OEM vs After Market - wires & trans fluid

On Nov 8, 10:35*pm, "Daniel Who Wants to Know"
> wrote:
> "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

The reference to the technical paper “cavedweller” provided was
beneficial. It didn’t answer the question specifically but it allowed
me to formulate a far better defense for my seemingly illogical
decision to pay more for the same “type” of transmission fluid. There
are still a lot of holes in my argument but here’s the gist:

Standards were set for (just who and how SAE and ASTM standards are
set?) the industry concerning transmission fluids. I presume they have
to deal with viscosity at established levels over time and temperature
(I don’t know who does that either; who determines specs for
“Type”? ).

It appears these “standards” are rather broad-based in nature.
However, due to the complexities of transmissions and the multitude of
designs, the level of performance engineered into any specific
transmission may not be fully addressed by these given fluid types as
exemplified by the technical paper mentioned here. These are more
refined levels of performance speced for any given transmission that
go beyond the guidelines of published “types”. For example, my
Chrysler transmission may be designed to perform at temperatures
specified by Type F fluids but is really built to perform beyond the
time frame and temperature set forth by Type F and they’ve developed a
fluid to meet those more stringent specs with the aid of several third
parties.

If that’s true, then using anything less may (not necessarily will)
not perform as well and may even shorten component life. Which leads
the ultimate consumer faced with that ever recurring question…. just
how luck do you feel today!

I’m stickin’ with Mopar! Thanks for all the input.

On Nov 8, 6:15*pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:

> Interesting paper. Looks like the Chrysler 7176 fluid was crap,
Not exactly
>no wonder they had so many transmission problems. *
Not exactly
>Their new fluid looks pretty darn good.
You digested it ALL in 45 minutes??

On Nov 9, 7:50*am, cavedweller > wrote:
> On Nov 8, 6:15*pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>
> > Interesting paper. Looks like the Chrysler 7176 fluid was crap,
> Not exactly
> >no wonder they had so many transmission problems. *
> Not exactly
> >Their new fluid looks pretty darn good.
>
> You digested it ALL in 45 minutes??
>
>

Nope. Just all I needed to read (pages 6-7). That convinced me. Aston
Crusher actually gave the explanation before I wrote my conclusion. He
pretty much hit it on the head after I reread it just a minute ago.

Anyway.... I'm convinced.

On Nov 9, 8:42*am, jaygreg > wrote:
> On Nov 9, 7:50*am, cavedweller > wrote:
>
> > On Nov 8, 6:15*pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>
> > > Interesting paper. Looks like the Chrysler 7176 fluid was crap,
> > Not exactly
> > >no wonder they had so many transmission problems. *
> > Not exactly
> > >Their new fluid looks pretty darn good.
>
> > You digested it ALL in 45 minutes??
>
> >
>
> Nope. Just all I needed to read (pages 6-7). That convinced me. Aston
> Crusher actually gave the explanation before I wrote my conclusion. He
> pretty much hit it on the head after I reread it just a minute ago.
>
> Anyway.... I'm convinced.

Actually, my comment was for Ashton.

cavedweller wrote:
> On Nov 8, 6:15 pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>
>> Interesting paper. Looks like the Chrysler 7176 fluid was crap,
> Not exactly
>> no wonder they had so many transmission problems.
> Not exactly
>> Their new fluid looks pretty darn good.
> You digested it ALL in 45 minutes??
>
>

That's nothing - Congressmen claim they can read 2000 pages in 12 hours.

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

Bill Putney > writes:

> cavedweller wrote:
>> On Nov 8, 6:15 pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting paper. Looks like the Chrysler 7176 fluid was crap,
>> Not exactly
>>> no wonder they had so many transmission problems.
>> Not exactly
>>> Their new fluid looks pretty darn good.
>> You digested it ALL in 45 minutes??
>>
>>
>
> That's nothing - Congressmen claim they can read 2000 pages in 12 hours.

Heck, they claim they can read.
--
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 Mon, 9 Nov 2009 04:50:39 -0800 (PST), cavedweller
> wrote:

>On Nov 8, 6:15*pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>
>> Interesting paper. Looks like the Chrysler 7176 fluid was crap,
>Not exactly
>>no wonder they had so many transmission problems. *
>Not exactly
>>Their new fluid looks pretty darn good.
>You digested it ALL in 45 minutes??
>
>

Pretty much. How long should it take to read a couple dozen pages?
Most of the important stuff was shown in the graphs, particularly the
test result comparisons of the different fluids as they "aged".

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:55:40 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer
> wrote:

>Bill Putney > writes:
>
>> cavedweller wrote:
>>> On Nov 8, 6:15 pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting paper. Looks like the Chrysler 7176 fluid was crap,
>>> Not exactly
>>>> no wonder they had so many transmission problems.
>>> Not exactly
>>>> Their new fluid looks pretty darn good.
>>> You digested it ALL in 45 minutes??
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's nothing - Congressmen claim they can read 2000 pages in 12 hours.
>
>Heck, they claim they can read.


bada BING!