OEM vs After Market - wires & trans fluid

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:33:41 -0800 (PST), jaygreg
> wrote:

>On Nov 6, 11:03*pm, "rob" > wrote:
>> hmmmm *last time i changed it that's where i got it but yeah that was last
>> year. *guess i'll have to check it out.
>>
>> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > rob wrote:
>>
>> >> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
>>
>> >>> I would at least use a major name brand licensed ATF+4 - IOW - *NOT*
>> >>> Walmart's in-house Super-Tech brand. *But that's just me. *Technically,
>> >>> anything that is licensed should be OK - I just draw the line at not
>> >>> using low end brands...
>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Bill Putney
>> >>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> >>> address with the letter 'x')
>>
>> > > Mopar ATF+4 is available at Wal-Mart
>>
>> > Not everywhere. *Have you checked your local store lately? *I ask because
>> > it *was* there a year or two ago, but then people started posting on
>> > forums that it was disappearing - at least from some WalMarts. *I know it
>> > disappeared from the one where I am several months ago.
>>
>> > --
>> > Bill Putney
>> > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
>> > with the letter 'x')
>
>Thanks for all the opinions men. I appreciate it. But I sure as hell
>would like to know what's in Mopar Type 9602 that makes it different
>from everyone else. I just got home after making the changing the
>fluid and filter. I left my mechanic friend laughing as I heard him
>tell me I have "an illness" for insisting I use only that fluid. I
>bought 5 quarts 'cause the service manual said I'd need 4.5, Followed
>the manual and after 5 quarts.... I just hit the add marker. I left
>the car at my friend's and took one of his 'cause I can't get Mopar
>'til Monday morning. Now I have to drive 25 miles back to his house to
>finish filling the pan ... with 100% pure MOPAR.
>
>Being a frugal guy - generally considered prone to thorough analysis
>before making significant purchases or taking action that may increase
>risk - it's out-of-character to simply accept this "requirement" and
>not have an explanation. Hence... the horse laughter from my friend.
>Doesn't set well with me!
>
>Surely SOMEONE has a technical answer. Though someone said
>"technically" it was OK to switch to a high quality brand, the
>implication is... MOPAR is better. Why? What's in the stuff. And
>exactly how do I know one brand is "higher quality" than another where
>this Type 9602 stuff is concerned. Yeah I'm a little miffed. I'll get
>over it. I'd like to tell this guy Monday "Laugh no more, Jack ass.
>Here's why it's different." Or... hand him back his keys and admit I
>made a mountain out of a mole hill; there is no difference.

All the fluids must meet a "spec" or several "specs", such as a
viscosity spec at different temps, some kind of wear spec, and
probably several others. But no spec or group of specs can cover
every single property of a substance as complex as oil. It is
entirely possible that there is something important to Chrysler
engineers that simply is not covered by any existing ASTM or ASE or
whoever's specs. So they spec it as best they can under existing
specs and others make stuff that meets them but that doesn't mean it
is 100% identical to the way Chrysler actually orders/specs the stuff
they buy. It's like people, you can specify that you want a "person"
that's got an IQ of 100, has two arms, two legs, head, skin color of
some "skin chip", a particular hair color, a weight between 150 and
175 pounds and male. And someone can ship you such a person and it
may not be anything near what you were expecting once you put "it" in
service. Or imagine trying to write a specification for Ketchup such
that what you get is just like Heinz rather then like Del Monte. You'd
be lucky to just get something that's more or less ketchup if you
depended on *just* the numbers, but that's what the oil is like.

