Finding and correcting 41TE electrical problems

As posted before, I had the 41TE in my 1993 Grand Voyager rebuilt at a
local shop.

When It works, it shifts nice and smooth. However, since the work has
been completed, I have had to take it back three times, as it will go
into *limp mode* after anywhere from 10 to 35 minutes of driving.

When I took it back today, they duplicated the problem twice and have
now cleaned and checked every connector. They were then able to drive
it for 50 minutes without a problem.

They want me to take it for the weekend, and bring it back on Monday
if the problem recurs.

Are there any step by step procedures that will hopefully solve the
electical problems once and for all, that I can suggest to them? They
do have a Snap On scan tool that they have been using to get codes,
and then they are following the diagnostic procedure for each one.
They got a *41* yesterday, and so they "*drilled down" the connector.
(Not sure what that means.)

I am begining to wonder if it was an intermitted electrical problem
that caused the transmission failure in the first place.

Ideas welcome.

-Kirk Matheson

> happened to note:
> As posted before, I had the 41TE in my 1993 Grand Voyager rebuilt at a
> local shop.
>
> When It works, it shifts nice and smooth. However, since the work has
> been completed, I have had to take it back three times, as it will go
> into *limp mode* after anywhere from 10 to 35 minutes of driving.
>
> When I took it back today, they duplicated the problem twice and have
> now cleaned and checked every connector. They were then able to drive
> it for 50 minutes without a problem.
>
> They want me to take it for the weekend, and bring it back on Monday
> if the problem recurs.
>
> Are there any step by step procedures that will hopefully solve the
> electical problems once and for all, that I can suggest to them? They
> do have a Snap On scan tool that they have been using to get codes,
> and then they are following the diagnostic procedure for each one.
> They got a *41* yesterday, and so they "*drilled down" the connector.
> (Not sure what that means.)
>
> I am begining to wonder if it was an intermitted electrical problem
> that caused the transmission failure in the first place.
>
> Ideas welcome.
>
> -Kirk Matheson
>

Actually the previous transmission was probably fine and you had an
electrical problem all along!

Is that code 41 from the transmission control module or the engine control
module?
When they did the 'rebuild' what fluid did they put in - the Mopar 7176?

On Aug 4, 1:16 am, "John" > wrote:
> > happened to note:
>
>
>
> > As posted before, I had the 41TE in my 1993 Grand Voyager rebuilt at a
> > local shop.
>
> > When It works, it shifts nice and smooth. However, since the work has
> > been completed, I have had to take it back three times, as it will go
> > into *limp mode* after anywhere from 10 to 35 minutes of driving.
>
> > When I took it back today, they duplicated the problem twice and have
> > now cleaned and checked every connector. They were then able to drive
> > it for 50 minutes without a problem.
>
> > They want me to take it for the weekend, and bring it back on Monday
> > if the problem recurs.
>
> > Are there any step by step procedures that will hopefully solve the
> > electical problems once and for all, that I can suggest to them? They
> > do have a Snap On scan tool that they have been using to get codes,
> > and then they are following the diagnostic procedure for each one.
> > They got a *41* yesterday, and so they "*drilled down" the connector.
> > (Not sure what that means.)
>
> > I am begining to wonder if it was an intermitted electrical problem
> > that caused the transmission failure in the first place.
>
> > Ideas welcome.
>
> > -Kirk Matheson
>
> Actually the previous transmission was probably fine and you had an
> electrical problem all along!

That is my fear. In January 2006, I took it in because of shifting
problems. At that time, the solenoid pack was not getting any power at
all, so they changed out the ignition switch. That seem to solve the
problem, at least temporarily. I suspect that the intermittent
problems were there since then, but since I am not the primary driver,
I did not notice a problem.

> Is that code 41 from the transmission control module or the engine control
> module?

Yes. It was from the transmission control module. As recall, the shop
said that the control module is a *Revision 8.* It is the early *non-
flashable* type. I asked them if it should be upgraded, but he said
that the Rev. 8 should be adequate, and that a new flashable type,
would run more than $300. He said that it has to be programmed with
the vehicle's VIN. I thought that is was possible to get one from a
salvage yard, flash it with the most current software, and then
install it.

> When they did the 'rebuild' what fluid did they put in - the Mopar 7176?

They used Mercon III, with Lubguard. I was not very happy about that,
but they became defensive when I questioned it. He showed me the label
on the Lubeguard bottle claiming ATF+3 & ATF+4 eqivalency once added.
He said that they *have never had a problem with that mix.*

I am thinking about changing the fluid to ATF+3 once I as satisfied
that it is working correctly. I would have to find a place that can
flush it, as opposed to a pan drain.

