solution to crankcase vapors and a good one at that. However, in the average lifespan of the domestic automobile engines and the way that they are used and maintained, there is absolutely no reason to have one of those instead of a PCV system in proper repair and a PCV is much easier (it is customary; how many folks, if they bought your 300C would even know what a catch can is, let alone that they had to do anything with it...) for shops to handle. They are all mounted in pretty much the same place and all work the same. A PCV will also let you know it has gone bad by the way the engine behaves, not so a neglected catch can.
When things are "different" or unusual, they cause problems. I had an Austin Healey with dual side draft SU carbs. Those carburetors had oil pans; one in each and each carburetor had a dipstick. Do you know how many people cussed at their British cars and the way they ran when all they needed to do was top up the oil in the carbs? Just an odd ball system that you wouldn't find on any other cars and would never even think about. Even British repair shops overlooked them frequently as the carb (SU) wasn't used on all models in any given year.
If you want one, install one. Make sure you inspect it regularly (at least every oil change) and keep it clean. I'll keep my "inspect or replace PCV every 100,000 miles" system. One less thing to worry about. I've put, literally, hundreds of thousands of miles on engines with the PCV system with no detrimenal impact to the engine or the engine's performance.

I had 268,000 miles on my 3.8 liter V6 in a 1996 Grand Caravan. No catch can and the throttle body was spotless. If you run the right type of oil, keep it changed and keep your PCV cleaned, the amount of vapor will do nothing to improve the performance or driveability of the modern engine. The amount of fluid in the catch can can look very deceptive; ugh! that is going in my engine. The truth of the matter is that it comes from a mist that, under most circumstances also contains gas blow-by and the mixture is actually flammable and the cooling effect of that mist in the intake system is taken into account in the design of the intake system as a whole. Taking the mist out of the system will provide no increase in performance or savings in fuel mileage to the domestic automobile engine so there has been no "uptake" in catch can installations in the domestic market. Racing yes; soccer mom no.
I have no problem with catch cans... I used to build race cars and they were part and parcel of the "package" for the track. At high rpms, the engines on the track throw out huge amounts of mist and racing engines are expensive...expensive to the point that worn rings (increases blow by) exacerbate the problem and the catch can is a really good way to keep those engines in their best racing form for the longest amount of time between tear downs. I, IMHO, do feel that it is just one more maintenance point that isn't necessary in today's street cars and given the number of people that are going to extended change systems on their oils, it is a maintenance point that is likely to be ignored and if you think sucking oil mist may not be "cool", then imagine the engine that sucks down raw oil from a catch can that's been ignored... A PCV is cheap to produce and easy to clean and just as effective in the domestic street engines.
Again, if you want to run a catch can, by all means do. They are another solution to crankcase vapors and a good one at that. However, in the average lifespan of the domestic automobile engines and the way that they are used and maintained, there is absolutely no reason to have one of those instead of a PCV system in proper repair and a PCV is much easier (it is customary; how many folks, if they bought your 300C would even know what a catch can is, let alone that they had to do anything with it...) for shops to handle. They are all mounted in pretty much the same place and all work the same. A PCV will also let you know it has gone bad by the way the engine behaves, not so a neglected catch can.
When things are "different" or unusual, they cause problems. I had an Austin Healey with dual side draft SU carbs. Those carburetors had oil pans; one in each and each carburetor had a dipstick. Do you know how many people cussed at their British cars and the way they ran when all they needed to do was top up the oil in the carbs? Just an odd ball system that you wouldn't find on any other cars and would never even think about. Even British repair shops overlooked them frequently as the carb (SU) wasn't used on all models in any given year.
If you want one, install one. Make sure you inspect it regularly (at least every oil change) and keep it clean. I'll keep my "inspect or replace PCV every 100,000 miles" system. One less thing to worry about. I've put, literally, hundreds of thousands of miles on engines with the PCV system with no detrimenal impact to the engine or the engine's performance.

I don't know of a lot of people, whether they own a DJ or any other type of car, that bother to install catch cans. They are just one more point of maintenance and would perform little if any advantage to the normally aspirated engines found in most domestic automobiles. Even domestic turbos are not so fast that enough mist is generated or the taking out of the same would provide any hp or torque advantages.
For general information: an oil catch can is used to condense oil mist (vapor) created by rapidly spinning components in high performance engines; turbo driven race cars or normally aspirated race cars that run at high rpms for long periods. Under those conditions, the engines create enough oil mist that if a regular PCV was installed instead, the oil mist would substantially reduce the flash point of the air-fuel mixture in the pistons. A PCV unit, installed in all cars, recycles that "mist" (what little there is in normal use) through the intake system where it is burned with a very negligible impact on ignition. If you vented the vapor hose into atmosphere (against the law), you wouldn't be able to tell the difference aside from adding to air pollution. A catch can condenses it into, you guessed it, a can that must be emptied periodically to get rid of the residue.
That's a simplified explanation, but, unless you are racing your DJ and run at near red-line for hours on end, I find no reason for "most people" to ever even consider one, let alone install one. With today's modern transmissions designed to keep the engine in the <2k rpm range at cruise, a catch can isn't needed.

