Valvoline Transmission Fluid ATF+3 Chrysler Approved?

Sven wrote:

>
>> (...) will carry on using +4 in all those transmissions for which DC
>
> > currently recommends it, which means virtually all transmissions
> > originally filled with ATF+, ATF+2, and ATF+3.
>
> If you get ATF+4 for the same price or have too much money or working
> with DC I take this for granted.
>
> What sense does it make? Can you extend intervals?

You could look at it a couple of ways:
You could consider it as extending the life of your tranny and stay with
original change intervals. Or, logically, you could extend the
intervals way out and reduce your periodic maintennce costs. However
realize that changing fluid and filter does more than replace the fluid
- it gets rid of contaminants and particulates and of course renews your
filter capacity. So extending the change interval too much could be
counterproductive.

Perhaps a reasonable approach would be to split the difference and
somewhat extend the tranny life and somewhat reduce your periodic
maintenance costs realizing that you're not going to get the full
benefit of extended tranny life. Best would be to stay with original
change interval.

Your car - your money - your risk.

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

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Sven wrote:
>
> >
> >> (...) will carry on using +4 in all those transmissions for which DC
> >
> > > currently recommends it, which means virtually all transmissions
> > > originally filled with ATF+, ATF+2, and ATF+3.
> >
> > If you get ATF+4 for the same price or have too much money or working
> > with DC I take this for granted.
> >
> > What sense does it make? Can you extend intervals?
>
> You could look at it a couple of ways:
> You could consider it as extending the life of your tranny and stay with
> original change intervals. Or, logically, you could extend the
> intervals way out and reduce your periodic maintennce costs. However
> realize that changing fluid and filter does more than replace the fluid
> - it gets rid of contaminants and particulates and of course renews your
> filter capacity. So extending the change interval too much could be
> counterproductive.
>

I think a lot of people are reading a bit too much into this.

DC stopped PRODUCING ATF +3 a long time ago. Thus it would be
IMPOSSIBLE for them to recommend ATF +3 in ANY of their vehicles
without putting their dealers in a position where they would be forced to
go to the aftermarket to get transmission fluid.

So naturally your going to see all TSB's updated to state that ATF +4
is backwards ompatible and will work in everything.

This has nothing really to do with the question of whether or not ATF +4
is really, honestly compatible with the older transmissions that came from
the factory with ATF +3 in them.

There is a line on the Allpar site that a Chrysler engineer at one time
mentioned that ATF +4 might not be compatible with the seals in
an older transmission.

But beyond that, which is little more than a rumor/speculation, I've not
been able to find anything where anyone reported that they replaced the
ATF +3 in their transmission with ATF +4 and the transmission suddenly
blew chunks.

Interestingly, I ALSO haven't been able to find any kind of testimonial
that someone took a transmission with ATF +4 factory-fill in it, replaced
the fluid with ATF +3 and it suddenly blew chunks.

I have therefore concluded that ATF +3 and ATF +4 are compatible in
frictional coefficients for the practical purpose of use in any transmission
that calls for ATF +3 or ATF +4

Also another nail in that coffin is this - Ultradrive transmissions produced
before 1996 have different transmission computers than the ones produced
in 1996 and later. And while DC has come out with newer firmware
revs for the post-1995 trans computers, they have NOT for the pre-1996
trans computers. Their last firmware update for the pre-1996 computers
was in 1996 or 1995 I believe. This was BEFORE they started producing
ATF +4 so today there is NO WAY that any 41TE in operation in any
1995 or earlier Chrysler product could even possibly know about any
"different" frictional characteristics of ATF +4. Yet DC is recommending
ATF +4 for those transmissions! Therefore anyone who is insisting that
ATF +4 has different frictional characteristics than ATF +3 is either full
of ****, or they are saying that DC is lying when DC says to use ATF +4
in 1995 or earlier transmissions. Take your pick, folks.

The primary differences between ATF +3 and ATF +4 that matters is that
ATF +4 is allegedly "synthetic" whereas ATF +3 is allegedly not, and
ATF +4's patented additive package was not released by DC to the
aftermarket until just a month ago or so - meaning you had to buy your
fluid from DC if you wanted ATF +4.

Now, there's some obvious advantages to synthetic motor oil that have
been clearly documented - primariarly it works better in excessively hot
or cold environments and it's molecules don't break down as fast as mineral
oil so in theory you could simply change the oil filter forever and never
the
oil and it would be fine. (the detergents, however, get consumed just as
fast, so it turns out that the infinitely long change intervals in synthetic
motor
oil don't exist)

But there's no clear study or documentation that synthetic transmission oil
is going to make your transmission last indefinitely or some such.

