A604-41TE Amsoil synthetic versus ATF+3 Mpoar 7176 ??

fwd_moparasambuku wrote:

> Steve excitedly and breathlessly wrote:
>
>
>>We put 150,000 miles on my wife's Chrysler
>>transmission using ATF+3 (and later +4)
>>before a leak necessitated repairing it.
>>The clutches were still in great shape.
>
>
> Then maybe it was a 3 speed, not an A604.

I'm not stupid, I know what a 42LE is.

> Or you live in a very mild
> climate with optimal driving conditions, like little or no stop and go
> traffic in hot weather,

Austin Texas. 2 seasons: summer and hellfire. City driving weekdays,
plenty of roadtrips and long drives at high speeds too.

> and she drives in an extremely conservative manner
> at low speeds over level ground, in an unloaded vehicle for short
> distances.

Kinda hard to rack up 220,000 miles and take the family on vacation
doing stuff like that...

Maybe you're just F.O.S.

fwd_moparasambuku wrote:

> "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
>
>>Scamsoil's track record of lies cannot be erased
>>by your glib, ignorant assertions.
>
>
> And I replied to the above with this:
>
> "Show me some real VERIFIABLE *proof*, that your above comment, is
> anything other than a "glib ignorant assertion" itself."
>


Rather that engage in another round of reference-citation-tennis, let me
back up and just ask what your objective is here? If its NOT to sell
Scamsoil, then what? You can't really claim that you've used the fluid
long enough to establish long-term durability. You can't really
attribute any better performance to the fluid, maybe you just finally
got a transmission that wasn't a typical cruddy mass-production rebuild
hack job.

I'll freely acknowledge that the 41TE/42LE have a less-stellar
reputation for durability than an A-727 or A-904. It comes with the
front-drive, high-mpg, lightweight territory that they were designed in.
Honda isn't doing any better. Neither is Toyota, Nissan, GM, or Ford.
But its also been well-established that regular fluid changes with
fluids that are CERTIFIED to the ATF +3 and +4 specs DO give these
transmissions a better shot at long life.

So come on. What's your objective in posting? Saving a few bucks on
transmission fluid that you only have to change every 50k miles can't
SERIOUSLY be important to you. Its much more important to avoid a
$3000-plus rebuild than save $30 on fluid every 2 years.

C'mon, dude, what do you EXPECT us to think?

fwd_moparasambuku wrote:

> It has been over an hour now, and still no response from Daniel J. Stern
> 'or' Steve.
>
> Who ever thought that DJS, of all people, could ever hold his peace after
> he gets to trolling like that? I am sure he and Steve will have a great
> excuse for their lingering silence,

Actually, I do. I was on an airplane all day..

>
> It really ****ES ME OFF! Guys like this have been spreading BULL **** for
> years, about the only alternative to Daimler/Chrysler's overpriced and
> *inadequate* ATF, and much more I am sure.

Overpriced, maybe. But inadequate? Nuh-uh. It WORKS, and nothing else is
proven to work. Ball's in your court, how do you answer? How do you
prove to an open-minded person that you aren't the one spouting the
bull? Fluids are tested to specifications for a reason. Where is the
laboratory data that says this magical mystery fluid meets either the
ATF+3 or ATF+4 spec? Do you troll the Honduh newsgroups trying to
persuade them that they don't REALLY need to use Honduuh-spec fluids too?

>
> OK. Enough said. I am out of here.

Somehow, I doubt that.

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Steve wrote:

> fwd_moparasambuku wrote:
>
> > It has been over an hour now, and still no response from Daniel J. Stern
> > 'or' Steve.
> >
> > Who ever thought that DJS, of all people, could ever hold his peace after
> > he gets to trolling like that? I am sure he and Steve will have a great
> > excuse for their lingering silence,
>
> Actually, I do. I was on an airplane all day..

I've got a better one: I have more productive things to do with my time
than grant audience to some schlemiel intent on acting like a spazzed-out
six-year-old on Usenet.

> > OK. Enough said. I am out of here.

> Somehow, I doubt that.

Given he's said "Bye", "I'm out of here", "I'm leaving", etc. three or
four times now, I'd say you're probably right.

