You could look at it a couple of ways: You could consider it as extending the life of your tranny and stay with original change intervals. Or, logically, you could extend the intervals way out and reduce your periodic maintennce costs. However realize that changing fluid and filter does more than replace the fluid
- it gets rid of contaminants and particulates and of course renews your filter capacity. So extending the change interval too much could be counterproductive.
Perhaps a reasonable approach would be to split the difference and somewhat extend the tranny life and somewhat reduce your periodic maintenance costs realizing that you're not going to get the full benefit of extended tranny life. Best would be to stay with original change interval.
Your car - your money - your risk.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
I think a lot of people are reading a bit too much into this.
DC stopped PRODUCING ATF +3 a long time ago. Thus it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to recommend ATF +3 in ANY of their vehicles without putting their dealers in a position where they would be forced to go to the aftermarket to get transmission fluid.
So naturally your going to see all TSB's updated to state that ATF +4 is backwards ompatible and will work in everything.
This has nothing really to do with the question of whether or not ATF +4 is really, honestly compatible with the older transmissions that came from the factory with ATF +3 in them.
There is a line on the Allpar site that a Chrysler engineer at one time mentioned that ATF +4 might not be compatible with the seals in an older transmission.
But beyond that, which is little more than a rumor/speculation, I've not been able to find anything where anyone reported that they replaced the ATF +3 in their transmission with ATF +4 and the transmission suddenly blew chunks.
Interestingly, I ALSO haven't been able to find any kind of testimonial that someone took a transmission with ATF +4 factory-fill in it, replaced the fluid with ATF +3 and it suddenly blew chunks.
I have therefore concluded that ATF +3 and ATF +4 are compatible in frictional coefficients for the practical purpose of use in any transmission that calls for ATF +3 or ATF +4
Also another nail in that coffin is this - Ultradrive transmissions produced before 1996 have different transmission computers than the ones produced in 1996 and later. And while DC has come out with newer firmware revs for the post-1995 trans computers, they have NOT for the pre-1996 trans computers. Their last firmware update for the pre-1996 computers was in 1996 or 1995 I believe. This was BEFORE they started producing ATF +4 so today there is NO WAY that any 41TE in operation in any
1995 or earlier Chrysler product could even possibly know about any "different" frictional characteristics of ATF +4. Yet DC is recommending ATF +4 for those transmissions! Therefore anyone who is insisting that ATF +4 has different frictional characteristics than ATF +3 is either full of shit, or they are saying that DC is lying when DC says to use ATF +4 in 1995 or earlier transmissions. Take your pick, folks.
The primary differences between ATF +3 and ATF +4 that matters is that ATF +4 is allegedly "synthetic" whereas ATF +3 is allegedly not, and ATF +4's patented additive package was not released by DC to the aftermarket until just a month ago or so - meaning you had to buy your fluid from DC if you wanted ATF +4.
Now, there's some obvious advantages to synthetic motor oil that have been clearly documented - primariarly it works better in excessively hot or cold environments and it's molecules don't break down as fast as mineral oil so in theory you could simply change the oil filter forever and never the oil and it would be fine. (the detergents, however, get consumed just as fast, so it turns out that the infinitely long change intervals in synthetic motor oil don't exist)
But there's no clear study or documentation that synthetic transmission oil is going to make your transmission last indefinitely or some such.
The 41TE transmissions have a number of ways that they can meet the Great Transmission Graveyard in the sky, but these can be boiled down to 2 general methods - either something inside the transmission fractures, or the clutches wear out. As for the first problem DC has been busy redesigning the problem parts so the chances of that happening have been greatly reduced (unless your an idiot that decides to take your minivan muddin' or some such)
As for the second problem, DC has made some firmware changes that are indended to reduce slipping of the clutches, to minimise wear on them, but the fact remains that a clutch is a clutch and it has material in it that is DESIGNED TO ABRADE AWAY so it WILL NOT last forever no matter WHAT magic elixer is stuck in the transmission fluid.
in NEITHER of these scenarios does the transmission oil have much to do with anything. You could put motor oil, Dexron, grease, sewing machine oil, whatever oil you want in your transmission and it would provide the lubrication needed to keep all the parts except the clutches from wearing significantly. You need ATF + with the right frictional coefficient to make the clutches happy.