The 41TE transmissions have a number of ways that they can meet the
Great Transmission Graveyard in the sky, but these can be boiled down
to 2 general methods - either something inside the transmission fractures,
or the clutches wear out. As for the first problem DC has been busy
redesigning the problem parts so the chances of that happening have been
greatly reduced (unless your an idiot that decides to take your minivan
muddin' or some such)

As for the second problem, DC has made some firmware changes that
are indended to reduce slipping of the clutches, to minimise wear on them,
but the fact remains that a clutch is a clutch and it has material in it
that is DESIGNED TO ABRADE AWAY so it WILL NOT last forever
no matter WHAT magic elixer is stuck in the transmission fluid.

in NEITHER of these scenarios does the transmission oil have much to
do with anything. You could put motor oil, Dexron, grease, sewing
machine oil, whatever oil you want in your transmission and it would
provide the lubrication needed to keep all the parts except the clutches
from wearing significantly. You need ATF + with the right frictional
coefficient to make the clutches happy.

So the question then becomes, if ATF +4 and ATF +3 have functionally
identical frictional coefficients to make the transmission happy, is
there any benefit to the more expensive ATF +4?

And the answer is: ONLY if it lasts longer.

Currently, the recommendations made on this group are to follow the
Severe Duty service intervals in the manual for changing your transmission
fluid (ie: Schedule B) even though your not driving in severe duty. That
means change the transmission fluid at 15,000 mile intervals. And I have
NOT
seen ANY recommendation that if you use ATF +4 that you DON'T have
to do this, or can do it at any longer interval.

So I have to conclude that this argument is a big heaping pile of dog crap.
When someone shows me a published recommendation from DC that
ATF +4 is so magical that you don't have to ever change it, then I'll
change my mind. But until then, you can conclude that for all practical
purposes ATF +3 and ATF +4 are used the same way and do the same
thing, and the only reason DC recommends ATF +4 is to keep from
undercutting their dealer network since they don't make ATF +3 any
longer, and leave it at that.

Ted

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Sven wrote:

>> (...) will carry on using +4 in all those transmissions for which DC
>> currently recommends it, which means virtually all transmissions
>> originally filled with ATF+, ATF+2, and ATF+3.

> If you get ATF+4 for the same price or have too much money or working
> with DC I take this for granted.

None of the above. I am willing to pay more money for a superior fluid.
It's cheap insurance. And ATF+4 is, in all ways, a superior fluid. There's
a very good and highly detailed SAE paper that gives exhaustive
comparisons of various fluids including +4, +3, +, and Dexron. You can
buy it in paper or download form he
http://www.sae.org/servlets/productD...PROD_CD=982674

If I am reading the 04 TSB correctly, pre 2000 mini-vans, and a few other
models, still need +3.

Richard.

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Sven wrote:

>>>...What sense does it make? Can you extend intervals?
>>
>>You could look at it a couple of ways:
>>You could consider it as extending the life of your tranny and stay with
>>original change intervals. Or, logically, you could extend the
>>intervals way out and reduce your periodic maintennce costs. However
>>realize that changing fluid and filter does more than replace the fluid
>>- it gets rid of contaminants and particulates and of course renews your
>>filter capacity. So extending the change interval too much could be
>>counterproductive.
>>
>
>
> I think a lot of people are reading a bit too much into this.
>
> DC stopped PRODUCING ATF +3 a long time ago...

I beg to differ. I was in the dealer just last week, and for some
reason specifically remember seeing ATF+4 and ATF+3 sitting on the shelf
in plane view right beside each other. Just to make sure, I called that
dealer parts counter 3 minutes ago, and they assured me that they do
indeed have MOPAR branded ATF+3 on their shelf. Though some of what you
say below may be correct, this throws at least some of your reasoning
into a cocked hat.


> Thus it would be
> IMPOSSIBLE for them to recommend ATF +3 in ANY of their vehicles
> without putting their dealers in a position where they would be forced to
> go to the aftermarket to get transmission fluid.
> So naturally your going to see all TSB's updated to state that ATF +4
> is backwards ompatible and will work in everything.

Possibly the right conclusion, but for the wrong reasons - see above.