DS

"fwd_moparasambuku" > wrote in message
lkaboutautos.com...
> It has been over an hour now, and still no response from Daniel J. Stern
> 'or' Steve.
>
> Who ever thought that DJS, of all people, could ever hold his peace after
> he gets to trolling like that? I am sure he and Steve will have a great
> excuse for their lingering silence, and they will have plenty of BULL ****
> to lay out. I have better things to do than stick around to wade through
it
> though.
>
> It really ****ES ME OFF! Guys like this have been spreading BULL **** for
> years, about the only alternative to Daimler/Chrysler's overpriced and
> *inadequate* ATF, and much more I am sure.
>

Look bull****ter, get your facts straight.

Many oil companies sell ATF +3

There are 2 oil companies that sell ATF +4 "compliant" fluid, they are

Pennzoil with it's MultiVehicle ATF:

http://www.pzlqs.com/Tech/Pdsheet/Do...ssionFluid.pdf

and Valvoline also claims ATF +4 compatability with their MaxLife fluid.

Furthermore as to the subject of warranties:

In November 2003 the ILMA http://www.ilma.org/ submitted a restraint of
trade claim to the
FTC regarding ATF +4. Text of that is he

http://ilma.org/resources/ftc_dcc_letter.pdf

The FTC denied the claim because they said the following:

"we reviewed several DCC vehicle warranties and found that they do not
condition warranty coverage under the Act on the consumer's use of ATF+4
fluids. "A (DCC) owner could have maintenance service done at a
non-DaimlerChrysler facility that uses another type of transmission fluid
and this action would not void the warranty with respect to the
transmission,"

They said this because while DaimlerChrsyler's warranties exclude liability
for the costs of repairing damage or conditions caused by the use of any
fluid that does not meet the minimum requirements of ATF+4, the key legal
issue is that the automaker neither licenses the fluid nor publishes the
minimum recommendations. In order for DC to deny a transmission warranty
claim based on a trans fluid not meeting ATF +4 spec, they would have to
publish the spec.

So the upshot is you can simply ignore the Chrysler TSB's (which are not
legal documents and cannot be used
to deny warranty) and use ATF +3 in all your Chrysler transmissions
that call for ATF +4, and suffer no reprecussions as far as warranty
coverage. Hell, legally for that matter
you could probably use motor oil and suffer no warranty reprecussions. (I
am assuming the ILMA is probably attempting to get a trans warranty claim
denied by Chrysler as we speak, in order to go back to the FTC and tell them
that DC is in fact illegally denying claims, but I would also guess that
they have not yet found a DC dealership
that has denied a claim)

And it is also known and has been discussed before that the difference
between ATF +3 and ATF +4 is
that ATF +4 is synthetic and ATF +3 is not, so all you have to do is use a
standard fluid replacement
scheme for ATF +3, and a synthetic fluid replacement scheme for ATF +4.

And since you seem to like testimonials so much let me give you mine - I
bought a van that had a trans
rebuilt at 70K, I have 110K on that van now. The trans rebuilder only
warrantied for 6 months and
was one of those idiots that used Lubeguard + Dexron, NOT ATF. When I
bought it I changed
the fluid to ATF +3. And it is still running perfectly fine.

I think the real issue is the quality of rebuilding. The rebuilder you are
using quite obviously doesen't
know how to properly rebuild these transmissions and does such a bad job
that they only last a
short time. The amazing thing is that after 4 transmissions you still
haven't figured it out and are
getting caught up in this idea that the fluid is the key issue. Even back
in the bad old days when
Chrysler was recommending Dexron in these trannies -on the dipstick- people
were still getting
more life out of their trannies using the completely wrong fluid Dexron than
you are.

