DON'T USE +4!!!!!!

Chrysler has put out a lot of "notices" (TSBs) regarding transmission fluid selection. What is the date on the TSB you looked at?

Also, please give more info. What happened *after* the computer re-learn cycle? Was the on-road learn protocol used, or the "quick learn" procedure?

DS

My 1999 MiniVan has 61K miles and has had the trans flushed twice (30K and

60K miles). Once at the dealer and once by myself. Both times with ATF+4 and there have been no problems experienced. Dealer service told me that there was indeed a slight chance for this clutch chatter to occur, but if it did to just disconnect the battery to allow the transmission to re-learn the new fluid.

Could you please cite the actual TSB source for your email.

Bob

I don't have that Chrysler notice at hand; but it had been posted here about

2 years ago. It is not that the clutch has to relearn the +4, it is that if it has to go through a relearn process and it has been switched to +4, the clutch will chatter and perhaps damage itself. My dealer put in +4 in my 96 and I called Chrysler to confirm their advise, they called the dealer and the dealer (at its own expense) flushed out the +4 (plus additive they put in), and replaced it with +3, and my shifting issues went away.

Richard.

The latest TSB on the subject is No. 21-004-04 issued March 2004. It says, in part: "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)...".

That TSB supercedes No. 21-006-01. That TSB (21-006-01) no longer shows up on AllData since it is superceded, but what it, in part, said was: "A new transmission fluid (ATF+4(R) - Type 9602) has been developed and is being used as factory fill for all vehicles with Chrysler automatic transmissions. Until now, vehicles originally filled with ATF+2 or ATF+3 were to be serviced with ATF+3. Effective immediately, it is recommended that all vehicles with Chrysler automatic transmissions except for 1999 and earlier minivans be serviced with ATF+4(R). ATF+3 should continue to be used for 1999 and earlier minivans because of the potential for torque converter shudder during break in. For all other applications the ATF+4(R) fluid offers significant benefits as outlined below...".

If you check the archives of this ng, you will see that some knowledgeable person/people stated that that TC shudder concern was due to torque converter clutch wear-in, and that I speculated at least twice that, if that was true, once the tranny (and clutch) had some wear on it, apparently it would be OK to switch to ATF+4. No-one ever challenged or acknowledged that theroy (so it was left ambiguous as to whether ATF+4 would cause an actual problem with 99+% of the minivans on the road whose TC clutches were certainly well broken-in by now even though the TSB said not to use it).

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

The latest TSB on the subject is No. 21-004-04 issued March 2004. It

Yes, the TSB's are confusing. That is why I called Chrysler for technical assistance. They called me back and recommended getting rid of the +4 plus additive and recommended +3. It sure would be nice if Chrysler had a clearer way of communicating the care and feeding of its products. Do you kind of get the feeling that Chrysler is not quite sure about this issue; I sure do.

Still, my shifting did get smoother when I used +3. It did not prevent my case from cracking from that loose pin Chrysler knew about but did not let us know it had a cure for. No customer quality inspection program here.

Richard.

Yeah - Chrysler quality isn't worth anything. My '96 T&C LXi only has 184,500 miles on it and my '93 Jeep GC Laredo is fast approaching 195,000 miles. The Pacifica only has 23,700 miles on it so who knows how long it will last??????

RP

Yeah - Chrysler quality isn't worth anything. My '96 T&C LXi only has

184,500

I think you miss my point. My 96 T&C had over 120,000 miles and was still going strong. Motor was like new on Mobil 1. But Chrysler knew cases were cracking because the rear mounting pin was working loose somehow. They failed to inform the dealers to do an inspection and took years to develop a fix that would keep the pin problem from cracking the case. They have not put in place an owner satisfaction program to get people to bring the cars in for an inspection, and are not telling dealers to fix the pins with their kit as a customer satisfaction program. Not a quality issue, sometimes these things happen, but a customer relations issue. On this Chrysler has let the customer down.

Richard.

Yep, same problem here. My 96 GV has 159,000 and I've had to replace the tires, the brakes and several other things in the 8 years I've owened it. They just don't make cars to hold up anymore.

Matt

Classic YMMV.

Our GC with 3.3L had leaky head gasket at 33,000, rusted/junk rotors and failed serpentine belt tensioner at 37,000.

Classic POS, inclusive of Chrysco's approach to "five-star customer service".

Indeed, who knows how long it will last??????

Yes, YMMV, but those of us who maintain our vehicles properly and drive them reasonably tend to get a lot more mileage.

Matt

Dealer serviced throughout, at less than factory intervals.

These reports of issues are not unique to this vehicle.

Same driving style with other makes hasn't produced this failure rate.