Hello, I purchased a '97 LHS with 66k miles on it. The car seems to be in pretty good shape . I got it from a dealership who didn't have any history of the car or maintenance records. After running carfax on the VIN I found out that it was initially leased by a rental car company and after that changed 2 owners.
I was thinking about changing transmission fluid, but was told by the dealer that it might not be a good idea and that it could damage the transmission since we don't knwo in what state it is (it does shift well). Is there any truth to this? Since I don't know what kind of maintenance was done to this car before, could someone suggest what should I tell the mechanic to inspect when I bring it there (this is not the dealer mechanic as I managed to negotiate a really low price which in turn cancelled any warranty on the car)?
I agree with changing the fluids, even (especially) the tranny fluid. The dealer is thinking of pressure flushing the tranny when they say it could cause problems. The solution is to never pressure flush a tranny, especially if it has some mileage on it and you don't know it's previous flushing history. Flush it by disconnecting the cooler return line and letting the tranny's built in pump pump the fluid out (as you replenish from above) so it doesn't create any problems by disturbing residue that can get caught in delicate spool valves, ports, and such.
Oh - and drop the pan and replace the filter. Use only the metal replacement gasket *or* the Chrysler recommended tranny pan sealer (not just generic silicone sealer) - metal gasket is less mess and risk, and reuseable.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
IF it had 150,000 miles on it and you didn't know the service done in the past, that would be different, but at your mileage, CHANGE the fluid & filter in the tranny and all the other fluids where applicable.
Thanks, can you suggest what type of oil should I buy and bring to the mechanic to change? I don't know if this engine is 'built for' synthetic or not and what grade is recommended (I don't have the car manual). I still have a few gallons of brand new Mobil1 10w-30 synthetic left that I used to sip in my previous car.
Also what type of tranny fluid and engine coolant would you recommend? This is my first automatic so I don't have any experiences with this.
I'll admit to no having had many automatics apart, only have done a complete rebuild on one, but I've never seen one that had enough sludge inside to cause a problem from a flush. Transmissions don't get the build-ups that an engine gets from the combustion byproducts. And if the tranny has enough sludge to cause a problem with a good flush, then I'll suggest that it needs a complete rebuild anyway.
Many people swear that synthetic oil is 1000 times superior and will stop all wear on your engine, allow you to run the oil for tens of thousands of miles with just filter changes, reduce pollution and save the planet, and get you elected Queen of the May.
If your in this boat then go ahead, if it gives you peace of mind it's cheaper than paying a counselor.
But the only really clear benefit that everyone agrees on is that synthetic has superior cold-start properties, particulary if your in the northern climes where the temp goes below zero many times during the winter.
I personally have had 2 vehicles I've own throw rods. (throwing a rod is one of the few engine failures that really points the finger to oiling problems) and in both cases, rebuilders I queried about it said that both of the engines had known oiling problems, ie: oil passages drilled too small at the factory. Neither rebuilder put any credence in synthetic oil, and in fact the one rebuilder I used to rebuild the engine in one of the vehicles, stated specifically that the warranty would be voided if an "extended oil change interval" scheme was followed. (such schemes are typically propounded by synthetic oil adherants) He didn't care what kind of oil was used as long as it meet manufacturers recommendations. (he also drilled out the oil passages that were too small)
Some research that has been done and is available on the web on this topic seems to show that standard non-synthetic oil will last up to 12,000 miles before breaking down and needing to be changed, so I fail to see the justification for using synthetic oil just to obtain extended oil change intervals, since you could do it with regular oil just the same, if you believe in that sort of thing.
From a cost standpoint as synthetic oil costs about $5 a quart and regular oil costs about $1 a quart, there is tremendous pressure on synthetic oil adherants to claim extended drain intervals, in order to make the total cost of synthetic on par with regular oil. I frankly feel that this makes most extended drain interval claims for synthetic rather suspect.
Since you have the oil already, don't waste it. Use it.
Common knowledge in the industry suggests what I said - not that common knowledge is always right ('cause 90% of the tranny shops will also tell you that you can use Dexron? in the LH trannies which I know isn't right). Albeit anecdotal, I've seen too many posts about problems after pressure flushing and not after flushing the "natural" way.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Visen, I am going to put a link here that you should read:
formatting link
and under Fair Use I am going to quote the entire article. In summary, AMSOIL's claim that their ATF is rated for ATF +4 is a lie, because Chrysler has only approved a single additive supplier to supply the additive that ATF +4 requires, and that supplier is not selling this additive to fluid manufacturers.
Please note that your LHS transmission will undoubtedly be fine with ATF +3 which is sold by several oil companies, among them Chevron and Valvoline. That fluid is probably specified in your owners manual.
