1. Home
  2. Chrysler Cars
  3. 1994 Concorde transmission problem

1994 Concorde transmission problem

My son has my old Concorde and is experiencing a transmission issue with which I hope you can help. Specs: '94 Concorde, 3.3L engine, 190k miles. Here's the background: transmission suddenly would not shift out of first gear, speedometer still functioned normally. We changed out the input sensor. Shifted normally until it got hot, then it would not shift out of first. Does not go into "limp mode" which, as I understand, allows trans to upshift only to second. Stays in first gear.

Noticed that it was overfilled so we drained the trans, carefully wiped out as much dirty oil as possible, installed new filter and carefully refilled with ATF+4. The trans was overfilled by no more than one pint and that was for probably no more than a week.

Here's what happens: Son drives about 30 miles to work, about half on the Interstate. On his way in, starting from dead cold engine, everything works fine. When he goes out to lunch, car sits for about four hours, he will experience the problem of no upshift. He discovered that if he stops and shifts the car to park, shuts off the engine for

10 seconds or so and restarts it, shifting returns to normal. When he leaves to return home, after the car sits for another fours hours, the upshifting problem returns and is temporarily corrected by shutting off the engine and restarting. From cold start in the morning, no problems all the way to his office. By the way, we live in Florida and our temperture swings right now are from about 55F at night to about 80F during the day.

I've got a few ideas about what might be the problem but I'd certainly value any input you folks might have, especially if you've experienced the same type of issue.

Thanks in advance for any help.

John

Reply to
oldcarnut
Loading thread data ...

It is likely that the car is going into 2nd gear, not first. This is the designed default "limp home" mode when the transmission computer discovers a problem. You really need to take it to a competent transmission shop. Preferably one that has experience with Chrysler transmissions since they are very different. They can use a diagnostic computer to scan and determine the cause for the error. Without this knowledge you are left to guess. At 190K miles I'd say they are chances it will need to be rebuilt, but maybe you will be lucky and it will be a sensor, connector or wiring related.

Good luck and post what they find for others to benefit.

Bob

Reply to
Bob Shuman

Reply to
philthy

If you do need a new transmission just junk the car. A rebuilt transmission will cost you 4 times the value of a 94 Concorde. I made the mistake of putting a rebuilt transmission into my 94 Concorde (which had

128K miles on it). It cost me $2K to have it done and it only bought me 4 or 5 months. After I bought my 300C I tried to sell the Concorde, there was absolutely no interest in it at any price, I eventually gave it to PBS in return for a $450 tax deduction.
Reply to
General Schvantzkoph

You got another 5 months of use for only $2K. That's a deal compared to the depreciation on a 300C.

Reply to
who

It's hardly a deal, the rebuilt transmission didn't work particularly well and the rest of the car was pretty much shot including the brakes. Frankly, driving it was scary. The only reason that I spent the money was that I didn't want to buy a car in the middle of winter, in retrospect I could have rented something for a couple of months and it would have cost me less.

When a repair costs more then the value of the car it's time to junk the car. In the case of a 12 year old Chrysler an oil change approaches the value of the car. A new Chrysler is a lot of car for the money, when I was shopping for a new car last year there was nothing close to the 300C AWD in it's price range. The only comparable cars cost at least $20,000 more. However there is a reason for this, Chrysler doesn't design their cars to last. I'm on my 3rd Chrysler. I was very happy with my LeBaron GTS Turbo and my Concorde when they were new, and they each gave me more then 10 years of service. But in both cases they were rusted out hulks at the end. After 10 years a Chrysler is living on borrowed time, when a major component fails it should just be scrapped.

Reply to
General Schvantzkoph

He said his speedometer still worked fine, so it wouldn't have been the output sensor.

Reply to
FeMaster

I agree, with all those other problems I would have junked it immediately. It didn't sound safe to drive.

You've had the same cars as me. I had a '86 LeBaron GTS 2.5L and now a '95 Concord. My experience has been very good for reliability and body quality. I haven't added any after market anti rust treatment, but I watch the body closely and occasionally squirt a little oil in the door drain holes.

Reply to
Some O

Actually, I find that Chrysler vehicles last far better than any other brand and are far more cost-effective to repair. I've got a 1966 Dodge with 280,000 miles that is my daily driver, a 1973 Plymouth with 447,000 miles that is my alternate daily driver, a 1949 Plymouth with over

200,000 miles that is awaiting restoration, a 1969 Dodge with 160,000 miles, and my wife's 1993 LH with over 240,000 miles.

The most I've ever gotten out of any other brand was a '68 Ford with

260,000 miles. I've never nursed an import past 140,000 miles, and I was paying a lot for that last 20k miles in its case.
Reply to
Steve

Those are some impressive mileages. I am curious to know if you live in a place where rust is not a problem.

I have a 1990 Dodge Spirit. Mechanically it's still good, and the interior is still nice. My problem is that the UV rays have taken their toll on the plastic and rubberized trim on the exterior. There is not much left of the window sill moldings.

-KM

Reply to
kmatheson

Reply to
oldcarnut

Yes I do- Central Texas. Some of those years (particularly the '73) would probably require a lot of TLC in the salt belt. Chrysler's corrosion resistance had highs and lows over the years, with the late

50s process and the mid/late 70s process being particularly poor. By the 80s, they pretty well nailed it though.
Reply to
Steve

I'm not sure I believe that altogether. I have always suspected that the speedometer drive algorithm is a lot more tolerant of "dropped" counts from the sensor than the transmission control algorithm. The speedo algorithm can do a lot more smoothing of the counts than the tranny controller since it doesn't have to react as quickly.

Reply to
Steve

My hat's off to you. The first car which was truly "mine" in name and driving was a 1990 Dodge Spirit. Around 1992-93, coastal flooding got it while I was away at College. It was a nice little sedan.

Reply to
David E. Powell

The suns rays are a killer for many modern components. I don't know any other solution than covering the car when not using it. That's why a used car from a retired person often looks like new after many years.

Reply to
Just Facts

Hi...

Hey, I'm one of them... but my car sits outside in the bright prairie sun all summer, and outside in the terrible terrible cold of a Winterpeg (Winnipeg) Canada winter, too.

What I've found very useful to extend the life of the rubber parts around the trunk and door and window frames is plain old silicon spray. Two or three times a year spray a little on an old rag, and wipe down the rubber, leaving it just a little wet and shiny.

Whatever you do don't spray it directly onto the rubber, it's awful on the glass.

May be coincidence, but mine seem to stay like new forever - give it a try :)

Take care.

Ken

Reply to
Ken Weitzel

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.