On Nov 8, 1:34*am, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:33:41 -0800 (PST), jaygreg
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Nov 6, 11:03*pm, "rob" > wrote:
> >> hmmmm *last time i changed it that's where i got it but yeah that was last
> >> year. *guess i'll have to check it out.
>
> >> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > rob wrote:
>
> >> >> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
>
> >> >>> I would at least use a major name brand licensed ATF+4 - IOW - *NOT*
> >> >>> Walmart's in-house Super-Tech brand. *But that's just me. *Technically,
> >> >>> anything that is licensed should be OK - I just draw the line at not
> >> >>> using low end brands...
>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> Bill Putney
> >> >>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> >> >>> address with the letter 'x')
>
> >> > > Mopar ATF+4 is available at Wal-Mart
>
> >> > Not everywhere. *Have you checked your local store lately? *I ask because
> >> > it *was* there a year or two ago, but then people started posting on
> >> > forums that it was disappearing - at least from some WalMarts. *I know it
> >> > disappeared from the one where I am several months ago.
>
> >> > --
> >> > Bill Putney
> >> > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> >> > with the letter 'x')
>
> >Thanks for all the opinions men. I appreciate it. But I sure as hell
> >would like to know what's in Mopar Type 9602 that makes it different
> >from everyone else. I just got home after making the changing the
> >fluid and filter. I left my mechanic friend laughing as I heard him
> >tell me I have "an illness" for insisting I use only that fluid. I
> >bought 5 quarts 'cause the service manual said I'd need 4.5, Followed
> >the manual and after 5 quarts.... I just hit the add marker. I left
> >the car at my friend's and took one of his 'cause I can't get Mopar
> >'til Monday morning. Now I have to drive 25 miles back to his house to
> >finish filling the pan ... with 100% pure MOPAR.
>
> >Being a frugal guy - generally considered prone to thorough analysis
> >before making significant purchases or taking action that may increase
> >risk - it's out-of-character to simply accept this "requirement" and
> >not have an explanation. Hence... the horse laughter from my friend.
> >Doesn't set well with me!
>
> >Surely SOMEONE has a technical answer. Though someone said
> >"technically" it was OK to switch to a high quality brand, the
> >implication is... MOPAR is better. Why? What's in the stuff. And
> >exactly how do I know one brand is "higher quality" than another where
> >this Type 9602 stuff is concerned. Yeah I'm a little miffed. I'll get
> >over it. I'd like to tell this guy Monday "Laugh no more, Jack ass.
> >Here's why it's different." Or... hand him back his keys and admit I
> >made a mountain out of a mole hill; there is no difference.
>
> All the fluids must meet a "spec" or several "specs", such as a
> viscosity spec at different temps, some kind of wear spec, and
> probably several others. *But no spec or group of specs can cover
> every single property of a substance as complex as oil. *It is
> entirely possible that there is something important to Chrysler
> engineers that simply is not covered by any existing ASTM or ASE or
> whoever's specs. *So they spec it as best they can under existing
> specs and others make stuff that meets them but that doesn't mean it
> is 100% identical to the way Chrysler actually orders/specs the stuff
> they buy. *It's like people, you can specify that you want a "person"
> that's got an IQ of 100, has two arms, two legs, head, skin color of
> some "skin chip", a particular hair color, a weight between 150 and
> 175 pounds and male. *And someone can ship you such a person and it
> may not be anything near what you were expecting once you put "it" in
> service. *Or imagine trying to write a specification for Ketchup such
> that what you get is just like Heinz rather then like Del Monte. You'd
> be lucky to just get something that's more or less ketchup if you
> depended on *just* the numbers, but that's what the oil is like.

Well…. I’m grateful for hearing your opinions but, frankly, I’m still
left hollow. Contrast to a human being isn’t appropriate because one’s
“specs” include intangible, qualitative measurements of a person.
Thus, the measuring instrument changes with the human being.

A better example would be medications. Most people are concerned
enough about their health that they want to make sure the medicines
they take meet a certain standard for effectiveness and purity.
Without that, pharmacists and drug companies would have a wilder field
day than they do now. The MAJOR criterion for generic drugs is that
the prove as effective as the original; that must be proven to the FDA
before it’s granted permission to sell an item as a substitute for,
say, Plavix. The maker of that drug is facing that very hurdle now for
2011. It’s coming; there are effective blood thinners as effective as
Plavix and that’s why they are going to be permitted to be sold.

Type 9602 ATF +4 may well have something in it that others don’t but
it has to be an “active ingredient” for it to be significant to the
task of lubricating that transmission. Though the standards for
weights and measures – viscosity and temperature range – may not be as
stringent as those imposed by the FDA for drugs, I’m pretty sure there
are standards for insuring trans oils that get labeled for use in one
transmission or another. Thank makes them liable to suit if they fail.
I don’t think manufactures are willing to do that today.

Perhaps a short cut to all this might be to look at what Chrysler has
to say about warranties and their MOPAR ATF +4. I don’t know since my
car is out of warranty but, does Chrysler reject warranty claims
purely on the basis that MOPAR ATF +4 was not used? If they do, that
would be a strong case for the belief there is something significantly
different about their fluid. If they don’t… the horse laughter was
probably justified and I’m a fool for paying such a premium.

What’s Chrysler say about such use under warranty?

jaygreg wrote:

> Well…. I’m grateful for hearing your opinions but, frankly, I’m still
> left hollow. Contrast to a human being isn’t appropriate because one’s
> “specs” include intangible, qualitative measurements of a person.
> Thus, the measuring instrument changes with the human being.
>
> A better example would be medications. Most people are concerned
> enough about their health that they want to make sure the medicines
> they take meet a certain standard for effectiveness and purity.
> Without that, pharmacists and drug companies would have a wilder field
> day than they do now. The MAJOR criterion for generic drugs is that
> the prove as effective as the original; that must be proven to the FDA
> before it’s granted permission to sell an item as a substitute for,
> say, Plavix. The maker of that drug is facing that very hurdle now for
> 2011. It’s coming; there are effective blood thinners as effective as
> Plavix and that’s why they are going to be permitted to be sold.
>
> Type 9602 ATF +4 may well have something in it that others don’t but
> it has to be an “active ingredient” for it to be significant to the
> task of lubricating that transmission. Though the standards for
> weights and measures – viscosity and temperature range – may not be as
> stringent as those imposed by the FDA for drugs, I’m pretty sure there
> are standards for insuring trans oils that get labeled for use in one
> transmission or another. Thank makes them liable to suit if they fail.
> I don’t think manufactures are willing to do that today.
>
> Perhaps a short cut to all this might be to look at what Chrysler has
> to say about warranties and their MOPAR ATF +4. I don’t know since my
> car is out of warranty but, does Chrysler reject warranty claims
> purely on the basis that MOPAR ATF +4 was not used? If they do, that
> would be a strong case for the belief there is something significantly
> different about their fluid. If they don’t… the horse laughter was
> probably justified and I’m a fool for paying such a premium.
>
> What’s Chrysler say about such use under warranty?