> This has nothing really to do with the question of whether or not ATF +4
> is really, honestly compatible with the older transmissions that came from
> the factory with ATF +3 in them.
>
> There is a line on the Allpar site that a Chrysler engineer at one time
> mentioned that ATF +4 might not be compatible with the seals in
> an older transmission.
>
> But beyond that, which is little more than a rumor/speculation, I've not
> been able to find anything where anyone reported that they replaced the
> ATF +3 in their transmission with ATF +4 and the transmission suddenly
> blew chunks.

Again, your conclusion might be right, but your reasoning doesn't bring
one to that conclusion. Suddenly blowing chunks isn't the only
criteria. Any negative effects are much more likely to be damage/wear
over an intermediate or long term.

> Interestingly, I ALSO haven't been able to find any kind of testimonial
> that someone took a transmission with ATF +4 factory-fill in it, replaced
> the fluid with ATF +3 and it suddenly blew chunks.

See above - I disagree that the word "suddenly" has much at all to do
with it.

> I have therefore concluded that ATF +3 and ATF +4 are compatible in
> frictional coefficients for the practical purpose of use in any transmission
> that calls for ATF +3 or ATF +4

Again - intermediate and long term effects?

> Also another nail in that coffin is this - Ultradrive transmissions produced
> before 1996 have different transmission computers than the ones produced
> in 1996 and later. And while DC has come out with newer firmware
> revs for the post-1995 trans computers, they have NOT for the pre-1996
> trans computers. Their last firmware update for the pre-1996 computers
> was in 1996 or 1995 I believe. This was BEFORE they started producing
> ATF +4 so today there is NO WAY that any 41TE in operation in any
> 1995 or earlier Chrysler product could even possibly know about any
> "different" frictional characteristics of ATF +4. Yet DC is recommending
> ATF +4 for those transmissions!

Perhaps, right or wrong, they are not concerned with optimal longevity
of a 10 year old tranny. They figure that that customer is now stealing
from them by not buying a new car. 8^) They give a higher priority to
pahsing ATF+3 out and reducing the number of "parts" they have to
control, list, inventory, ship, etc. MBA's at work - screw the owners
of ten year old vehicles.

> ...Therefore anyone who is insisting that
> ATF +4 has different frictional characteristics than ATF +3 is either full
> of ****, or they are saying that DC is lying when DC says to use ATF +4
> in 1995 or earlier transmissions. Take your pick, folks.

How about door no. three: DC doesn't care if ATF+4 is not optimal for
pre-'96 hardware.

> The primary differences between ATF +3 and ATF +4 that matters is that
> ATF +4 is allegedly "synthetic" whereas ATF +3 is allegedly not, and
> ATF +4's patented additive package was not released by DC to the
> aftermarket until just a month ago or so - meaning you had to buy your
> fluid from DC if you wanted ATF +4.
..
..
..
> Currently, the recommendations made on this group are to follow the
> Severe Duty service intervals in the manual for changing your transmission
> fluid (ie: Schedule B) even though your not driving in severe duty...

According to a lot of people (some on this NG), including many DC
dealers, Schedule A conditions do not exist in the real world. Which
leads me to my past statements that if that is so, then they are
committing fraud on the public by putting Sched. A into the vehicle
documentation (i.e., I have read that dealers routinely refuse to honor
the warranty on a failed engine - I'm thinking 2.7L's - even though the
customer can thoroughly document Schedule A maintenance - claiming that
there is no such thing as Schedule A driving conditions: CLAIM DENIED).


> ...That
> means change the transmission fluid at 15,000 mile intervals. And I have
> NOT
> seen ANY recommendation that if you use ATF +4 that you DON'T have
> to do this, or can do it at any longer interval.

This may be apples and oranges, but FWIW, my '99 LH FSM shows 48k mile
ATF+4 and filter change interval for Sched. B.

> So I have to conclude that this argument is a big heaping pile of dog crap.

I have pointed out a lot of inaccuracies in your facts and reasoning
above, so any conclusions you would end up with are highly suspect.

> When someone shows me a published recommendation from DC that
> ATF +4 is so magical that you don't have to ever change it, then I'll
> change my mind.

Not reasonable. Why would you impose such a ridiculous criteria?

But until then, you can conclude that for all practical
> purposes ATF +3 and ATF +4 are used the same way and do the same
> thing, and the only reason DC recommends ATF +4 is to keep from
> undercutting their dealer network since they don't make ATF +3 any
> longer, and leave it at that.

