ATF+4 in '95 Voyager?

I just had the fluid changed on my '95 Voyager with the 4-speed
automatic. The dealer put in ATF+4. Since then I've seen the text of
TSB 21-004-04, which is certainly one of the most confusing documents
that I've read in quite a while. The text of it appears he

http://dodgeram.info/tsb/2004/21-004-04.htm

It lists a bunch of different models (not including 1995 minivans), and
then says:

> NOTE: This bulletin applies to all transmissions manufactured by
> Chrysler except for 1999 and earlier minivans with the 41TE/AE
> transmission, This Service Bulletin DOES NOT apply to all AW-4
> transmissions, Sprinter transmissions, Crossfire transmissions and WG
> bodies equipped with a W5J400 or NAG1 transmission (sales code DGJ).
>
> Discussion:
> A new transmission fluid (ATF+4 - Type 9602) has been developed and is
> being used as factory fill for all vehicles with Chrysler automatic
> transmissions.It is recommended that all vehicles with Chrysler
> automatic transmissions EXCEPT FOR THOSE LISTED ABOVE be serviced with
> ATF+4.

What does the "EXCEPT FOR THOSE LISTED ABOVE" refer to? The "except for
1999 and earlier minivans with the 41TE/AE transmission", or the
lengthy list before that????

I've also seen the earlier TSB 21-006-01, which states:

> A new transmission fluid (ATF+4(R) - Type 9602) has been developed and
> is being used as factory fill for all vehicles with Chrysler automatic
> transmissions. Until now, vehicles originally filled with ATF+2 or
> ATF+3 were to be serviced with ATF+3. Effective immediately, it is
> recommended that all vehicles with Chrysler automatic transmissions
> except for 1999 and earlier minivans be serviced with ATF+4(R). ATF+3
> should continue to be used for 1999 and earlier minivans because of the
> potential for torque converter shudder during break in. For all other
> applications the ATF+4(R) fluid offers significant benefits as outlined
> below.

This seems to indicate that the only problem might be with breaking in
a new torque convertor, which surely won't be a problem with our van
with 112,000 miles. Are there other problems that we might encounter?
I've seen some comments about leaking seals.

Please remove the "nospam" from my address if responding via email.
--
Jeff Wieland
95 Voyager SE 3.0L (still running strong -- hopefully!)
98 Neon R/T(RIP)
01 Neon R/T
http://valkyrie.itt.purdue.edu/~wieland/neon/

You'll be just fine.
Larry
"Jeff Wieland" > wrote in message
...
>I just had the fluid changed on my '95 Voyager with the 4-speed
> automatic. The dealer put in ATF+4. Since then I've seen the text of
> TSB 21-004-04, which is certainly one of the most confusing documents
> that I've read in quite a while. The text of it appears he
>
> http://dodgeram.info/tsb/2004/21-004-04.htm
>
> It lists a bunch of different models (not including 1995 minivans), and
> then says:
>
>> NOTE: This bulletin applies to all transmissions manufactured by
>> Chrysler except for 1999 and earlier minivans with the 41TE/AE
>> transmission, This Service Bulletin DOES NOT apply to all AW-4
>> transmissions, Sprinter transmissions, Crossfire transmissions and WG
>> bodies equipped with a W5J400 or NAG1 transmission (sales code DGJ).
>>
>> Discussion:
>> A new transmission fluid (ATF+4 - Type 9602) has been developed and is
>> being used as factory fill for all vehicles with Chrysler automatic
>> transmissions.It is recommended that all vehicles with Chrysler
>> automatic transmissions EXCEPT FOR THOSE LISTED ABOVE be serviced with
>> ATF+4.
>
> What does the "EXCEPT FOR THOSE LISTED ABOVE" refer to? The "except for
> 1999 and earlier minivans with the 41TE/AE transmission", or the
> lengthy list before that????
>
> I've also seen the earlier TSB 21-006-01, which states:
>
>> A new transmission fluid (ATF+4(R) - Type 9602) has been developed and
>> is being used as factory fill for all vehicles with Chrysler automatic
>> transmissions. Until now, vehicles originally filled with ATF+2 or
>> ATF+3 were to be serviced with ATF+3. Effective immediately, it is
>> recommended that all vehicles with Chrysler automatic transmissions
>> except for 1999 and earlier minivans be serviced with ATF+4(R). ATF+3
>> should continue to be used for 1999 and earlier minivans because of the
>> potential for torque converter shudder during break in. For all other
>> applications the ATF+4(R) fluid offers significant benefits as outlined
>> below.
>
> This seems to indicate that the only problem might be with breaking in
> a new torque convertor, which surely won't be a problem with our van
> with 112,000 miles. Are there other problems that we might encounter?
> I've seen some comments about leaking seals.
>
> Please remove the "nospam" from my address if responding via email.
> --
> Jeff Wieland
> 95 Voyager SE 3.0L (still running strong -- hopefully!)
> 98 Neon R/T(RIP)
> 01 Neon R/T
> http://valkyrie.itt.purdue.edu/~wieland/neon/

I agree with the confusion and think you have read the TSB properly. The
dealer used the ATF+4 on our 1999 T&C Minivan when the fluid was power
flushed at about 30K miles. I also used the ATF+4 when I dropped the pan
and replaced the fluid and filter at 60K miles. Vehicle now has about 65K
miles and is performing just fine. We never experienced any shudder or
torque converter lock up problems. YMMV. I am using ATF+4 in 3 of 4 of my
Chrysler transmissions (1996, 1999, 2001), but still use ATF+3 in my 1991
Mitsubishi which uses the Chrysler transmission.