Chrysler has to license their use of the name ATF+4. You'd think that
they would confirm in some way that the fluid is comparable in the ways
that matter before they license the name to the manufacturer or
marketer. That to me would imply that it could not be used to disallow
a warranty claim. But I'm only working from common sense, not from how
our legal system works.

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

On Nov 8, 9:11*am, jaygreg > wrote:



>
> Well…. I’m grateful for hearing your opinions but, frankly, I’m still
> left hollow. Contrast to a human being isn’t appropriate because one’s
> “specs” include intangible, qualitative measurements of a person.
> Thus, the measuring instrument changes with the human being.
>
>
Well, you could avail yourself of a copy of SAE Technical Paper
982674, published in 1998, and wherein Chrysler Material Standard 9602
is referenced.

friction and shudders is the biggest reason they went to this fluid

by the way you could just provide the OP with a hyperlink.....
http://u225.torque.net/cars/tech/trans/982674.pdf


"cavedweller" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 8, 9:11 am, jaygreg > wrote:



>
> Well…. I’m grateful for hearing your opinions but, frankly, I’m still
> left hollow. Contrast to a human being isn’t appropriate because one’s
> “specs” include intangible, qualitative measurements of a person.
> Thus, the measuring instrument changes with the human being.
>
>
Well, you could avail yourself of a copy of SAE Technical Paper
982674, published in 1998, and wherein Chrysler Material Standard 9602
is referenced.

On Nov 8, 4:29*pm, "Rob" > wrote:
> friction and shudders is the biggest reason they went to this fluid
>
> by the way you could just provide the OP with a hyperlink.....http://u225..torque.net/cars/tech/trans/982674.pdf
>

I could have, if I'd had it handy...my copy is on my hard drive. The
OP can Google, too.

jaygreg > writes:
>
> Surely SOMEONE has a technical answer. Though someone said
> "technically" it was OK to switch to a high quality brand, the
> implication is... MOPAR is better. Why? What's in the stuff. And
> exactly how do I know one brand is "higher quality" than another where
> this Type 9602 stuff is concerned. Yeah I'm a little miffed. I'll get
> over it. I'd like to tell this guy Monday "Laugh no more, Jack ass.
> Here's why it's different." Or... hand him back his keys and admit I
> made a mountain out of a mole hill; there is no difference.

There are a couple of different points here --

First, you'd expect that anything meeting Chrysler's spec would work,
but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that there's a higher failure
rate with others. I don't have either the background or the equipment
to actually test the fluids, and transmissions are expensive, so I
figure it's safer to just believe it.

Second, you've also got the Dexron + a bottle of magic juice that will
convert Dexron to ATF+4. Here, first I'm very leery of anything that'll
take something that's got one additive package that gives it one set of
characteristics, and then adding a second package that'll change those
characteristics. That sounds a lot like something that might meet the
specific requirement at specific pressures and temperatures, but might
do something altogether weird elsewhere. Also, I expect there is some
range in the spec for Dexron, too -- so a bottle of magic juice that
made one brand of Dexron meet Chrysler's spec might well not make
another brand do it.

All told, I'll be a coward.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:29:22 -0500, "Rob" > wrote:

>friction and shudders is the biggest reason they went to this fluid
>
>by the way you could just provide the OP with a hyperlink.....
>http://u225.torque.net/cars/tech/trans/982674.pdf
>
>
>"cavedweller" > wrote in message
...
>On Nov 8, 9:11 am, jaygreg > wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Well…. I’m grateful for hearing your opinions but, frankly, I’m still
>> left hollow. Contrast to a human being isn’t appropriate because one’s
>> “specs” include intangible, qualitative measurements of a person.
>> Thus, the measuring instrument changes with the human being.
>>
>>
>Well, you could avail yourself of a copy of SAE Technical Paper
>982674, published in 1998, and wherein Chrysler Material Standard 9602
>is referenced.
>


Interesting paper. Looks like the Chrysler 7176 fluid was crap, no
wonder they had so many transmission problems. Their new fluid looks
pretty darn good.

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

> ...Second, you've also got the Dexron + a bottle of magic juice that will
> convert Dexron to ATF+4. Here, first I'm very leery of anything that'll
> take something that's got one additive package that gives it one set of
> characteristics, and then adding a second package that'll change those
> characteristics...

Me personally - I've read on various LH car forums *way* too many
real-life horror stories of what Dexron plus the additive do to our
transmissions.

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

"Rob" > wrote in message
g.com...
> friction and shudders is the biggest reason they went to this fluid
>
> by the way you could just provide the OP with a hyperlink.....
> http://u225.torque.net/cars/tech/trans/982674.pdf
>
>
> 982674

Or you can use a wonderful site called "Let me google that for you."

http://www.lmgtfy.com?&q=982674%20trans