Transmission Fluid again

Bill Putney wrote:

> FWIW, the latest TSB that I show on this subject is TSB No. 21-010-06
> (April '06) - it shows the '93 Voyager as ATF+3 (i.e., not recommended
> to switch over to ATF+3)...

Oops - that should say "it shows the '93 Voyager as ATF+3 (i.e., not
recommended to switch over to ATF+4)".

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

Bill Putney wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I know that this topic has been beaten to death in this NG, but I have
>>> it come up again.
>>>
>>> A local transmission shop rebuilt the transmission in my 1993 Voyager
>>> at 95,000 miles. There were many worn parts. I had hoped to get over a
>>> 100,000 miles, but no such luck.
>>>
>>> When I went to pick it up, I asked what kind of fluid they put in.
>>> They told me that they put in Mercon III, with Lube Guard. When I
>>> asked them why they didn't put in ATF+3 / 7176, they got very
>>> defensive, and showed me the label on the Lubeguard bottle. It says
>>> that Lubeguard enchances the fluid so that it exceeds ATF+3 and ATF+4
>>> specs. They also told me that they have never had any problem with the
>>> Mercon III / Lubeguard combo.
>>
>>
>> Here they go again.... WHY is it so hard for some shops to get it
>> through their headbones that Mercon plus some additive jizz is not the
>> same as ATF+4?!? Sure, they can add friction modifiers, but that
>> doesn't get rid of the WRONG friction modifiers that are in the fluid
>> they start with. Why is it so hard to err on the side of caution? It
>> can't save them *that* much money.
>>
>>>
>>> He also showed me a chart indicating how Lubeguard reduces the acidity
>>> way below other fluids.
>>
>>
>> That may be. ATF+3 is a pretty ****ty fluid, really, with terrible
>> longevity and terrible oxidation rates- which is why ATF+4 is
>> preferred. But back to Lubegard- its no big deal to change pH, but how
>> does its friction modifier package override and correct the friction
>> modifier package in Mercon, though? Does it magically transmogrify the
>> Mercon friction modifiers? I think not.
>>
>>>
>>> Everything I have read in this NG, and allpar says only to use ATF+3 /
>>> 7176 for this vehicle.
>>>
>>> Should I drain the fluid and refill with the correct stuff, or leave
>>> it?
>>
>>
>> You can certainly bet that *I* would put ATF+4 in it, and the shop
>> would pay for the labor to change the fluid and filter, too (I don't
>> mind paying the extra for the right fluid- they can pass that on to me
>> and I won't complain at all, and in fact I'll THANK them for using the
>> right fluid).
>
> FWIW, the latest TSB that I show on this subject is TSB No. 21-010-06
> (April '06) - it shows the '93 Voyager as ATF+3 (i.e., not recommended
> to switch over to ATF+3).
>
> However, I do vehemently agree with those who say *NOT* to use something
> else with an additive. The OP is free to go whichever way they see fit
> - their money - their risk.
>
> I found it interesting that the shop said that "...they have never had
> any problem with the Mercon III / Lubeguard combo", yet here the
> customer is 6000 miles later with a problem. How do they know it
> *isn't* fluid related or caused. Sounds to me like they have just
> gotten used to saying they've never had a problem with it and are
> forgetting to consider that it could be the problem.

Hi...

I'd kinda hoped that as I aged I'd become a little more mellow;
however it appears not.

Maybe they've never had a problem with it (bringing customers
back for more and more work)

Take care.

Ken

Ken Weitzel wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:

>> ...I found it interesting that the shop said that "...they have never had
>> any problem with the Mercon III / Lubeguard combo", yet here the
>> customer is 6000 miles later with a problem. How do they know it
>> *isn't* fluid related or caused. Sounds to me like they have just
>> gotten used to saying they've never had a problem with it and are
>> forgetting to consider that it could be the problem.
>
>
> Hi...
>
> I'd kinda hoped that as I aged I'd become a little more mellow;
> however it appears not.
>
> Maybe they've never had a problem with it (bringing customers
> back for more and more work)
>
> Take care.
>
> Ken

Ha! Maybe you have something there, Ken.

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

On Jul 30, 5:32 pm, Bill Putney > wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
> > FWIW, the latest TSB that I show on this subject is TSB No. 21-010-06
> > (April '06) - it shows the '93 Voyager as ATF+3 (i.e., not recommended
> > to switch over to ATF+3)...
>
> Oops - that should say "it shows the '93 Voyager as ATF+3 (i.e., not
> recommended to switch over to ATF+4)".
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with the letter 'x')

That's the way that I had understood the TSB. All newer vehicles can
run ATF+4, except for 1999 and earlier mini-vans. They should stay on
ATF+3. It did not give any reason for this however. There have been
some in the NG that have used ATF+4 with no problems reported

-KM

wrote:

> On Jul 30, 5:32 pm, Bill Putney > wrote:
>
>>Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>>FWIW, the latest TSB that I show on this subject is TSB No. 21-010-06
>>>(April '06) - it shows the '93 Voyager as ATF+3 (i.e., not recommended
>>>to switch over to ATF+3)...
>>
>>Oops - that should say "it shows the '93 Voyager as ATF+3 (i.e., not
>>recommended to switch over to ATF+4)".
>>
>>Bill Putney
>>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>address with the letter 'x')
>
>
> That's the way that I had understood the TSB. All newer vehicles can
> run ATF+4, except for 1999 and earlier mini-vans. They should stay on
> ATF+3. It did not give any reason for this however. There have been
> some in the NG that have used ATF+4 with no problems reported
>
> -KM
>

I could swear that someone found a TSB where that exception has been
removed. Since ATF+4 is a true backward-compatible fluid, there *should*
be no fundamental reason that the minivans shouldn't switch while other
cars with the same transmission can.

wrote:
> On Jul 30, 5:32 pm, Bill Putney > wrote:
>
>>Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>>>FWIW, the latest TSB that I show on this subject is TSB No. 21-010-06
>>>(April '06) - it shows the '93 Voyager as ATF+3 (i.e., not recommended
>>>to switch over to ATF+3)...
>>
>>Oops - that should say "it shows the '93 Voyager as ATF+3 (i.e., not
>>recommended to switch over to ATF+4)".
>>
>>Bill Putney
>>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>address with the letter 'x')
>
>
> That's the way that I had understood the TSB. All newer vehicles can
> run ATF+4, except for 1999 and earlier mini-vans. They should stay on
> ATF+3. It did not give any reason for this however. There have been
> some in the NG that have used ATF+4 with no problems reported
>
> -KM
>

The TSB that KMath is remembering is an earlier TSB that was superceded
by the one I cited - it did have a blnket statement about '99 and
earlier minivans. That latest one does not have that blamket statement
in it and allows more vehicles, but still does not list some even
earlier minivans (like the '93) as being ATF+4 compatible.

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