Transmission Fluid again

I know that this topic has been beaten to death in this NG, but I have
it come up again.

A local transmission shop rebuilt the transmission in my 1993 Voyager
at 95,000 miles. There were many worn parts. I had hoped to get over a
100,000 miles, but no such luck.

When I went to pick it up, I asked what kind of fluid they put in.
They told me that they put in Mercon III, with Lube Guard. When I
asked them why they didn't put in ATF+3 / 7176, they got very
defensive, and showed me the label on the Lubeguard bottle. It says
that Lubeguard enchances the fluid so that it exceeds ATF+3 and ATF+4
specs. They also told me that they have never had any problem with the
Mercon III / Lubeguard combo.

He also showed me a chart indicating how Lubeguard reduces the acidity
way below other fluids. This shop has been in business for more than
23 years that I can remember. They also do warranty repairs for the
local Chrysler / Dodge dealerships.

Everything I have read in this NG, and allpar says only to use ATF+3 /
7176 for this vehicle.

Should I drain the fluid and refill with the correct stuff, or leave
it? The transmission repair far exceeded the value of the vehicle, but
is in good condition otherwise, and I do not wish to buy a newer van
at this time.

I am hoping to recoup my investment by getting another year or two of
use from this van

The only thing that makes me concered, is that this same van was in
the same shop in January 2006 at 89,000. At that time, they replaced
the ignition switch as the solenoid pack was not always getting power.
At that time, I had them service the transmission which meant a fluid
change. They most likely put in the same fluid. Could this fluid have
cause the death of the transmission over the next 6,000 miles?

Prior to this time, the fluid had always been changed at the closest
Chrysler / Dodge dealership. They most likely used ATF+3.

Thanks for reading,

Kirk Matheson

 

Based on my own experience with how rough the shifts can be with Dexron I
would say yes you need to put the proper fluid in there ASAP. Don't just do
a drain and refill though make sure you do a full flush. I like the "unhook
the cooler line" method as it seems to work well.

 

I wouldn't worry about it.
The difference in fluids is friction modifiers.
The lubeguard adds those modifiers.
I personaly have 2 chrysler products and that is what I use.
I also do the same thing when overhauling one,as do the majority of
transmission shops.

 

Thank you. I would like to think that after all the discussion that
there has been on this topic, no product supplier would dare to claim
ATF+3 / ATF+4 equivalency unless they can truely back up that claim.
But then again, there are still a lot of *snake oil* products out
there. The FTC cannot stay on top of all of them.

I read the *fluid testimonial section* on Allpar.com, and they appear
to be dated. Until recently, Chrysler was the only supplier for ATF+3.
I have seen ATF+3 eqivalent fluid from Quaker State, Chevron, and
Vavoline.

-KM

 

Here they go again.... WHY is it so hard for some shops to get it
through their headbones that Mercon plus some additive jizz is not the
same as ATF+4?!? Sure, they can add friction modifiers, but that doesn't
get rid of the WRONG friction modifiers that are in the fluid they start
with. Why is it so hard to err on the side of caution? It can't save
them *that* much money.

That may be. ATF+3 is a pretty shitty fluid, really, with terrible
longevity and terrible oxidation rates- which is why ATF+4 is preferred.
But back to Lubegard- its no big deal to change pH, but how does its
friction modifier package override and correct the friction modifier
package in Mercon, though? Does it magically transmogrify the Mercon
friction modifiers? I think not.

You can certainly bet that *I* would put ATF+4 in it, and the shop would
pay for the labor to change the fluid and filter, too (I don't mind
paying the extra for the right fluid- they can pass that on to me and I
won't complain at all, and in fact I'll THANK them for using the right
fluid).

 

<snip>

Three speed or four speed?

 

It's the four speed. I cannot remember what the latest name is for it.

-KM

 

A-604

 

That's the OLD name for the transverse version. The new standardized
term is 41TE (transverse/minivan version) or 42LE (longitudinal
version). I don't know exactly what they decided, but the rear drive
version would be a 4xRE (2.7L Chargers, 300s, Magnums) and the 5-speed
transverse version (eg. Pacifica 4.0) would be 5xTE where x is a number
that indicates the (relative, on an arbitrary scale) torque handling
ability.

First digit = number of forward gear ratios
Second digit = arbitrary torque hanling number (a 47RH is beefier than a
46RH for example
Third digit = drive layout (T= transverse FWD, L = logitudinal FWD, R= RWD)
Fourth digit = control method (H=hydraulic, E = electronic).

 

FWIW, the latest TSB that I show on this subject is TSB No. 21-010-06
(April '06) - it shows the '93 Voyager as ATF+3 (i.e., not recommended
to switch over to ATF+3).

However, I do vehemently agree with those who say *NOT* to use something
else with an additive. The OP is free to go whichever way they see fit
- their money - their risk.

I found it interesting that the shop said that "...they have never had
any problem with the Mercon III / Lubeguard combo", yet here the
customer is 6000 miles later with a problem. How do they know it
*isn't* fluid related or caused. Sounds to me like they have just
gotten used to saying they've never had a problem with it and are
forgetting to consider that it could be the problem.

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

 

Oops - that should say "it shows the '93 Voyager as ATF+3 (i.e., not
recommended to switch over to ATF+4)".

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

 

Hi...

I'd kinda hoped that as I aged I'd become a little more mellow;
however it appears not.

Maybe they've never had a problem with it (bringing customers
back for more and more work)

Take care.

Ken

 

Ha! Maybe you have something there, Ken.

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

 

That's the way that I had understood the TSB. All newer vehicles can
run ATF+4, except for 1999 and earlier mini-vans. They should stay on
ATF+3. It did not give any reason for this however. There have been
some in the NG that have used ATF+4 with no problems reported

-KM

 

I could swear that someone found a TSB where that exception has been
removed. Since ATF+4 is a true backward-compatible fluid, there *should*
be no fundamental reason that the minivans shouldn't switch while other
cars with the same transmission can.

 

The TSB that KMath is remembering is an earlier TSB that was superceded
by the one I cited - it did have a blnket statement about '99 and
earlier minivans. That latest one does not have that blamket statement
in it and allows more vehicles, but still does not list some even
earlier minivans (like the '93) as being ATF+4 compatible.

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