1995 Ply Voyager Xmission question

"Treeline" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> n.umich.edu...
> > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Treeline wrote:
> >
> > > > +4 is not only "just fine", but far superior to +3. There was a
> > > > service bulletin at one time that said not to use +4 in older
minivans
> > > > because of the potential for objectionable torque converter clutch
> > > > shudder under certain circumstances, but this has been cancelled.
> >
> > > What do you think though about the seals?
> >
> > What about them?
> >
> > > Is that an urban legend or is it better to use a non-synthetic oil,
like
> > > ATF +3 just in case there are some seals left-over or forgotten from a
> > > rebuild, a Cottman rebuild, that are rated for synthetics?
> >
> > ATF+3 and ATF+4 are both fully compatible with all seal materials found
in
> > any Chrysler transmission. Seal compatibility is not even on the radar
> > screen as far as reasons to pick ATF+4 vs. ATF+3. ATF+4 has much greater
> > thermal stability, much more consistent frictional characteristics
across
> > a much wider temperature range, a lower pour point for shift consistency
> > at low temperatures, and greater resistance to shear-induced
> > deterioration.
> >
> > Full details directly from the horse's mouth:
> > http://www.sae.org/servlets/productD...PROD_CD=982674
> >
> > DS (I use ATF+4 in *ALL* of my Chrysler products, ranging from 1962
models
> > on up)
>
> Now that's very helpful information. I had read on the allpar.com about
someone
> from Chrysler, not knowing how high a tech or engineer, who expressed
concern
> about ATF+4. If I had known it did not matter, then I would have prefer
ATF+4
> for all the reasons you stated about, especially about temperature
stability
> and frictional characteristics.
>
>
> SAE Technical Papers
> Document Number: 982674
> Title: Development and Introduction of ChryslerS New Automatic
Transmission Fluid
> Meeting Where Presented: International Fall Fuels and Lubricants Meeting
and Exposition, October
> 1998, San Francisco, CA, USA, Session: Automatic Transmission Fluids (ATF)
(Part 1&2)
>
> The price is about $12 snail mail which is par for the course, but $30 for
a fax. I gather then
> they had tested the fluid extensively before releasing it to the market.
And they had tested on
> older cars and you are satisfied with your cars going back to the early
60's which is good to hear.
>
> This leads though to synthetics and engine oil. Now that is not the same
as synthetic transmission
> oils? Is there any truth to synthetic engine oils hurting seals and the
cars beginning to leak if
> used in older cars, such as mine, which is almost 200,000? What is your
experience here? The same
> as with the synthetic transmission?
>
> I am now using Conoco semi-synthetic 5W-30 [really by default from the
dealer's oil change] and it
> seems fantastic. Less oil consumption and the engine is awfully smooth,
knock on wood, considering
> the very high mileage. So my fears are abated sometwhat since it uses less
oil. And if the dealer
> goes to a full synthetic, then fine. I can change the oil myself but it
gives the dealer something
> to do and keeps us on a cordial basis. I tried the local independents, but
it turned out quite
> badly.
>
> http://dodgeram.info/tsb/2004/21-004-04.htm or TSB 21-004-04

"maxpower" > wrote in message ...

DS:
> > > ATF+3 and ATF+4 are both fully compatible with all seal materials found in
> > > any Chrysler transmission. Seal compatibility is not even on the radar
> > > screen as far as reasons to pick ATF+4 vs. ATF+3. ATF+4 has much greater
> > > thermal stability, much more consistent frictional characteristics across
> > > a much wider temperature range, a lower pour point for shift consistency
> > > at low temperatures, and greater resistance to shear-induced
> > > deterioration.

> > > Full details directly from the horse's mouth:
> > > http://www.sae.org/servlets/productD...PROD_CD=982674
> > > DS (I use ATF+4 in *ALL* of my Chrysler products, ranging from 1962 models
> > > on up)

Treeline:
> > Now that's very helpful information. I had read on the allpar.com about someone
> > from Chrysler, not knowing how high a tech or engineer, who expressed concern
> > about ATF+4. If I had known it did not matter, then I would have prefer ATF+4
> > for all the reasons you stated about, especially about temperature stability
> > and frictional characteristics.

> > SAE Technical Papers
> > Document Number: 982674
> > Title: Development and Introduction of ChryslerS New Automatic
> Transmission Fluid
> > Meeting Where Presented: International Fall Fuels and Lubricants Meeting
> and Exposition, October
> > 1998, San Francisco, CA, USA, Session: Automatic Transmission Fluids (ATF)
> (Part 1&2)
> >
> > The price is about $12 snail mail which is par for the course, but $30 for
> a fax. I gather then
> > they had tested the fluid extensively before releasing it to the market.
> And they had tested on
> > older cars and you are satisfied with your cars going back to the early
> 60's which is good to hear.
> >
> > This leads though to synthetics and engine oil. Now that is not the same
> as synthetic transmission
> > oils? Is there any truth to synthetic engine oils hurting seals and the
> cars beginning to leak if
> > used in older cars, such as mine, which is almost 200,000? What is your
> experience here? The same
> > as with the synthetic transmission?
> >
> > I am now using Conoco semi-synthetic 5W-30 [really by default from the
> dealer's oil change] and it
> > seems fantastic. Less oil consumption and the engine is awfully smooth,
> knock on wood, considering
> > the very high mileage. So my fears are abated sometwhat since it uses less
> oil. And if the dealer
> > goes to a full synthetic, then fine. I can change the oil myself but it
> gives the dealer something
> > to do and keeps us on a cordial basis. I tried the local independents, but
> it turned out quite
> > badly.
> >
> > http://dodgeram.info/tsb/2004/21-004-04.htm or TSB 21-004-04