Bob


"Jeff Wieland" > wrote in message
...
> I just had the fluid changed on my '95 Voyager with the 4-speed
> automatic. The dealer put in ATF+4. Since then I've seen the text of
> TSB 21-004-04, which is certainly one of the most confusing documents
> that I've read in quite a while. The text of it appears he
>
> http://dodgeram.info/tsb/2004/21-004-04.htm
>
> It lists a bunch of different models (not including 1995 minivans), and
> then says:
>
> > NOTE: This bulletin applies to all transmissions manufactured by
> > Chrysler except for 1999 and earlier minivans with the 41TE/AE
> > transmission, This Service Bulletin DOES NOT apply to all AW-4
> > transmissions, Sprinter transmissions, Crossfire transmissions and WG
> > bodies equipped with a W5J400 or NAG1 transmission (sales code DGJ).
> >

>> This seems to indicate that the only problem might be with breaking in
>> a new torque convertor, which surely won't be a problem with our van
>> with 112,000 miles. Are there other problems that we might encounter?
>> I've seen some comments about leaking seals.
>>
>> Please remove the "nospam" from my address if responding via email.
>> --
>> Jeff Wieland
>> 95 Voyager SE 3.0L (still running strong -- hopefully!)
>> 98 Neon R/T(RIP)
>> 01 Neon R/T
>> http://valkyrie.itt.purdue.edu/~wieland/neon/
>
It is not just breaking in a new torque converter that is of concern. If the
transmission's computer has to reprogram itself it goes through a cycle that
could result in clutch chatter if +4 is being used instead of +3. Are you
confused yet? Except for that one little issue +4 is superior in every way.
Really look out if they put in +4, plus an additive.

Richard.

In article > "Richard" <rfeirste at nycap.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>>> This seems to indicate that the only problem might be with breaking in
>>> a new torque convertor, which surely won't be a problem with our van
>>> with 112,000 miles. Are there other problems that we might encounter?
>>> I've seen some comments about leaking seals.
>>>
>>> Please remove the "nospam" from my address if responding via email.
>>> --
>>> Jeff Wieland
>>> 95 Voyager SE 3.0L (still running strong -- hopefully!)
>>> 98 Neon R/T(RIP)
>>> 01 Neon R/T
>>> http://valkyrie.itt.purdue.edu/~wieland/neon/
>>
>It is not just breaking in a new torque converter that is of concern. If the
>transmission's computer has to reprogram itself it goes through a cycle that
>could result in clutch chatter if +4 is being used instead of +3. Are you
>confused yet? Except for that one little issue +4 is superior in every way.
>Really look out if they put in +4, plus an additive.
>
>Richard.

They didn't put in any additives. I've been thinking about running
the tranmission through the retraining procedure on
http://www.allpar.com/fix/trans.html once the roads clear up around
here. It is driving and shifting fine.

I'm also thinking about putting a tranmission cooler on it. True,
it might have been better to have done it 10 years ago, but since
we're trying to squeeze a few more years out of it, it seems like
a good idea.
--
Jeff Wieland

Why bother? It's fine leave it alone.
Larry
"Jeff Wieland" > wrote in message
...
> In article > "Richard" <rfeirste at
> nycap.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>> This seems to indicate that the only problem might be with breaking in
>>>> a new torque convertor, which surely won't be a problem with our van
>>>> with 112,000 miles. Are there other problems that we might encounter?
>>>> I've seen some comments about leaking seals.
>>>>
>>>> Please remove the "nospam" from my address if responding via email.
>>>> --
>>>> Jeff Wieland
>>>> 95 Voyager SE 3.0L (still running strong -- hopefully!)
>>>> 98 Neon R/T(RIP)
>>>> 01 Neon R/T
>>>> http://valkyrie.itt.purdue.edu/~wieland/neon/
>>>
>>It is not just breaking in a new torque converter that is of concern. If
>>the
>>transmission's computer has to reprogram itself it goes through a cycle
>>that
>>could result in clutch chatter if +4 is being used instead of +3. Are you
>>confused yet? Except for that one little issue +4 is superior in every
>>way.
>>Really look out if they put in +4, plus an additive.
>>
>>Richard.
>
> They didn't put in any additives. I've been thinking about running
> the tranmission through the retraining procedure on
> http://www.allpar.com/fix/trans.html once the roads clear up around
> here. It is driving and shifting fine.
>
> I'm also thinking about putting a tranmission cooler on it. True,
> it might have been better to have done it 10 years ago, but since
> we're trying to squeeze a few more years out of it, it seems like
> a good idea.
> --
> Jeff Wieland