So the question then becomes, if ATF +4 and ATF +3 have functionally identical frictional coefficients to make the transmission happy, is there any benefit to the more expensive ATF +4?
And the answer is: ONLY if it lasts longer.
Currently, the recommendations made on this group are to follow the Severe Duty service intervals in the manual for changing your transmission fluid (ie: Schedule B) even though your not driving in severe duty. That means change the transmission fluid at 15,000 mile intervals. And I have NOT seen ANY recommendation that if you use ATF +4 that you DON'T have to do this, or can do it at any longer interval.
So I have to conclude that this argument is a big heaping pile of dog crap. When someone shows me a published recommendation from DC that ATF +4 is so magical that you don't have to ever change it, then I'll change my mind. But until then, you can conclude that for all practical purposes ATF +3 and ATF +4 are used the same way and do the same thing, and the only reason DC recommends ATF +4 is to keep from undercutting their dealer network since they don't make ATF +3 any longer, and leave it at that.
None of the above. I am willing to pay more money for a superior fluid. It's cheap insurance. And ATF+4 is, in all ways, a superior fluid. There's a very good and highly detailed SAE paper that gives exhaustive comparisons of various fluids including +4, +3, +, and Dexron. You can buy it in paper or download form here:
I beg to differ. I was in the dealer just last week, and for some reason specifically remember seeing ATF+4 and ATF+3 sitting on the shelf in plane view right beside each other. Just to make sure, I called that dealer parts counter 3 minutes ago, and they assured me that they do indeed have MOPAR branded ATF+3 on their shelf. Though some of what you say below may be correct, this throws at least some of your reasoning into a cocked hat.
Possibly the right conclusion, but for the wrong reasons - see above.
Again, your conclusion might be right, but your reasoning doesn't bring one to that conclusion. Suddenly blowing chunks isn't the only criteria. Any negative effects are much more likely to be damage/wear over an intermediate or long term.
See above - I disagree that the word "suddenly" has much at all to do with it.
Again - intermediate and long term effects?
Perhaps, right or wrong, they are not concerned with optimal longevity of a 10 year old tranny. They figure that that customer is now stealing from them by not buying a new car. 8^) They give a higher priority to pahsing ATF+3 out and reducing the number of "parts" they have to control, list, inventory, ship, etc. MBA's at work - screw the owners of ten year old vehicles.
How about door no. three: DC doesn't care if ATF+4 is not optimal for pre-'96 hardware.
. . .
According to a lot of people (some on this NG), including many DC dealers, Schedule A conditions do not exist in the real world. Which leads me to my past statements that if that is so, then they are committing fraud on the public by putting Sched. A into the vehicle documentation (i.e., I have read that dealers routinely refuse to honor the warranty on a failed engine - I'm thinking 2.7L's - even though the customer can thoroughly document Schedule A maintenance - claiming that there is no such thing as Schedule A driving conditions: CLAIM DENIED).
This may be apples and oranges, but FWIW, my '99 LH FSM shows 48k mile ATF+4 and filter change interval for Sched. B.
I have pointed out a lot of inaccuracies in your facts and reasoning above, so any conclusions you would end up with are highly suspect.
Not reasonable. Why would you impose such a ridiculous criteria?
But until then, you can conclude that for all practical
Whether your conclusion is right or wrong, you arrived at it with very flawed facts and logic - IMO.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
ATF +3 was introduced in 1998 and ATF +4 came on in 2000. ATF +5 came on in 2002.
Chrysler released a TSB 21-004-04 in March 2004 stating to use ATF +4 for everything except 1999 and earlier minivans.
