A bit of research on the ATF +3 ATF +4 issue

neil i do believe what i was told the vent tube is the filler hole.
gm has dumped the dipstick in some models years ago!

 

Do a google search on this ng - it's been discussed a lot.

Bottom line is that the latest Chrysler TSB on the subject (2001 IIRC)
says to use ATF+4 in *ALL* Chrysler vehicles regardless of what came in
them *EXCEPT* for '99 and earlier minivans (due to wear-in issues of the
torque converter clutch).

Some posters on this ng have further claimed that the dealers are now
actually using ATF+4 in the minivans too since the torque converter
clutches would be worn in by now. Assuming that is true, it is not
clear if they are using ATF+4 in the minivans contrary to the TSB based
on their own logic about the wear-in, or if they've gotten some informal
okee-dokee from Chrysler (in which case you'd think a new TSB would have
been issued, but who knows).

If by "compatible" you mean "can they be mixed?" (as in top-off ATF+3
with ATF+4), I think the answer is "yes".

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

 

Correction: The answer is "definitely yes".

Here is a quote from that TSB (#21-006-01):
"NOTE :ATF+4(R) IS COMPATIBLE WITH ATF+3 AND CAN BE USED TO TOP OFF
VEHICLES THAT CURRENTLY HAVE ATF+2 OR ATF+3. DO NOT USE ATF+2 OR ATF+3
TO TOP OFF VEHICLES THAT HAVE ATF+4(R) FLUID.

HTH

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

 

That was originally the case for the new Chrysler extend life coolant too: you
could only purchase it at a Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep dealer. Other coolants
available at an auto parts store were not compatible with the Chrysler ext. life
fluid (even those with similar colors or similar claims, such as dex-cool).
Now the manufacturer (Zerex) sells the G-05 stuff directly, and you can purchase
it in stores. I believe Ford also now uses the same formula, so the G-05 is
good for new Fords that use this formula too. Only difference is the color:
Mopar brandedis red/orange, Zerex branded is gold. I expect the same to
eventually happen to the ATF+4 fluid. And even if it isn't, I don't mind paying
a little more fluid that works very well with the new transmissions.

 

Of course they are. Chrysler paid them to develop it. However, such contracts
almost always have a sunset date, as we saw with Zerex G-05 coolant.

That is incorrect under U.S. copyright/trademark laws. While you can't label
your product with somebody else's trademark for sure, you certainly CAN
reference their trademark for purposes of comparison.

 

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

<yet still more blather about the evil DaimlerChrysler ATF+4 price
conspiracy>

Look, Ted, you've tried to get folks to agree with you that the price of
ATF+4 is a scandal three or four separate times now, this year alone. It
should by now be blindingly obvious even to you that *you are the only one
who gives a crap*, and since you don't even have a vehicle that calls for
this fluid, why don't you pour yourself a nice, steaming hot mug of shut
the hell up!

DS

 

<snip>


My '96 and 2000 Neons both have a three speed hydraulic 31TH Transmission,
which is very similar if not identical to the three speed A-413 in my '88 &
'89 K cars, which is probably the same as the '81 K car.

The Ks call for Mopar ATF fluid type 7176 (or Dexron II in a pinch), the '96
calls for Mopar ATF PLUS type 7176. The 2000 calls for ATF +4.

I have a suspicion ATF +3 would work in the 2000 Neon. I could probably put
it in and not have a problem, but I can't. If I go in later for transmission
problems, and they find ATF +3 in it, they may pass the blame on to me.

 

This was discussed a while back on i-ATN, although I don't
remember the specifics, apparently there is a special
service tool (machine) for re-filling them thru the drain
plug in the pan.

 

I've seen this discussion and apparently someone designed a
simple tool that is run by compressed air that will fill them.

It's a weird design IMHO but not that much different than
a manual transmission.

Ted

 

Hey, wait a minute. In your last post you said the fluid manufacturer
spent the money on R&D. Now your saying that DamlierChrysler
spent the money? Which is it?

If as your _now_ saying, DC paid for the R&D, then there wouldn't be
any incentive for them to include a sunset date. If the fluid manufacturer
paid for the R&D, there would be.

Now your just grasping at straws.

There's a grey area between referencing someone's trademark on the product
packaging or the product itself for purposes of comparison, and someone
elses' trademark being used to sell a product. There has to be a clear
statement
that the trademark doesen't belong to the product. A line such as "This
product is
equivalent to ATF+4 (TM)" followed by a statement "ATF+4 is a registered
trademark
of DamlierChrysler" might pass legal muster, but your taking a big risk of
provoking a legal battle, as well as pissing off one of your larger
customers.
Besides, unless it's prominently displayed on the front of the bottle, the
customer isn't going to normally read the fine print of every bottle of ATF
on
the shelf, looking for this line. And if it's prominently displayed, DC
could
successfully argue that it's being used to promote the product.

