A bit of research on the ATF +3 ATF +4 issue

Do a google search on this ng - it's been discussed a lot.

Bottom line is that the latest Chrysler TSB on the subject (2001 IIRC) says to use ATF+4 in *ALL* Chrysler vehicles regardless of what came in them *EXCEPT* for '99 and earlier minivans (due to wear-in issues of the torque converter clutch).

Some posters on this ng have further claimed that the dealers are now actually using ATF+4 in the minivans too since the torque converter clutches would be worn in by now. Assuming that is true, it is not clear if they are using ATF+4 in the minivans contrary to the TSB based on their own logic about the wear-in, or if they've gotten some informal okee-dokee from Chrysler (in which case you'd think a new TSB would have been issued, but who knows).

If by "compatible" you mean "can they be mixed?" (as in top-off ATF+3 with ATF+4), I think the answer is "yes".

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

Correction: The answer is "definitely yes".

Here is a quote from that TSB (#21-006-01): "NOTE :ATF+4(R) IS COMPATIBLE WITH ATF+3 AND CAN BE USED TO TOP OFF VEHICLES THAT CURRENTLY HAVE ATF+2 OR ATF+3. DO NOT USE ATF+2 OR ATF+3 TO TOP OFF VEHICLES THAT HAVE ATF+4(R) FLUID.

HTH

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

That was originally the case for the new Chrysler extend life coolant too: you could only purchase it at a Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep dealer. Other coolants available at an auto parts store were not compatible with the Chrysler ext. life fluid (even those with similar colors or similar claims, such as dex-cool). Now the manufacturer (Zerex) sells the G-05 stuff directly, and you can purchase it in stores. I believe Ford also now uses the same formula, so the G-05 is good for new Fords that use this formula too. Only difference is the color: Mopar brandedis red/orange, Zerex branded is gold. I expect the same to eventually happen to the ATF+4 fluid. And even if it isn't, I don't mind paying a little more fluid that works very well with the new transmissions.

Of course they are. Chrysler paid them to develop it. However, such contracts almost always have a sunset date, as we saw with Zerex G-05 coolant.

That is incorrect under U.S. copyright/trademark laws. While you can't label your product with somebody else's trademark for sure, you certainly CAN reference their trademark for purposes of comparison.

Look, Ted, you've tried to get folks to agree with you that the price of ATF+4 is a scandal three or four separate times now, this year alone. It should by now be blindingly obvious even to you that *you are the only one who gives a crap*, and since you don't even have a vehicle that calls for this fluid, why don't you pour yourself a nice, steaming hot mug of shut the hell up!

DS

My '96 and 2000 Neons both have a three speed hydraulic 31TH Transmission, which is very similar if not identical to the three speed A-413 in my '88 & '89 K cars, which is probably the same as the '81 K car.

The Ks call for Mopar ATF fluid type 7176 (or Dexron II in a pinch), the '96 calls for Mopar ATF PLUS type 7176. The 2000 calls for ATF +4.

I have a suspicion ATF +3 would work in the 2000 Neon. I could probably put it in and not have a problem, but I can't. If I go in later for transmission problems, and they find ATF +3 in it, they may pass the blame on to me.

This was discussed a while back on i-ATN, although I don't remember the specifics, apparently there is a special service tool (machine) for re-filling them thru the drain plug in the pan.

I've seen this discussion and apparently someone designed a simple tool that is run by compressed air that will fill them.

It's a weird design IMHO but not that much different than a manual transmission.

Ted

Hey, wait a minute. In your last post you said the fluid manufacturer spent the money on R&D. Now your saying that DamlierChrysler spent the money? Which is it?

If as your _now_ saying, DC paid for the R&D, then there wouldn't be any incentive for them to include a sunset date. If the fluid manufacturer paid for the R&D, there would be.

Now your just grasping at straws.

There's a grey area between referencing someone's trademark on the product packaging or the product itself for purposes of comparison, and someone elses' trademark being used to sell a product. There has to be a clear statement that the trademark doesen't belong to the product. A line such as "This product is equivalent to ATF+4 (TM)" followed by a statement "ATF+4 is a registered trademark of DamlierChrysler" might pass legal muster, but your taking a big risk of provoking a legal battle, as well as pissing off one of your larger customers. Besides, unless it's prominently displayed on the front of the bottle, the customer isn't going to normally read the fine print of every bottle of ATF on the shelf, looking for this line. And if it's prominently displayed, DC could successfully argue that it's being used to promote the product.