Thanks for that great reference. Did I ruin my Maserati by putting in ATF+4
Seriously I gather my mature Voyager is exempt because it uses
the A604/41TE 4-speed tranny then.
So the jury exempt my particular tranny:
"This bulletin applies to all transmissions manufactured by Chrysler except for 1999 and earlier
minivans with the 41TE/AE transmission [A604]....

I'll stick then with the ATF+3 and mull over the ATF+4.
I will also try to find out more about the Conoco semi-synthetic 5W-30
but it's difficult. It comes in bulk presumably to the dealer.

And here are the versions of 5W-30 that I narrowed it down to:

CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY (76 LUBRICANTS) 76 HIGH PERFORM FULL SYNTHETIC 5W-30 SM*
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY (76 LUBRICANTS) 76 SUPER SYNTHETIC BLEND 5W-30 SL*
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY (76 LUBRICANTS) 76 SUPER SYNTHETIC BLEND 5W-30 SM*
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY (76 LUBRICANTS) POINT PREMIER 5W-30 SL*
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY (76 LUBRICANTS) POINT PREMIER 5W-30 SM*
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY (CONOCO) HYDROCLEAR SUPER ALL SEASON DIAMOND 5W-30 SL*
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY (CONOCO) SUPER ALL SEASON SYNTHETIC BLEND 5W-30 SL*
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY (CONOCO) SUPER ALL SEASON SYNTHETIC BLEND 5W-30 SM*
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY (CONOCO) SUPER-J 5W-30 SL*
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY (CONOCO) SYNCON HIGH PERFORMANCE SYNTHETIC 5W-30 SL*
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY (CONOCO) SYNCON HIGH PERFORMANCE SYNTHETIC 5W-30 SM*
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY (KENDALL MOTOR OIL) KENDALL GT-1 FULL SYNTHETIC 5W-30 SL/CF*
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY (KENDALL MOTOR OIL) KENDALL GT-1 FULL SYNTHETIC 5W-30 SM*

CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY (KENDALL MOTOR OIL) KENDALL GT-1 HIGH MILEAGE SYNTHETIC
BLEND 5W-30 SL

Must be about 14 different types of 5W-30 from Conoco!!!
This stuff ain't easy to really nail down.
The dealer mentioned Kendall and Conoco so I suspects it one those three but?
The HIGH MILEAGE SYNTHETIC BLEND sounds ideal. Now where does one get that?
I notice that there is not a HIGH MILEAGE full synthetic blend.
I can see it now: Mr. Dealer please, I'd like to top off my car, give me some of your
spare 5W-30....

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Treeline wrote:

> > http://www.sae.org/servlets/productD...PROD_CD=982674
> > DS (I use ATF+4 in *ALL* of my Chrysler products, ranging from 1962
> > models on up)

> Now that's very helpful information. I had read on the allpar.com about
> someone from Chrysler, not knowing how high a tech or engineer, who
> expressed concern about ATF+4.

Allpar is a terrific resource, but there is not much vetting for accuracy
of technical information.

> SAE Technical Papers
> Document Number: 982674
> Title: Development and Introduction of Chrysler's New Automatic
> Transmission Fluid

> The price is about $12 snail mail which is par for the course, but $30
> for a fax. I gather then they had tested the fluid extensively before
> releasing it to the market.

Definitely. The paper is a very interesting read, full of comparisons
between ATF+3 and ATF+4.

> This leads though to synthetics and engine oil. Now that is not the same
> as synthetic transmission oils? Is there any truth to synthetic engine
> oils hurting seals and the cars beginning to leak if used in older cars,

The myth that synthetic oils cause leaks in old engines has been floating
around since synthetic oil first hit the consumer market in the early
'70s. Like most myths, it has at its core a kernel of truth: The first
synthetic oils available were 5W20 and 5W30, which were very much thinner
than the conventional oils widely used at the time (1970s). So, existing
small leaks leaked more of the thinner oil, and the myth that synthetic
oil causes or worsens leaks was born. Over the years, handwavers added all
kinds of nonsense about synthetic oil dissolving sludge that helps the
engine seal, etc.

Engines that leak conventional oil will generally leak synthetic oil.
Engines that don't leak conventional oil will generally not leak synthetic
oil.

> such as mine, which is almost 200,000? What is your experience here?

That's a lot of miles; you must be doing something right!

DS