The situation is so bad that the Independent Lubricant Manufacturer's Association, the ILMA
formatting link
issued a complaint letter to Chrysler, and isencouraging members tocontact the association's lawyer. (most likely to prepare a class actionlawsuit under antitrust)That is what the article referenced above is all about. Please also note that AMSOIL is a member company of ILMA, per the following:
formatting link
"...ILMA Seeks Meeting with DaimlerChrysler on ATFs
ILMA this week has requested a meeting with DaimlerChrysler Corporation (DCC) to discuss members' concerns with restrictions on their access to the Chrysler ATF+4 (Type 9602) automatic transmission fluid. The Association has received member complaints that they have been unsuccessful in purchasing either the additive system approved for the ATF+4 (Type 9602) fluid or the finished fluid itself. In its letter to DCC, ILMA said that independent lubricant manufacturers who compete successfully with OEM-branded oil programs are being competitively injured, in part, because a June 29, 2001 technical service bulletin issued by DCC recommends the use of this fluid in all Chrysler vehicles with few exceptions.
ILMA members have told the Association that they have been unable to purchase the additive system approved for the ATF+4 (Type 9602) fluid from the additive company that has the sole approval from DCC for the additive system. These ILMA members also have attempted to purchase the finished ATF+4 (Type 9602) fluid from the major oil company that manufactures it for DCC. This major oil company has told these ILMA members that DCC has not approved the release of the fluid for resale.
Any ILMA members experiencing this problem are asked to contact ILMA Counsel Jeff Leiter at 703-752-1080 or at snipped-for-privacy@cavtel.net...."
That explains why it is hard to get ATF+4 fluid. I do not know what additives AMSOIL uses or how it is formulated. It has been tested and meets or exceeds the performance specifications of Chrysler ATF+4
No seriously, he really does have a link on the Amsoil website. If you go to the Amsoil website and click around on it, some of the pages come up with a graphic that is a link to his business. I was a bit surprised to see this. I'd imagine that he had to pay upwards of a grand a month for that link, he must be selling a lot of the stuff. That's why I asked.
Saying that Amsoil is tested to meet or exceed the performance specifications of Chrysler ATF +4 is in the realm of possibility. I do believe that it is highly improbable however, because Amsoil claims their transmission fluid also substitutes for Dexron III, and Dexron III and Mopar ATF +4 have very different frictional coefficients. A transmission fluid cannot have 1 frictional coefficient in 1 transmission, and another frictional coefficient in another. For more information on this, please refer to the following link:
formatting link
Granted, it's full of testimonials but Amsoil seems to like this, despite the fact that testimonials aren't worth a fig, but near the bottom of the page is a somewhat dumbed-down explanation of why you cannot use Dexron in a Chrysler tranny that calls for ATF +3 or ATF +4.
Of course it is possible for Amsoil to be made to match frictional coefficients of ATF +4. In that case, however, it would be WRONG for transmissions that require Dexron III. That is why I say it's in the realm of possibility. However, I feel it is extremely improbable because the fluid additive for ATF +4 is restricted (according to the article) however the fluid additive for Dexron III is not. (because many people make Dexron III) It is most probable that Amsoil Transmission Fluid is just another Dexron III-compatible fluid.
However, the biggest problem isn't whether Amsoil has reverse-engineered the ATF +4 additive and is making a compatible fluid. The biggest problem is that Amsoil dealers like you are claiming that Amsoil ATF is RATED for ATF
+4 and ATF +3.
Saying that Amsoil ATF is rated for ATF +4 implies that Chrysler has certified it for ATF +4, (as much as Chrysler will certify anything) and in the absense of that it implies that there's some kind of standards body that has applied a rating of ATF +4 on the fluid. This is pretty much fraud in my book. There is no such rating body for ATF +4 because ATF +4 fluid is custom-designed for Chrysler who has signed an exclusivity deal with the sole supplier of the additive system designed for ATF +4, which prohibits that oil company from selling the ATF
+4 base.
Furthermore, ATF +3 and ATF +4 are both registered trademarks of Chrysler. Amsoil doesen't even properly attribute this with a (R) on it's website, and almost certainly Amsoil hasn't sought approval from Chrysler for their fluids to be marked ATF +3 or ATF +4. While you can get away with only an attribution on sales literature, (since the courts have generally ruled that sales literature is considered a pack of lies) you cannot use someone's registered trademark on a _PRODUCT_ without their permission. It makes me wonder what the actual bottles of Amsoil ATF say. If they have the mark "ATF +3" or "ATF +4" listed ANYWHERE on the bottle, even on the back in the fine print, Amsoil must have permission from Chrysler for this, which quite obviously they do not. And if ATF +3 or ATF +4 isn't on the bottle then legally the product inside the bottle does not need to meet either ATF +3 or ATF +4 standards, despite what lies may be on any accompanying sales literature.
Frankly, I think that there's some grounds for IMLA to boot Amsoil off it's membership roles, it's amazing that someone hasn't complained yet. For Amsoil to go to the general public and claim to be selling ATF +4 compatible ATF, then privately though ILMA bitch to Chrysler that they can't buy the additive system for ATF +4 is pretty two-faced.
Because every Amsoil dealer claims Amsoil is the leader in synthetics, so there must be a lot of Amsoil sold to make that claim, don't you think? Well if Amsoil links to anyone who sells it for free, then they wouldn't have enough space on their website to link to everyone, cause every one of those dealers and retailers is going to demand a link.
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.