2001 T&C bad rack?

Stupidly, I will now go back and look over my downloaded 750 headers to see
if anyone else has the same problem.

Bought the minivan 2nd hand, had an extended warranty, seems as though in
the morning, and only the morning, the steering locks.

Can be *quite* dangerous.

The warranty holder said they would reimburse whoever does it, right now its
at the Chrysler dealer closest to where I live, getting a new rack (they
left a message on my machine).

Curiously (and I guess I'll find out tomorrow how much it *would* have been)
what this would cost if I didn't have any warranty in place.

But, I don't think the car has ever been hit (I'm only the 2nd owner), is
this a common problem?

-Mr. Curious

 

Absolutely, it happens all the time to people who never flush their power
steering fluid at the recommended interval, or who use transmission fluid to
fill their
power steering resivors.

If something inside the rack fragmented, or the vehicle is close to 100K
miles,
they should replace the PS pump also. And of course, if there's a fluid
leak they
should replace the PS pump if that is leaking and any hoses that are
leaking.

Ted

 

I like your name, it's mine too.

Never saw any fluids pooling under the car.

Car has about 66k miles on it.

And no, I have never flushed those fluids, I wonder if they have to when the
replace the rack?

Do you think it common that with that mileage we could have fragmented a
rack?

 

Ted,
Chrysler recommends +4 for the PS fluid fwiw
Larry

 

Covered under warranty. Nice. $50 deduct. Nice.

If not, I was looking at about $800+

 

I haven't seen a recommendation in either the owner's manual or the FSM
to periodically change the power steering fluid. Where is that
recommendation and what is the interval?


Matt

 

And still laughing Ted, Chrysler Recommends ATF4 for Power steering fluid

Glenn Beasley
Chrysler Tech

 

It isnt Matt, just another way for the independent shop to make money for
uneeded repairs

 

Made sense. They aligned the vehicle too. Oh, the power steering fluid and
the transmission fluid are the same distillation? Hmmm.

Whatever. The electric door was sticking when it got real cold out too.

I think this is the last Chrysler Minivan for me. Operative word *think*.

 

I think only on the new vehicles. For the older ones they definitely
recommend
against ATF +4.

Ted

 

Glenn,

1995 Service Manual, Town & Country, Caravan, and Voyager, page 19-10,
bottom right paragraph:

"In all pumps add fluid as necessary, use only Mopar Power Steering Fluid,
or
equivalent. DO NOT USE ANY TYPE OF AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION
FLUID."

The caps are theirs.

Ted

 

There is also no recommendation in the maintainence schedule that I
can see for flushing the brake fluid. I guess you are Glenn are going to
tell me never to do this, either. Or is the hydraulic fluid in the brake
lines somehow different than the hydraulic fluid in the power steering?

Ted

 

I dont tell anyone to do anything. By the way Ted, brake fluid abosrbs
moisture

 

Your first post.....

Absolutely, it happens all the time to people who never flush their power
steering fluid at the recommended interval, or who use transmission fluid to
fill their
power steering resivors.

It doesnt say a particular year Ted. Your post implies that all Chrysler
vehicles are not supposed to use ATF. isnt that what you said Ted?

My reply...And still laughing Ted, Chrysler Recommends ATF4 for Power
steering fluid

 

yes

 

The problem is that you can't go by what the manuals say. The later
TSB's *contradict* and supercede what the manuals say. My '99 LH car
FSM has a very similar warning (p. 19-18): "CAUTION: Do not use
automatic transmission fluid. Use only the proper Mopar Power Steering
Fluid or equivalent when filling the power steering fluid reservoir."
Yet, looking at the latest TSB No. 19-005-03, all 2nd gen ('98+) LH's
are listed for ATF+4 as the recommended p.s. service fluid.

You happen to be correct in the case of the '95 T&C - the '96 is the
first year listed for the T&C as being able to use ATF+4 for p.s. You
lucked out in this case by using the '95 as an example. If you had
happened to have used a '96 (whose FSM no doubt has an identical or
similar warning) for your example, you would have illustrated the
problem without my having to use the LH (or the '96 T&C) as an example.

Again the point is you can't go by the manuals - you have to go by the
TSB's.

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

 

Yes, it is generally quite different. Most power steering systems use a
pertroleum based fluid. Most brake systems use a glycol ether based
fluid (DOT 3, 4 or 5.1) which will absorb the small amounts of moisture
that find their way into the system to avoid water pooling at low spots
in the steel brake lines and rusting their way through causing brake
failure.

If the brake system is in good shape, it can take a long time to absorb
enough water to darken the fluid and require a change. And even with no
change, most brake systems will last the life of the car. That is one
reason that new cars typically have a transparent brake fluid resevoir
so you can check the level without removing the cap and letting more
moisture into the system. In the old days, every time you pulled off
the master cylinder cover to check the fluid level, you also further
contaminated the fluid thus requiring more frequent fluid changes. In
modern systems, the fluid can take many years to gather enough moisture
through the seals to warrant a full change.

Some brake systems use silicon based fluid (DOT5). This is a whole
different animal and used mostly by the military, for reasons I don't
know. It is also used by some show cars as a spill won't ruin a very
expensive paint finish.


Matt

 

keep up the good work

 

ATF +3 was factory fill on your 1998 LH car's transmission, and
MS-5931 or MS9933 factory fill in the power steering. When
ATF +4 came out Chrysler claimed it was completely compatible with
ATF +3. Except it was incompatible for the older minivans. Until
this year when suddenly they decided to discontinue ATF +3 and
now ATF +4 is suddenly compatible with the older minivans.

Face it, if ATF +3 was compatible with the PS system in your car it would
have come factory fill. One less fluid to stock on the assembly
line. It wasn't. ATF+4 has almost identical characteristics as
ATF +3 except that it's synthetic and lasts a lot longer. So if ATF +4
is good for your car's PS now, then ATF +3 should have been good for
it's PS then.

I think when Chrysler came out with ATF+4
since they were the only ones selling it they decided it was some
miracle fluid and they were going to try to get as much money as
possible for it. So they issued the TSB in an effort to get people
to spend even more money on ATF +4. Since they could only
buy it from them.

I would agree that a REDESIGNED steering system should be able to run
with ATF +4 just fine. And I think Chrysler did do this for the
2000 and later model years. Frankly it's stupid to have separate PS
fluids and transmission fluids anyway. But when a gallon of Power
Steering Fluid from Valvoline meeting Chrysler spec 5931 costs $10
in the aftermarket, vs 4 quarts of ATF +4 costing around $20 and
only available from Chrysler's dealerships, I think there is a
huge financial incentive to fudge the truth when writing a TSB.

I simply don't trust anything Chrysler says regarding ATF +4 revisions
in any of their TSBs. There's been too much stonewalling, lying,
and whitewashing from them regarding ATF +4. I'll use ATF +4
in vehicles where it was factory-fill in the power steering or in the
transmissions, or in rebuilt transmissions in vehicles that came
with ATF +3 or earlier. But everything else that was speced for
5931 originally, and has 5931 in it, or has MS-9933, continues to
get the aftermarket power steering fluid. What kind of fluid chemistry
do you have with a mix of ATF and PS fluid? Hell even Chrysler's
TSB 19-03-98 says before switching from 5931 to 9933 you
need to flush the system.

For everything but ATF +4 I would agree with you.

Ted