atf+3/4?

I was going to rerference one that came out in 2001, but in checking, I see that a new one has replaced it. The latest one is #21-004-04.

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

That's not the whole story. The recommendation for many pre-99 vehicles is for ATF+4. ATF+4 did not exist until beginning of MY 99 (or thereabouts). The years for which ATF+4 is now recommended goes back to

1989 probably for a dozen models listed in the TSB (my guess is back to the first year of existence for most of the model names listed).

While many of them may still be able to use ATF+2 or 3, the TSB says that ATF+4 is *recommended* for the ones listed.

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

tell that to my cousin...

i have been telling him that it matters but he says they are all the same

Let the old man enjoy his moment in the sun! Facts befuddle him and you aren't helping matters any.

Daniel likes to geeze, pure and simple. What's wrong with that? We'll all do it, someday.

doc

So, your cousin's a f****it. Fine. Let him toast his own transmission, then he'll learn.

i just want something that says that just to show him

there are so many conflicting things and everybody says something different that i just want real proof :(

Horseshit. There is no "conflicting" information. EVERY credible source says to use the fluid specified by the manufacturer, that is ATF+3 or +4, depending on model year. NO credible information says to do otherwise.

Does that mean that I can use atf+3/4 in my Fluid-Drive?

Which Chrysler sources of information are in conflict? If you are looking at any sources other than Chrysler, then you are barking up the wrong tree and any information you get is suspect and likely you will see conflicts.

Matt

The problem will be in determining the credible from the non-credible sources. When I checked with several shops on having them do a fluid/filter change on my '99, all but one shop told me they would use Dexron? with an additive because it was claimed by the "experts" to be equivalent to the Chrysler fluids.

So the argument he's going to have with his cousin is who is credible and who is not. The guys in the business (the shops and the additive manufacturers) would appear to have credibility on the subject even though they're dead wrong - that's going to be a hard argument to win. Being right and proving are two different things. There's probably sales and "technical" literature out there that says that Dexron? with an additive is equivalent to the Chrysler fluid. There's the rub (on the credibility issue).

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

Not from where I sit. The automaker trumps every other source of "information", and the automaker says to use +3 or +4 depending on year and model.

I don't see where they appear to have credibility, except to the bonebrained cousin in question.

The proof is when cousin Idjit burns out his transmission. To paraphrase Pascal's Wager, the consequences of believing in Chrysler and being wrong are far easier to swallow than the consequences of disbelieving in Chrysler and being wrong. ;-)

What could be more creditable than the owners manual and the Chrysler Factory Service Manual? Nothing. That puts the matter to rest.

Did your Fluid-Drive originally call for Type A transmission fluid? If so, then ATF+3 or +4 is almost certainly acceptable, because it supersedes everything back through Dexron I, II, and III to Type A. I think a lot of fluid-drives used engine oil, however, and in that case ATF+3/4 is not acceptable.

I was just joking, trying to insert some non-vulgar humor into this thread. Chrysler Fluid-Drive, 1939-1952 used 10W oil in the unit! Semi-automatic M6 transmission, 1949 Chrysler Windsor 6.

Au contraire! The TSB supercedes the service information that came out when the vehicle was made. While ATF+3 should work fine, ATF+4, which didn't exist when many of the vehicles listed in the TSB were designed and built, is really a better fluid.

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

The source of the TSB is the automaker. No conflict here.

With all due respect, in your first post, you said "Why do you need a TSB? That requirement is in every service manual, every owner's manual, on the dipstick, etc." Steve said "What could be more creditable than the owners manual and the Chrysler Factory Service Manual? Nothing."

My whole point has been that, contrary to what you and Steve were saying, the TSB info. supersedes that in the manuals (owner's and factory service). Good: What the manuals recommend. Best: What the TSB recommends (when manual and TSB give different recommendations). 8^)

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

Dig through the archives. This question has come up before. When it did a year or so ago I did some research out on the Internet and the credible sources that are out there and are non-Chrysler also say to use ATF+3 and +4. They also discuss the differences between it and Dexron and there are differences.

The one thing that your cousin may be able to do is substitute ATF+3 for ATF+4. As ATF+3 is sold over the counter and ATF+4 is only sold through the dealership this may save some money. Naturally Chrysler recommends only ATF+4 in new vehicles.

But the catch is that ATF+4 is synthetic while ATF+3 is not. Thus you have to change the fluid more frequently with ATF+3 than with ATF+4 so the savings are probably nil over the long term.

Please also note that all transmission repair places have a financial interest in believing that Dexron and ATF+3/ATF+4 are the same thing, or are the same thing with a friction modifier added.. So you really cannot give any credibility to the ones that do claim this. Not all do, however.

Ted