90 Grand Voyager Transmission fluid

1. Don't Flush.
2. Do change fluid and filter.
3. Use ATF+3.

Richard

I agree. The TSB about fluid says that 1999 and before minivans should not use ATF+4. I am curious as to why earlier minivans are excluded.

-Kirk Matheson

The transmission controller module or TCM does not need to be replaced unless it is defective which is probably quite rare. However, you might want to make very, very sure that it has the latest software upgrade.

Reman. Part No. Vehicle Application - Software ID Year Body Type

Engine R4686606AA 04686606 95 AJ,AS,A1,A3,A4,ES 3.0, 3.3 & 3.8L R5269726AA 05269726 95 FJ 2.0 & 2.5L R4797708AA 04797708 95 LH 3.3 & 3.5L R4686478AA 04686606 93-94 A,C,J,P,S,Y 3.0, 3.3 & 3.8L R4759066AA 04797708 93-94 LH 3.3 & 3.5L R4761848AA 04796123 92 A,C,G,J,S,Y 3.0L R4761849AA 04796124 92 C,S,Y 3.3L & 3.8L R4761847AA 04796122 90-91 C,S,Y 3.3 & 3.8L R4761846AA 04796121 89-91 A,C,G,J,S,Y 3.0L

"I am using TSB 18-020-02 Flash Programming Failure Recovery, which supersedes TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN 18-32-98, which in turn supersedes the original TSB-18-24-95, involving the TCM: "exhibit a pronounced shudder during EMCC operation, harsh up/down-shifts, and/or harsh torque converter clutch engagements.""

About the ATF+3 or ATF+4. There might be some problem that older trannies might not have all their seals able to handle synthetic fluids, like ATF+4. Some on this forum suggest that this is not the case any more. And some have used ATF+4 in their older vehicles. I, myself, asked for ATF+3. It may not have the better slippery qualities of ATF+4 and I might have to change a tad more often because it does not have the robustness of a purely synthetic or mostly synthetic oil, but then I do know that my tranny was made with ATF+3 in mind and ATF+4 was not yet in existence.

You may have the new style controller. If you know what it looks like see if it has fins. If not it would be adviseable to get the new style one regardless of whether the old one is ok. Re. flushing if done right it's fine you could use +4 with no issues. This has been beaten to death but +4 is all many dealers even stock. Your trans will be fine with it. The thing will be if you only drop the pan than buying +4 is not going to get you anything. If you do flush you can have the tech drop the pan too and replace the filter and gasket along with the new controller and latest software with

Chrysler has informed us that the friction characteristics between the two are quite different. If a pre-1999 transmission has to go through a computer retraining cycle the use of +4 in such transmission can lead to clutch chatter which can injure the clutch. But for this little problem it appears that +4 is the superior product.

Richard.

Could you please explain your rationale for the comment below on "why this does not buy you anything?" Your other advice and comments seemed accurate, but I do not understand how replacing just over half the fluid with +4, replacing the filter, cleaning off the magnet, and getting all the sludge off the bottom of the pan could be doing "nothing". Thanks.

Bob

why not?

I understand the argument for using ATF+3 on earlier (pre-1999) voyager models. But this is a reman transmission put on my voyager in Augest, 2000. Thanks again, Ted

Because!

I work for a Used Car Dealer. We flushed three trannies, and then replaced three trannies within 5 weeks after flushing! All we do now is a typical drain and fill. If the customer says the fluid looks bad, we drian and fill again. Haven't had a single tranny come back since.

It was probably rebuilt to original spec and filled with +3. I have been told you CAN mix +3 and +4, but I'd just go with one or the other. Since the manual says +3, I'd stick with +3.

Once you remove the pan, you can't miss it.