Ted

"fwd_moparasambuku" > wrote in message
lkaboutautos.com...
> It has been over an hour now, and still no response from Daniel J. Stern
> 'or' Steve.
>
> Who ever thought that DJS, of all people, could ever hold his peace after
> he gets to trolling like that? I am sure he and Steve will have a great
> excuse for their lingering silence, and they will have plenty of BULL ****
> to lay out. I have better things to do than stick around to wade through
it
> though.
>
> It really ****ES ME OFF! Guys like this have been spreading BULL **** for
> years, about the only alternative to Daimler/Chrysler's overpriced and
> *inadequate* ATF, and much more I am sure.
>
> I wish I had never listened to the myth makers, and tried Amsoil ATF a
> long time ago. Doing so would have saved me thousands of dollars on
> transmission rebuilds!
>
> Pseudo experts who proliferate on the Internet, propagate myths and BULL
> ****, to the hurt of consumers everywhere.
>
> OK. Enough said. I am out of here.
>
>
>

Whether you're out of here or not, you're blocked. You come to the site,
spamming and multiposting and then start whining when some respected posters
don't roll over and play dead at your claims.

Buh Buy

All of you guys are nuts. Just plain nuts.

You think anybody who comes here and does not
agree with you that Chrysler +3 or +4 is the
only ATF to use in a A604 just has to be
selling Amsoil.

You call people who are exited about the
stuff liars and bait and abuse them. Then
you ban them because they are abusive?

Well that is just wrong. You got your facts
wrong too.

ATF +4 is not really a synthetic. It is a
semisynthetic. The new German owners of
MOPAR are charging real synthetic prices
for it though. That sucks.

You guys claiming to be getting over 150
thousand miles on +3 with no problems are
exaggerating at best. Either that or you
are just really a lucky few aren't ya!

Your behavior here probably helps sell
more AMSOIL than anything else. That is
because you guys are unreasonable and
closed minded to the point of crazy and
downright dishonest. It is plain to see.
I noticed this quite a while back about
most of the fwd-mopar guys.

Now just watch these assholes accuse me
of selling Amsoil.

I use it in my A604 and it is fine! In
fact I can tell it is way better than
MOPAR ATF because it shifts better and
runs cooler and I even get more miles
per gallon.

You guys should be ashamed.

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 wrote:

> All of you guys are nuts. Just plain nuts.

Drat, the jig is up. You've got us bang to rights. I'm a macadamia,
myself. I believe Steve is an almond, or possibly a pecan.

> You think anybody who comes here and does not agree with you that
> Chrysler +3 or +4 is the only ATF to use in a A604 just has to be
> selling Amsoil.

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, craps like a duck...probably a
duck.

> You call people who are exited about the stuff liars

Only when they lie.

> Then you ban them because they are abusive?

This is usenet. There's no such thing as "banning" someone from an
unmoderated group such as this one. Grow a brain.

> ATF +4 is not really a synthetic.

But it is the one and only correct fluid for a lot of Mopar transmissions.

> You guys claiming to be getting over 150 thousand miles on +3 with no
> problems are exaggerating at best.

Now who's calling whom a liar?

> Now just watch these assholes accuse me of selling Amsoil.

Are you? If not, why is it so important to you that anyone else open their
eyes and see the Light, the Truth and the Way of Scamsoil?

> I use it in my A604 and it is fine!

Grand. We should care because...?

> In fact I can tell it is way better than MOPAR ATF because it shifts
> better and runs cooler and I even get more miles per gallon.

Y'know, I'd bet a week's salary that "mini3oh" and "fwd_moparasambuku" are
one and the same. They both act like ducks...with advanced dysentery.

Y'all come back now, hear?

*sound of screen door slamming*

Point of fact both Pennzoil and Valvoline do not say they meet the
requirements of ATF+4, they only say they can be used in Chrysler vehicles.
To me this is ambiguous and not clear at all and appears to of the AMSOIL
mentality. Saying so is not proof the proof is in the transmission lasting
150K without any issues.