Whether your conclusion is right or wrong, you arrived at it with very
flawed facts and logic - IMO.

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

Bill Putney wrote:

> ...in plane view...

Oops - "...in plain view..."

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

"Richard" <rfeirste at nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
...
> If I am reading the 04 TSB correctly, pre 2000 mini-vans, and a few other
> models, still need +3.
>

http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_artic....cfm?x=b11,0,w

see:

"...Beginning Sept. 1, however, the automaker plans to phase out ATF+3..."

Ted

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> ...

> ATF +3 was introduced in 1998 and ATF +4 came on in 2000. ATF +5
> came on in 2002.
>
> Chrysler released a TSB 21-004-04 in March 2004 stating to use ATF +4 for
> everything
> except 1999 and earlier minivans.
>
> Since they announced ATF +3 would be discontinued Sept 1st 2005 in that
> press release of theirs licensing ATF +4 to the aftermarket, what your
> seeing on the dealer shelves is stuff that was produced a long time ago,
> when they did their last run of it. The dealer can't use ATF +3 today to
> service
> vehicles since Chrysler has listed it as discontinued.
> Unless that is, Chrysler lied in the press release and changed their minds
> about
> discontinuing ATF +3 last week?

Maybe. Of course it wouldn't surprise me if the local dealer is still
using ATF+3 at some time in their service bay (IOW they wouldn't let a
TSB stop them if they were determined to use it for whatever reason).

> Perhaps - but these transmissions aren't known for longevity. And if you
> look at the design and look at the internal parts you can see why.
> EVERYTHING
> in it is thin, thin, thin! Chrysler relied heavily on exotic materials and
> hardening
> and finishing of those materials in order to get very strong internals.
> They definitely
> didn't take the route of big massive gearing made out of ordinary steel to
> get
> very strong internals, which
> is what a lot of the older transmission designers seemed to do.
> Unfortunately
> while you can prove in a lab that the exotics are stronger, in the real
> world
> the massive overdesign on basic steel parts wins the longevity game.
> That's why so many 100 year old locomotive steam engines were in
> service so long. Mild steel - but massive, massive construction.

The price of tremendous pressure to produce vehicles that are light and
compact with longevity a secondary goal.

> OK, as I said, show me a different recommendation - your schedule B for
> your 99 vehicle is 48k miles. That I have not seen. However what I don't
> understand is how it could list ATF+4 as that's a year before ATF +4 came
> out. Are you sure your not looking at a rewritten schedule or your eyes
> aren't
> playing tricks on you, making a +3 into a +4?

I never noticed that discrepancy in the TSB 'til you just pointed it
out. But I did just double check my '99 FSM. The tranny section
explicitly lists ATF+4 as the only tranny fluid for it.

>>Whether your conclusion is right or wrong, you arrived at it with very
>>flawed facts and logic - IMO.
>
> And your refuting it with facts that don't cooespond with other facts. Such
> as the intro date of ATF +4?

I can't explain that one. Obviously the TSB is wrong on the intro date.

> (And I haven't even got to the issue of ATF +5 being the proprietary formula
> now that they won't give out. I suppose we can expect to see ATF +6, +7
> +8 and so on, right?)

Yes. We ought to save these dialogues in our hard drives so when we
have the same "argument" about ATF+4 being phased out, ATF+5 going into
aftermarket licensing, etc., we can just copy and post and save
ourselves a lot of typing. 8^)

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

"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
>
> ATF +3 was introduced in 1998 and ATF +4 came on in 2000. ATF +5
> came on in 2002.
>

Ted, are you sure of the above facts and can you cite your reference? Seems
ATF+3 has been around a lot longer than the date you provide. ATF+4 seems
about right from what I recall. As to ATF+5, I can not recall seeing this
mentioned previously. Where is it used and what are its new and improved
characteristics? Thanks.

Bob

"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard" <rfeirste at nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> ...
>> If I am reading the 04 TSB correctly, pre 2000 mini-vans, and a few other
>> models, still need +3.
>>
>
> http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_artic....cfm?x=b11,0,w
>
> see:
>
> "...Beginning Sept. 1, however, the automaker plans to phase out ATF+3..."
>
> Ted
>
Yes, so I guess Chrysler's position is that if you own a 96 mini-van "drop
dead" and go find +3 at Pep Boys because your dealer will only be able to
purchase +4 from Chrysler.

Richard.