I had 268,000 miles on my 3.8 liter V6 in a 1996 Grand Caravan. No catch can and the throttle body was spotless. If you run the right type of oil, keep it changed and keep your PCV cleaned, the amount of vapor will do nothing to improve the performance or driveability of the modern engine. The amount of fluid in the catch can can look very deceptive; ugh! that is going in my engine. The truth of the matter is that it comes from a mist that, under most circumstances also contains gas blow-by and the mixture is actually flammable and the cooling effect of that mist in the intake system is taken into account in the design of the intake system as a whole. Taking the mist out of the system will provide no increase in performance or savings in fuel mileage to the domestic automobile engine so there has been no "uptake" in catch can installations in the domestic market. Racing yes; soccer mom no.
I have no problem with catch cans... I used to build race cars and they were part and parcel of the "package" for the track. At high rpms, the engines on the track throw out huge amounts of mist and racing engines are expensive...expensive to the point that worn rings (increases blow by) exacerbate the problem and the catch can is a really good way to keep those engines in their best racing form for the longest amount of time between tear downs. I, IMHO, do feel that it is just one more maintenance point that isn't necessary in today's street cars and given the number of people that are going to extended change systems on their oils, it is a maintenance point that is likely to be ignored and if you think sucking oil mist may not be "cool", then imagine the engine that sucks down raw oil from a catch can that's been ignored... A PCV is cheap to produce and easy to clean and just as effective in the domestic street engines.
Again, if you want to run a catch can, by all means do. They are another solution to crankcase vapors and a good one at that. However, in the average lifespan of the domestic automobile engines and the way that they are used and maintained, there is absolutely no reason to have one of those instead of a PCV system in proper repair and a PCV is much easier (it is customary; how many folks, if they bought your 300C would even know what a catch can is, let alone that they had to do anything with it...) for shops to handle. They are all mounted in pretty much the same place and all work the same. A PCV will also let you know it has gone bad by the way the engine behaves, not so a neglected catch can.
When things are "different" or unusual, they cause problems. I had an Austin Healey with dual side draft SU carbs. Those carburetors had oil pans; one in each and each carburetor had a dipstick. Do you know how many people cussed at their British cars and the way they ran when all they needed to do was top up the oil in the carbs? Just an odd ball system that you wouldn't find on any other cars and would never even think about. Even British repair shops overlooked them frequently as the carb (SU) wasn't used on all models in any given year.
If you want one, install one. Make sure you inspect it regularly (at least every oil change) and keep it clean. I'll keep my "inspect or replace PCV every 100,000 miles" system. One less thing to worry about. I've put, literally, hundreds of thousands of miles on engines with the PCV system with no detrimenal impact to the engine or the engine's performance.

I don't know of a lot of people, whether they own a DJ or any other type of car, that bother to install catch cans. They are just one more point of maintenance and would perform little if any advantage to the normally aspirated engines found in most domestic automobiles. Even domestic turbos are not so fast that enough mist is generated or the taking out of the same would provide any hp or torque advantages.
For general information: an oil catch can is used to condense oil mist (vapor) created by rapidly spinning components in high performance engines; turbo driven race cars or normally aspirated race cars that run at high rpms for long periods. Under those conditions, the engines create enough oil mist that if a regular PCV was installed instead, the oil mist would substantially reduce the flash point of the air-fuel mixture in the pistons. A PCV unit, installed in all cars, recycles that "mist" (what little there is in normal use) through the intake system where it is burned with a very negligible impact on ignition. If you vented the vapor hose into atmosphere (against the law), you wouldn't be able to tell the difference aside from adding to air pollution. A catch can condenses it into, you guessed it, a can that must be emptied periodically to get rid of the residue.
That's a simplified explanation, but, unless you are racing your DJ and run at near red-line for hours on end, I find no reason for "most people" to ever even consider one, let alone install one. With today's modern transmissions designed to keep the engine in the <2k rpm range at cruise, a catch can isn't needed.

I have the shop manual (CD) for the 2013 Journey. I can change the engine option and when I go to the 2.0L I4 diesel I get the attached image for where the oil filter is located. I don't imagine that the engine has changed that much and it may help you some. Apparently there is a belly pan that must be removed to access the canister that the oil filter fits in. Hope the attached helps; best I could do...