--
Coasty
Semper Paratus
(Always Ready)

"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "fwd_moparasambuku" > wrote in message
> lkaboutautos.com...
>> It has been over an hour now, and still no response from Daniel J. Stern
>> 'or' Steve.
>>
>> Who ever thought that DJS, of all people, could ever hold his peace after
>> he gets to trolling like that? I am sure he and Steve will have a great
>> excuse for their lingering silence, and they will have plenty of BULL
>> ****
>> to lay out. I have better things to do than stick around to wade through
> it
>> though.
>>
>> It really ****ES ME OFF! Guys like this have been spreading BULL **** for
>> years, about the only alternative to Daimler/Chrysler's overpriced and
>> *inadequate* ATF, and much more I am sure.
>>
>
> Look bull****ter, get your facts straight.
>
> Many oil companies sell ATF +3
>
> There are 2 oil companies that sell ATF +4 "compliant" fluid, they are
>
> Pennzoil with it's MultiVehicle ATF:
>
> http://www.pzlqs.com/Tech/Pdsheet/Do...ssionFluid.pdf
>
> and Valvoline also claims ATF +4 compatability with their MaxLife fluid.
>
> Furthermore as to the subject of warranties:
>
> In November 2003 the ILMA http://www.ilma.org/ submitted a restraint of
> trade claim to the
> FTC regarding ATF +4. Text of that is he
>
> http://ilma.org/resources/ftc_dcc_letter.pdf
>
> The FTC denied the claim because they said the following:
>
> "we reviewed several DCC vehicle warranties and found that they do not
> condition warranty coverage under the Act on the consumer's use of ATF+4
> fluids. "A (DCC) owner could have maintenance service done at a
> non-DaimlerChrysler facility that uses another type of transmission fluid
> and this action would not void the warranty with respect to the
> transmission,"
>
> They said this because while DaimlerChrsyler's warranties exclude
> liability
> for the costs of repairing damage or conditions caused by the use of any
> fluid that does not meet the minimum requirements of ATF+4, the key legal
> issue is that the automaker neither licenses the fluid nor publishes the
> minimum recommendations. In order for DC to deny a transmission warranty
> claim based on a trans fluid not meeting ATF +4 spec, they would have to
> publish the spec.
>
> So the upshot is you can simply ignore the Chrysler TSB's (which are not
> legal documents and cannot be used
> to deny warranty) and use ATF +3 in all your Chrysler transmissions
> that call for ATF +4, and suffer no reprecussions as far as warranty
> coverage. Hell, legally for that matter
> you could probably use motor oil and suffer no warranty reprecussions. (I
> am assuming the ILMA is probably attempting to get a trans warranty claim
> denied by Chrysler as we speak, in order to go back to the FTC and tell
> them
> that DC is in fact illegally denying claims, but I would also guess that
> they have not yet found a DC dealership
> that has denied a claim)
>
> And it is also known and has been discussed before that the difference
> between ATF +3 and ATF +4 is
> that ATF +4 is synthetic and ATF +3 is not, so all you have to do is use a
> standard fluid replacement
> scheme for ATF +3, and a synthetic fluid replacement scheme for ATF +4.
>
> And since you seem to like testimonials so much let me give you mine - I
> bought a van that had a trans
> rebuilt at 70K, I have 110K on that van now. The trans rebuilder only
> warrantied for 6 months and
> was one of those idiots that used Lubeguard + Dexron, NOT ATF. When I
> bought it I changed
> the fluid to ATF +3. And it is still running perfectly fine.
>
> I think the real issue is the quality of rebuilding. The rebuilder you
> are
> using quite obviously doesen't
> know how to properly rebuild these transmissions and does such a bad job
> that they only last a
> short time. The amazing thing is that after 4 transmissions you still
> haven't figured it out and are
> getting caught up in this idea that the fluid is the key issue. Even back
> in the bad old days when
> Chrysler was recommending Dexron in these trannies -on the dipstick-
> people
> were still getting
> more life out of their trannies using the completely wrong fluid Dexron
> than
> you are.
>
> Ted
>
>

Coasty wrote:

> Point of fact both Pennzoil and Valvoline do not say they meet the
> requirements of ATF+4, they only say they can be used in Chrysler vehicles.
> To me this is ambiguous and not clear at all and appears to of the AMSOIL
> mentality. Saying so is not proof the proof is in the transmission lasting
> 150K without any issues.
>

I wondered about that too. I've seen too many labels on very low end
aftermarket tranny fluids that say they can be used in absolutely
everything including your washing machine when I know darn well it ain't
so (well - maybe the washing machine).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')