Valvoline Transmission Fluid ATF+3 Chrysler Approved?

According to the TSB, "This bulletin applies to all transmissions
manufactured by Chrysler except for 1999 and earlier minivans with the
41TE/AE transmission. This Service Bulletin DOES NOT apply to all AWD
transmissions, Sprinter transmissions, Crossfire transmissions and WG bodies
equipped with a W5J400 or NAGI transmission (sales code DGJ)."

So, if they discontinued ATF +3, what are the non-supported vehicles
supposed to use?

 

Your confusing what Chrysler as a company wants with what it's
dealers want.

Chrysler's position is that everyone would want to take their Chrysler
vehicle to a dealership for service, no matter how old it is. That way
when Chrysler decides that your car's too old, your right there in the
dealership service area, prime material to pitch a new car to.

Don't you see - Chrysler discontinues parts because they want to
'encourage' people to move to a new vehicle, not because
they want to force them to move. They know that just
because they discontinue a part doesen't mean that the part will
become unavailable - there's always salvage yards. My father
has an older Buick and he goes to a dealer he likes, and there's
many times he's called me with that "part not available" shtick
and I've arrainged for a local wrecker to supply the part. Some
of them even run it over to the dealer service area. Of course the
dealer service guys grumble about not being willing to warranty
the part but I don't give a damn about that and neither does my
father. I'm sure that one of these days something really serious
will finally blow up on that car and when it does he will trade it
in and that dealer will have first shot at selling him a new car.

The problem is really more subtle than what your implying. First,
some dealerships really only want to cherry pick the service work and
thus only want the warranty work - because it's a guarenteed customer
(since the customer is obviously going to keep coming back to the
dealership since they are getting it fixed for free) and it's a guarenteed
payment (since Chrysler has no choice but to pay out on warranty claims)
So if it's not a warranty job they just do a half-assed job on the
repair and if it falls apart 2 miles down the road, so what. Or they
quote these outrageous service fees hoping the customer will go away.
That ISN'T what Chrysler wants, but it is what the dealership wants,
and for the 100th time in this group, the dealers don't represent Chrysler
corp. The dealers simply have a franchise to sell Chrysler cars, but
what they do is not always going to be what Chrysler wants them doing.

Secondly, too many customers out there aren't willing to pay any decent
money for good repairs, even when the dealer does fix it right, the first
time, they piss and moan about the cost.

Last, too many customers don't take any responsibility to learn the
least thing about their cars, 90% of them don't read the entire owners
manual let alone any pages of it at all.

That is different - they aren't suddenly saying once they discontinued that
throttle cable that now a cable out of a 2000 Caravan will work.

If Chrysler was saying that they are going to discontinue the ATF that is
required in all 1999 and earlier minivans, and customer will just have to
get it from the aftermarket, that would be fine and equivalent
to what your saying. But they aren't saying this - they are saying
"we discontinued it, but no mattter use this new fluid, and by the way,
that tsb we put out a few years ago saying NOT to use this new fluid
in your older car - well just ignore it, we are going to pretend we never
wrote it!!"

Either they were lying then, or they are lying now. If they were lying
then,
then they have proved they are liars and how can I trust what a known liar
says about ATF +4 now? And if they were telling the truth then, why then
they are lying now, so once again, I can't trust a liar.

That is the problem.

Ted

 

Ted,

For the record, and as I've indicated previously, I've used the ATF+4 in my
1999 T&C Minivan for the last 4+ years without any noticeable problems in
the transmission's performance. In fact, the dealer put in there the first
time themselves back in 2001 at about 32K miles.

From what I recall reading and what a local dealer mechanic told me, the
ATF+4 has slightly different (improved?) friction characteristics. As such,
if the transmission already had significant mileage on ATF+3, and if the
computer had adapted it to account for worn clutches, then it might exhibit
problems (shuddering or not lock up the torque converter completely) after
converting to the newer ATF+4. The mechanic mentioned a re-learning
procedure that should be used under these circumstances. (I'd assume if you
do not have the computer tool that you might be able to just remove the
battery cable for 5 minutes, though I did not ask.) In my case, this
re-programming was not needed due to the mileage... It is possible that
this is how they intend to use ATF+4 with the pre-2000 minivans, although it
would seem that the option still remains open for the dealer to purchase
ATF+3 from the open market as well.

I know several dealer mechanics/technicians frequent this forum. So it
would be interesting to learn what fluid they use currently and will use
going forward in the 1999 or older minivans.

Bob

 

Either they were lying then, or they are lying now. If they were lying
then, then they have proved they are liars and how can I trust what a known
liar says about ATF +4 now? And if they were telling the truth then, why
then they are lying now, so once again, I can't trust a liar.Exactly!

Richard.

 

Gimme a damn break, Richard, you're *way* smarter than this. Ted may not
be, but you certainly are. It takes time and testing and analysis of test
results to be sure that a new fluid is fully compatible with a
transmission originally specced for an old fluid. The progression of
allowable applications for ATF+4 clearly shows that: First it was
recommended only for transmissions filled with it from the factory, then
it was okayed for certain prior models but not others, then it was
approved for most prior models but not all...do you see the pattern here?

 

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

I'm not quite ready to attribute that level of evil to them. I'm more
inclined to think it just stops being profitable to continue stocking
parts with diminishing sales volume after a certain point, and they
really don't expect older car owners anywhere near the dealer for service.

 

Good lord, Ted. Get a grip on reality. Or would you still insist on Type
A transmission fluid for a '55 DeSoto, too?

 

Poppycock.

DC knew that ATF +4 would work in the older transmissions simply because
there's no difference between ATF +4 and ATF +3. They were lying back
with the first TSB that said not to use ATF +4 in minivan transmissions and
they knew they were lying. But if they had admitted that there was no
difference
between fluids then nobody would have bought the $6-a-bottle ATF +4 they
would have just kept using the $2-a-bottle ATF +3 from the aftermarket.
DC didn't want that so they created this myth that there was this huge
difference
between fluids, that's why you need to buy the new stuff. But for a lie to
be
believable it has to be supported, and in order to
support this myth they pretended that the new fluid was so different that it
might not work well in older vehicles.

If there really had been a difference like your implying, then age doesen't
make the fluid suddenly work.

If there really had been a difference and the transes were so forgiving as
to be able to tolerate it, then cheaper alternatives like Lubeguard
and Valvoline Maxlife and Scamsoil should have a shot at working too.

Now of course since you will be able to get the fluid from the aftermarket,
DC has no interest any longer in maintaining the fiction that ATF +4 is
better,
so they are simply glossing over the old TSB.

I'm not saying here that the fluids are identical, they aren't. I'm saying
that the
differences aren't of any practical importance to a transmission - other
than the
fact that for a long time DC was charging a rediculous amount of money for
fluid
and getting it because they were lying to the public about it's benefits.
Now that
they can't make a killing on trans fluid anymore they will stop lying - on
this issue.

Ted

 

Ted and Dan, I may have a reading comprehension problem here, but the way I
am reading Chrysler's current position is that +4 is still not recommended
for use in certain pre-2001 mini-vans, and perhaps a few other models. This
has not changed from their previous position concerning clutch chatter if
the computer has to go through retraining. If I am reading their current
position incorrectly please set this straight.

Richard.

Richard.