Since they announced ATF +3 would be discontinued Sept 1st 2005 in that press release of theirs licensing ATF +4 to the aftermarket, what your seeing on the dealer shelves is stuff that was produced a long time ago, when they did their last run of it. The dealer can't use ATF +3 today to service vehicles since Chrysler has listed it as discontinued.
Unless that is, Chrysler lied in the press release and changed their minds about discontinuing ATF +3 last week?
OK then let's have some people step forward who have torn down a few of these transmissions and see what they say the failure points are. From what I've read on the forums, the people complaining about transmission failures are complaining precisely because their transmission blew chunks.
Very few of them are complaining because their transmission started slipping and got worse and worse and worse over a long period of time. That's always been the historic sign of a transmission failure of a transmission wearing out.
I looked at all the gears in my trans when it was torn down - none of them showed signs of wear except for the cheapo one that fractured. I attribute that to it being kind of difficult to wear out hardened steel that's immersed in oil.
Perhaps - but these transmissions aren't known for longevity. And if you look at the design and look at the internal parts you can see why. EVERYTHING in it is thin, thin, thin! Chrysler relied heavily on exotic materials and hardening and finishing of those materials in order to get very strong internals. They definitely didn't take the route of big massive gearing made out of ordinary steel to get very strong internals, which is what a lot of the older transmission designers seemed to do. Unfortunately while you can prove in a lab that the exotics are stronger, in the real world the massive overdesign on basic steel parts wins the longevity game. That's why so many 100 year old locomotive steam engines were in service so long. Mild steel - but massive, massive construction.
Talk to any trans rebuilder that tears into these regularly and your going to find that unless they find cheap taiwanese parts left over from a prior rebuild inside, they just don't see a lot of wear. Instead they see a lot of broken and snapped parts.
recommending
Well, that's a good point!
That's door number 2 - DC is lying when they say to use ATF +4 in 1995 or earlier transmissions.
transmission
OK, as I said, show me a different recommendation - your schedule B for your 99 vehicle is 48k miles. That I have not seen. However what I don't understand is how it could list ATF+4 as that's a year before ATF +4 came out. Are you sure your not looking at a rewritten schedule or your eyes aren't playing tricks on you, making a +3 into a +4?
And your refuting it with facts that don't cooespond with other facts. Such as the intro date of ATF +4?
(And I haven't even got to the issue of ATF +5 being the proprietary formula now that they won't give out. I suppose we can expect to see ATF +6, +7
Maybe. Of course it wouldn't surprise me if the local dealer is still using ATF+3 at some time in their service bay (IOW they wouldn't let a TSB stop them if they were determined to use it for whatever reason).
The price of tremendous pressure to produce vehicles that are light and compact with longevity a secondary goal.
I never noticed that discrepancy in the TSB 'til you just pointed it out. But I did just double check my '99 FSM. The tranny section explicitly lists ATF+4 as the only tranny fluid for it.
I can't explain that one. Obviously the TSB is wrong on the intro date.
Yes. We ought to save these dialogues in our hard drives so when we have the same "argument" about ATF+4 being phased out, ATF+5 going into aftermarket licensing, etc., we can just copy and post and save ourselves a lot of typing. 8^)
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Ted, are you sure of the above facts and can you cite your reference? Seems ATF+3 has been around a lot longer than the date you provide. ATF+4 seems about right from what I recall. As to ATF+5, I can not recall seeing this mentioned previously. Where is it used and what are its new and improved characteristics? Thanks.
Yes, so I guess Chrysler's position is that if you own a 96 mini-van "drop dead" and go find +3 at Pep Boys because your dealer will only be able to purchase +4 from Chrysler.
The failure modes are pretty well documented. I don't know what you're calling "blew chunks," but the failures I repeatedly heard about when these things were still having tons of failures were:
1) Bad input or output speed sensors (not a real failure, and the number one cause of unnecessary trans replacement in these vehicles)
2) Torque convertor lockup clutch shudder (caused by the wrong fluid and, prior to some software changes, caused by the fluid 'wearing out' at 50,000 to 60,000 miles)
3) Its generally a "dusty" transmission- LOTS of clutch material gets shed during normal operation, so fluid changes are necessary or the filter eventually plugs and causes low pressure and resulting slippage.
