Actually that added seal isn’t to address drainback - it’s to add to converter capacity in lockup. The only thing Chrysler did to try and address drainback was to add the anti-draindown valve in the cooler line on rear wheel drive vehicles.
Thanks for that clarification , I thought I read in one of the diesel forums it was for drainback. I removed that anti drain valve out of my 2000 because to me it was a flow restriction.
Question unrelated to the op's issue since you know a lot more about these things ... would changing my 47RE front pump to the larger gear/rotor 48RE pump be beneficial? I don't have a 48RE snouted convertor in it so I'll leave that seal ring out.
You won’t see any benefit going to the 48 pump. Unless you have the 48 cooler lines and hauling a bunch of weight the extra flow won’t help anything.
You can only pump so much fluid to brought the smaller lines.
And if your 47 is behind a gas engine you don’t want to use the diesel pump.
Thanks, that'll save me a couple hundred bucks. But I'll look into the difference in the 48 lines and the factory cooler which I know is on the opposite side of the engine.
The 47 is behind a 24V 5.9 , a 98 , it will be making close to 500 at the rear wheels, I don't tow it a lot it's, mainly my daily driver. The trans right now is in my 2000 lawn ornament that's a rusty 4x4, I've bought a 2wd OD unit out of a gas rig that I'm going to swap the OD guts, extra clutches and such out of the 4x4 OD unit, into the 2wd unit and reseal the trans which has billet shafts and such already to put in my DD and swap the injectors/turbo and chip into it. I thought maybe the extra volume available via the 48 pump would be a positive, I'm going to also put the GPZ clutches in it and have my convertor freshened as the trans was last driven in 2011.