Anyway, I have driven about 20 miles since they cleaned "all the
connections," and it has not yet had a problem.

-KM

>> > They got a *41* yesterday, and so they "*drilled down" the connector.
>> > (Not sure what that means.)

Code 41 is "L-R Solenoid Circuit Error"

Possible causes (from Chrysler Diagnostic Manual):
Open/shorted T20, T19, T60 and T59
Open ground circuit
TCM connector problem (cavities 16,17,19,20,57,58,59 & 60
8-way connector problem (cavities 4,5,6,7 & 8)
Solenoid pack internal problem
Internal controller failure

wrote:

> As recall, the shop
> said that the control module is a *Revision 8.* It is the early *non-
> flashable* type. I asked them if it should be upgraded, but he said
> that the Rev. 8 should be adequate, and that a new flashable type,
> would run more than $300. He said that it has to be programmed with
> the vehicle's VIN. I thought that is was possible to get one from a
> salvage yard, flash it with the most current software, and then
> install it.

Does anyone here have a definitive answer on whether the VIN number has
to be programmed into the TCM for the '93 minivan? I know that is not
the case with the LH cars. I replaced the TCM in one from a junk yard
with no problems. And you can buy them all day long for under $50
including shipping (www.car-part.com).

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

vin not needed for that year

Bill Putney wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > As recall, the shop
> > said that the control module is a *Revision 8.* It is the early *non-
> > flashable* type. I asked them if it should be upgraded, but he said
> > that the Rev. 8 should be adequate, and that a new flashable type,
> > would run more than $300. He said that it has to be programmed with
> > the vehicle's VIN. I thought that is was possible to get one from a
> > salvage yard, flash it with the most current software, and then
> > install it.
>
> Does anyone here have a definitive answer on whether the VIN number has
> to be programmed into the TCM for the '93 minivan? I know that is not
> the case with the LH cars. I replaced the TCM in one from a junk yard
> with no problems. And you can buy them all day long for under $50
> including shipping (www.car-part.com).
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with the letter 'x')

philthy wrote:

> vin not needed for that year

That's what I figured.

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

> Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As recall, the shop
>>>said that the control module is a *Revision 8.* It is the early *non-
>>>flashable* type. I asked them if it should be upgraded, but he said
>>>that the Rev. 8 should be adequate, and that a new flashable type,
>>>would run more than $300. He said that it has to be programmed with
>>>the vehicle's VIN. I thought that is was possible to get one from a
>>>salvage yard, flash it with the most current software, and then
>>>install it.
>>
>>Does anyone here have a definitive answer on whether the VIN number has
>>to be programmed into the TCM for the '93 minivan? I know that is not
>>the case with the LH cars. I replaced the TCM in one from a junk yard
>>with no problems. And you can buy them all day long for under $50
>>including shipping (www.car-part.com).
>>
>>Bill Putney
>>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>address with the letter 'x')
>
>

On Aug 5, 11:14 am, Bill Putney > wrote:
> philthy wrote:
> > vin not needed for that year
>
> That's what I figured.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with the letter 'x')
>
>
>
> > Bill Putney wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> >>>As recall, the shop
> >>>said that the control module is a *Revision 8.* It is the early *non-
> >>>flashable* type. I asked them if it should be upgraded, but he said
> >>>that the Rev. 8 should be adequate, and that a new flashable type,
> >>>would run more than $300. He said that it has to be programmed with
> >>>the vehicle's VIN. I thought that is was possible to get one from a
> >>>salvage yard, flash it with the most current software, and then
> >>>install it.
>
> >>Does anyone here have a definitive answer on whether the VIN number has
> >>to be programmed into the TCM for the '93 minivan? I know that is not
> >>the case with the LH cars. I replaced the TCM in one from a junk yard
> >>with no problems. And you can buy them all day long for under $50
> >>including shipping (www.car-part.com).
>
> >>Bill Putney
> >>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> >>address with the letter 'x')- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks to all that responded. The "clean and check all connections"
campaign appears to have done the trick. I drove it for 82 miles over
the weekend, and it did not go into limp mode.

Hopefully I can recoup some or all of the rebuild cost by getting
another year or more out of it. I like the "swivel and table" feature
offered for 2008, but it looks like the base price went up along with
the new features.

It also looks like Ford and GM have dropped out of the traditional
minivan market altogether.

-KM