4) Solenoid pack fluid leaks
5) Pump housing-to-bellhousing seal leaks (what finally caused mine to come out of the car at 150,000 miles).
6) Cracked snap-rings falling out of clutch packs allowing the plates to slip out of place (this is probably the closest to "blowing chunks," and is less common than any of the above.)
7) Drivetrain (gear or carrier) failure. It can happen in all automatics, but its rare, rare, rare. Usually a flawed part from the get-go.
For a very simple reason- this transmission will not continue to operate when slippage is detected- it goes into limp mode immediately.
Well, I'd say their longevity is about on a par with other modern light-weight highly efficient transmissions. And its kinda hard to judge strength from part size. The first time I ever opened up an A-727 and looked at the size of the gearsets (the planetary gear assemblies are only about 6" in diameter...TOTAL inside the ring gear... and each planet gear is only a little more than an inch across) I found it shocking, because I knew that these transmissions would last 200,000+ miles behind 440s with almost 500 ft-lb of torque.
Which is why I NEVER allow a shop to swap in a "rebuilt" transmission.. If they won't do it on their own bench, with a Borg-Warner or Raybestos kit, then they don't get my business.
But back to the list of failures- FLUID QUALITY does play into failures # 2,3,4, and 5 on my list, ALL of which are more commonly reported than broken parts.
The ILMA complaint specifically stated that Chrysler started informing dealers in October 1999 that ATF +4 was going to be factory fill in all new vehicles. That would of course have been for the 2000 year models. See:
formatting link
I know there's some confusion on the dates since the press release from DC regarding the ATF +4 licensing stated that ATF +4 came out in 1998!
And I also am not exactly sure about the new-start date of ATF +3 either - although that doesen't have a lot of importance in this discussion. I can say this that my 1995 factory service manual page 21-74 under the FLUID AND FILTER CHANGES states:
"...only fluids labeled MOPAR ATF PLUS Type 7176 should be used..."
no mention of ATF +3 there. Also, the ASE P2 Test Prep, here:
formatting link
lists the start dates for ATF +3 as 1998. Incidentally it lists Type 7176D as ATF +2 and Type 7176E as ATF +3.
And also I don't know much about ATF +5 other than obscure references for it on the net here and there, and the ASE test above.
Completely unrelated to the characteristics of fluid used. I'm talking about failures that are real failures where they need to be torn down, not piddly stuff that is fixed in-vehicle.
That is a problem that is definitely a fluid issue but most common is use of Dexron and/or software issues. I've not seen anyone anywhere saying that switching from ATF +3 to ATF +4 caused or solved shuddering. Lots of people do say that going to ATF +4 from Dexron fixed shuddering, or going to ATF +4 from old worn out fluid as you point out fixes shuddering.
Once again, a fluid-related issue but once more not due to use of either ATF +3 or ATF +4. Unless that is you would say that going to one or the other of those fluids would cause clutch grabbing which would wear out the clutches rapidly.
Completely unrelated to the characteristics of fluid used.
This could possibly be a issue if one or the other fluid caused seals to leak. But the most I've seen on that indicates that ATF +4 -might cause- a seal to leak, not the other way around. This does not help with the ATF +4 longevity is better argument.
How would you relate use of ATF +4 to keep this from happening?
No, very common on 1993 and earlier versions of these transmissions as Chrysler strengthened these parts in 1994 and later specifically to fix this problem. Agreed it's not a common thing in new transmissions. Once more, not fluid-related.
I know that but that wasn't the point I made.
The point I was making on the size thing is this - it is easier to make something massive that has longevity than something small that has longevity.
Gears that are thicker, bigger, with more meat on them it doesen't matter so much that the steel quality is uniform and consistent or the hardening process was done properly. With these new designs that use small gears it's critical that the gears and properly manufactured. And thus the chances of them being not meeting spec are higher.