This is why you usually see comparisons done in supplemental literature such as sales lit.

Ted

Daniel your reasoning is self-defeating. The fact that you responded shows that somebody - you - does care. Thus your assertion that nobody cares is invalid.

Yes, I admit that I believe that manufacturers conspiring to set prices is evil. Doesen't everyone?

And as to whether or not it makes any difference that I don't have a vehicle that calls for this fluid, that is immaterial to the discussion. Are you saying that you yourself have absolutely no opinions of any sort on anything that does not directly affect you? Yah, right, I'll believe it when I see it.

If you really want to support your posted responses, then why don't you give a reasoned explanation as to why we all should pay Chrysler extra money for transmission fluid that we ought to be able to buy off the shelf at any decent auto parts store. Or are you now going to take the position that it's a good thing for manufacturers to sole-source everything for all cars that they produce? Kind of flies in the face of your own recommendations to swap out the manufacturer's lighting systems on vehicles, don't you think?

Ted

Depends on what you mean by the term compatible. In terms of mixing, yes. But they are not compatible in terms of having the same characteristics, otherwise you could use either kind of fluid interchangably in all Chrysler transmissions that call for either fluid.

Ted

Ted, how about posting the kinetic and brookfield viscosity numbers for DC ATF+4 as well as the labelled ATF+4 from Havoline, Valvoline, and Amsoil ATF.

Yes, there are makers who are selling branded ATF+4 tranny fluid. I can get a 10 quart pail of the stuff for less then $60-.

I think it was pretty clear both in the context of Warren's original question and in the exact quote from the TSB which you snipped and therefore removed the context. Go back and read it again.

From the TSB, it was made clear in both of my posts that (1) The ATF+3 can be drained and ATF+4 put in in its place, and (2) ATF+4 can be used to top off ATF+3. Is there another scenario that needs to be covered other than those two?

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

You are committing a false dichotomy fallacy. Typically in these situations (vendor arrangement) there is cost sharing so the answer is both.

See above. Again, think of the Zerex G-05 example I gave you above.

But my straws are well saturated in a cup of facts.

Gray area is not a problem at all. Jurisprudence on this is quite clear.

Not at all. Follow the guidelines of the law and you are fine.

But you would only be doing so with the support of your larger customer in the first place, assuming you are their supplier, so that is a non-issue.

All they have to do is state that product abc meets the specifications of xyz car company. If that car company doesn't like it, than they would need to prove why it didn't meet their specifications.

I've had to work with the lawyers about trademark issues enough times to know what works and what doesn't without getting sued. Your positions have no basis in the law. But go ahead, make your own fluid and use it. I'll stick with what I know works, and I'm not going to jeopardize a transmission for a few bucks in fluid purchases.

OK, so first it was the fluid guys paid for it. Next it was DC paid for it. Now it's both of them paid for it.

If there's a time limit, then why didn't the lubrication article mention so?

Duh! I only said that in the beginning. DC does not want ATF+4 out there, they are the largest customer of it for the 2 suppliers that make it, thus those suppliers have no support from their largest customer. I think you just argued yourself into agreeing with me.

Anyone can get sued over anything. Your talking about what works without getting a lawsuit that is found against you.

Apparently you must not put any stock in the idea that harassment lawsuits that are unwinnable are never filed by companies.

Ted

Can ATF+3 be used in new Chrysler trannies that are factory-filled with ATF+4? No. Thus, they do not have the same characteristics. If they did, then Chrysler would have no basis for the claim that ATF+3 cannot be used to fill ATF+4 trannies (or top them off)

Thus, as I said, ATF+3 and ATF+4 are not compatible in terms of having the same characteristics (ie: being interchangeable)

Ted

No argument there.

Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

There is no labeled ATF+4 from Havoline or Valvoline. There is labelled ATF+3 from Havoline and Valvoline. The kinetic and brookfield viscosity numbers for all of them (including Amsoil) are not identical and are available on the list of links in my original post. I could not find viscosity numbers for the Mopar ATF+4

Name them. Every fluid manufacturer I could find that sells ATF+ only sell branded ATF+3. Only Mopar sells branded ATF+4. A few synthetic ATF manufacturers claim compatability with ATF+4 but they do not use the ATF+4 trademark on the bottle in any way that a customer would believe they are buying ATF+4.

Ted

I respectfully disagree with your conclusions about the ATF+4 fluid.