This is why you usually see comparisons done in supplemental literature such
as sales lit.

Ted

 

Daniel your reasoning is self-defeating. The fact that you responded shows
that somebody - you - does care. Thus your assertion that nobody cares is
invalid.

Yes, I admit that I believe that manufacturers conspiring to set prices is
evil.
Doesen't everyone?

And as to whether or not it makes any difference that I don't have a vehicle
that calls for this fluid, that is immaterial to the discussion. Are you
saying that
you yourself have absolutely no opinions of any sort on anything that does
not directly affect you? Yah, right, I'll believe it when I see it.

If you really want to support your posted responses, then why don't you
give a reasoned explanation as to why we all should pay Chrysler extra
money for transmission fluid that we ought to be able to buy off the shelf
at any decent auto parts store. Or are you now going to take the position
that it's a good thing for manufacturers to sole-source everything for all
cars that they produce? Kind of flies in the face of your own
recommendations
to swap out the manufacturer's lighting systems on vehicles, don't you
think?

Ted

 

Depends on what you mean by the term compatible. In terms of mixing, yes.
But they are
not compatible in terms of having the same characteristics, otherwise you
could use
either kind of fluid interchangably in all Chrysler transmissions that call
for either fluid.

Ted

 

Ted, how about posting the kinetic and brookfield viscosity numbers
for DC ATF+4 as well as the labelled ATF+4 from Havoline, Valvoline,
and Amsoil ATF.

Yes, there are makers who are selling branded ATF+4 tranny fluid. I
can get a 10 quart pail of the stuff for less then $60-.

 

I think it was pretty clear both in the context of Warren's original
question and in the exact quote from the TSB which you snipped and
therefore removed the context. Go back and read it again.

From the TSB, it was made clear in both of my posts that (1) The ATF+3
can be drained and ATF+4 put in in its place, and (2) ATF+4 can be used
to top off ATF+3. Is there another scenario that needs to be covered
other than those two?

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

 

x-no-archive: yes

You are committing a false dichotomy fallacy. Typically in these situations
(vendor arrangement) there is cost sharing so the answer is both.

See above. Again, think of the Zerex G-05 example I gave you above.

But my straws are well saturated in a cup of facts.

Gray area is not a problem at all. Jurisprudence on this is quite clear.

Not at all. Follow the guidelines of the law and you are fine.

But you would only be doing so with the support of your larger customer in the
first place, assuming you are their supplier, so that is a non-issue.

All they have to do is state that product abc meets the specifications of xyz
car company. If that car company doesn't like it, than they would need to prove
why it didn't meet their specifications.

I've had to work with the lawyers about trademark issues enough times to know
what works and what doesn't without getting sued. Your positions have no basis
in the law. But go ahead, make your own fluid and use it. I'll stick with
what I know works, and I'm not going to jeopardize a transmission for a few
bucks in fluid purchases.

 

OK, so first it was the fluid guys paid for it. Next it was DC paid for it.
Now it's both of them paid for it.

If there's a time limit, then why didn't the lubrication article mention so?

Duh! I only said that in the beginning. DC does not want ATF+4 out there,
they
are the largest customer of it for the 2 suppliers that make it, thus those
suppliers have no support from their largest customer. I think you just
argued
yourself into agreeing with me.

Anyone can get sued over anything. Your talking about what works without
getting a lawsuit that is found against you.

Apparently you must not put any stock in the idea that harassment lawsuits
that
are unwinnable are never filed by companies.

Ted

 

Can ATF+3 be used in new Chrysler trannies that are factory-filled with
ATF+4? No. Thus, they do not have the same characteristics. If they
did, then Chrysler would have no basis for the claim that ATF+3 cannot
be used to fill ATF+4 trannies (or top them off)

Thus, as I said, ATF+3 and ATF+4 are not compatible in terms of
having the same characteristics (ie: being interchangeable)

Ted

 

No argument there.

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

 

There is no labeled ATF+4 from Havoline or Valvoline. There is labelled
ATF+3 from Havoline and Valvoline. The kinetic and brookfield viscosity
numbers
for all of them (including Amsoil) are not identical and are available on
the list of links in my original post. I could not find
viscosity numbers for the Mopar ATF+4

Name them. Every fluid manufacturer I could find that sells ATF+ only sell
branded ATF+3. Only Mopar sells branded ATF+4. A few synthetic ATF
manufacturers claim compatability with ATF+4 but they do not use the ATF+4
trademark on the bottle in any way that a customer would believe they are
buying ATF+4.

Ted

 

:sigh:

http://www.equivatexacomsds.com/gettexacomsds.asp?tempproductcode=01846

You can do the rest of the research yourself instead of engaging in
public masturbation on the issue.