That is a whole different argument and I don't know as how I'd agree with it. There's good and bad rebuilds, and the word rebuild is quite flexible and really doesen't have much defined meaning anyway.
I'm quite sure that there's plenty of corner mechanics out there who see perhaps 1 of these transmissions a month - or less. I don't think such a person is as ideally suited to rebuild one of these transmissions as a person who rebuilds them all day long.
Obviously from the customers POV the very best way (if they don't want to get their hands dirty) is to drive into a transmission shop that does these transmissions every day. But what if they aren't living in a big city where they can find a shop like this?
And then there's the tooling. How many corner transmission shops do you think have a trans dyno? My experience is - not many at all. OK so you can argue so what - just stick in the trans and be done with it, and if they made a mistake and something inside ruptures then the shop pulls out the trans and redoes it. I'm sure the customer will be delighted.
It's very common for garages to do R&R on a lot of different subassemblies. CV axles, now there's a good one. I think everybody uses remans from the corner auto parts store for those.
I can't see how your arguing that any of these scenarios would be improved by using ATF +4 except for scenario 2, with the argument that if you use ATF +4 it won't break down as fast so it's harder to get a scenario 2. But then you say in scenario 3 that unless the filter gets regularly replaced it plugs up. Well that is in direct conflict! In short, your saying that if we use the superior ATF +4 that doesen't cause shuddering as fast because it doesen't break down as fast that we are screwed anyway because we aren't changing the filter fast enough!
You can't have it both ways. And as far as seal leaks go - how is ATF +4 going to prevent seal leaks? We all know why seals leak - they either shrink (possibly due to fluid chemistry) or they get hard and crack (possibly due to fluid chemistry) or a bearing dies and the shaft starts wobbling and physically ruins the seal. But if it's fluid chemistry then that's an argument to continue to use ATF +3! Not to switch to a new chemistry in ATF +4!!
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 is the position of every automaker with regards to their own dealer network. How do they reconcile this to discontinuing atf
I think you missed a whole lot of the point I was making. That was one of the issues that is not fluid related. I think I said somwhere that only about 3 or 4 of the failures I mentioned were in any way related to fluid, but they are some of the MOST OFTEN REPORTED problems. And no, I don't know for sure that ATF+4 will solve some that +3 won't, but I'd bet you significantly more than the cost difference between +3 and +4 that it does a lot better at 1) stopping TC shudder, and 2) reducing dust (reducing clutch wear) than +3 does.
I agree, but as you said... what's that got to do with fluid? My point was that there are some "weaknesses" of this type of tranny that are highly fluid-dependent, so why not buy some cheap insurance and go with the better fluid?
Neither is such a person suite to rebuild a TH400 or an A727, either. I think that falls under the old "don't eat the shrimp at the Waffle House" rule.
I think you're venturing into major overkill. Transmissions are actually pretty simple when it comes to rebuilding. If you put everything together right, keep it clean, don't replace things that are in good shape (why put in a cheap chinese gear when the OEM gear is still fine?) and measure all the clearances the manual tells you to measure, the darn thing will work. I don't think I've EVER used a shop with a tranny dyno, and I've never had to take a transmission back for a short-life failure except ONCE (and I never used that shop again when I got it apart and found out what they hadn't done.... which was BLINDINGLY obvious even to me, let alone a good shop.)
Horse douvres. If that were the case, there wouldn't be a ton of parts already listed as NS-1 in the Chrysler parts system for my 1993 Vision TSi. And the kids working at the dealerships would crap their pants if they had to rebuild the carburetor on my 69 Coronet R/T. I can see it now... "Dude! Where's the diagnostic port on this thing?"
Same as I reconcile their discontinuing the throttle cable for a 1993 Vision TSi 3.5L. Or the right rear taillamp assembly for a '73 Satellite. Or the vacuum powered windshield wiper motor for my '49 Plymouth coupe.
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.