Preventive maintenance for A604 transmission

failures that were really

And somehow those didn't trickle down to the dealers?

Chrysler knew darn well what their dealers were doing, did they suspend any dealers for lying to customers? Did Chrysler corporation ever override any dealers decision NOT to pay for replacement of a transmission post-warranty?

There's a conduit of information between the engineering people and the sales people in any organization. When things work, the information flows from engineeing to sales - but when a companies bottom line is at stake that conduit dries up.

All Chrysler had to do was sit on their hands and let their dealers lie and cheat the public. Which they did. They could have run a recall campaign if they had wanted to but they chose not to. Oh sure, a few savvy owners caught wise, but Joe Blow and Sally Schmoe wouldn't have ever picked up a TSB or engineering paper to even know about this, let alone tell the dealer that was claiming they needed a rebuilt transmission that it was a design flaw.

You seem to think that companies never do anything unless they have some sort of "conspiracy" setup. Leadership comes from the top in any organization be it company or government - if the CEO ignores problems the rank and file gets the message that this is what they should be doing too.

Absolute rubbish. Anyone can read the Chrysler Service/ Diagnostic Procedures and Refinements manual, from Chrysler, for this transmission and make their own decisions.

Works both ways, Dan. You display an incomplete knowledge of what components AREN'T dependent on fluid.

But since you seem to want the info handed to you, here's some quotes from the trans manual, page 615, to illustrate what I'm talking about:

12.11 1998 Model Year Refinements

Rear annulus gear material revised from Malleable Iron to 4207 steel for increased strength

Front carrier hub spline induction hardened for improved spline wear

L/R clutch snap ring/reaction plate is 0.016 thicher to improve durability and a step added to L/R reaction plate to accept thicker snap ring

There's a lot more than that, but that's OK Dan, go ahead and keep believing that fluid composition had anything to do with those design changes.

Because I didn't get my information from a bunch of sales literature, perhaps?

That's a lot of waffling on your part. How are heat and friction exactly going to snap a weld? Welds are supposed to be stronger than the base material that they are welding together. And if that was true then all the other gears that mesh into that gear should show evidence of this same wear.

But don't take my advice, I'll just quote another section out of the transmission manual from Chrysler, page 614, 12.9.5

"Rear carrier: Changes to the cup and plate of the rear carrier allowed a stronger 360 degree weld instead of the previous segmented weld."

But I'll give you this much, that change wasn't on the sun gear.

And, there are ways to detect flawed welds - are you arguing that Chrysler shouldn't use these techniques when manufacturing parts?

I didn't. What I claimed is that the difference between ATF+4 and the fluid it replaced, ATF+3, was not significant enough to add huge amounts of life to this transmission design.

What I claimed is that if you use ATF+3 and follow the severe duty schedule (schedule B) for ATF+3 changes, which is 30K miles in my manual, you get the same level of protection as if you follow the severe duty schedule for ATF+4 changes, which I believe is

60K miles, but I do not have a service manual for a vehicle that came factory filled with ATF+4 to check that figure.

I also claimed that Chrysler has an incentive to switch everyone over to ATF+4 because they have a monopoly on it, and so with this incentive I don't trust documents from Chrysler that claim that if you use ATF+4 that your transmission is going to last a lot longer.

I am fully aware that the majority of people don't work on their own cars and so the economics of the labor to pay someone to change the transmission fluid may make the cost difference between ATF +3 at shorter change intervals, and ATF+4 at longer change intervals actually work out that the labor far outweighs fluid costs, so it would make sense to go with ATF+4

I am also aware Chrysler doesen't sell ATF+3 to it's dealers anymore so if you get your servicing done at a dealer, you don't have a choice anyway.

They could have back when this transmission was introduced. They did with the 3.3/3.8L engine, they went with a very conservative design using pushrods of all things, rather than a more modern OHC, not that I'm complaining about that, of course.

And, as for weight and economy, well have you ever lifted the back seat from a 90's Caravan? The thing weighs a ton. Don't you think it might have been just a bit smarter to shave those pounds from something that you take out and put back in a lot more than a transmission? They did later on with the stow and go seats.

If it didn't exist elsewhere then Lubeguard's "fluid modifier" in a bottle wouldn't exist. Other people than me have seen that this is somewhat of a scam to get you to spend your fluid dollars at Chrysler rather than at the aftermarket. It is unfortunate they have chosen to go the Dexron/Lubeguard route, instead of simply buying ATF+3 from the aftermarket.

I have a scan tool as you probably recall, what test would you like me to run?

Why is it so hard for you to understand how the automobile industry works? This statement is true for every single auto manufacturer in the world.

Ted

Did that manual really say 4207 or is that just your typo?

Oh, look, it's time once again for Ted's little pretense(?) of having the mentality of an 8-year-old. Y'see, Ted, sometimes not-very-nice people do not-very-nice things, like spuriously blaming the user for the failure of an inadequately-engineered machine. Really *really* bad people do that even when they know they're fibbing.

Well, gosh, Teddy, you're the one claiming *I* don't know how the auto industry works...!

Yes, very good. Very *very* good. It seems you do understand after all. Very fine. So, which side of the argument would you like to take? It'll have to be one or the other, not both.

I do? How interesting, given that I'm the one saying "ATF+4 was introduced to extend the useful life of the transmissions, and here's the engineering paper that proves it", while you're the one saying "ATF+4 was introduced so Chrysler wouldn't lose money to the aftermarket fluid vendors."

Well, I'm sure even the likes of you can sound-out the hard words. The difficulty, Ted, is that not every running change is fully explicated to allow Ted Mittelst=E6dt to pontificate upon the smokescreen nature of the engineering paper about ATF+4. The service and diagnostic manuals are written so as to supply the necessary amount and level of information to enable a technician to (Class? anyone?) diagnose and service the transmission. They are _NOT_ engineering records!

Alright, let's copy in sci.engr.tribology and sci.engr.materials and get a rousing conversation going about lubricity and wear characteristics of given materials against other given materials, wanna?

Directly, of course, they won't. One of the things you'll come to understand as your reading skill develops -- if it ever does -- is that there is meaning in written texts that goes beyond the individual definitions of the words strung together to make the sentences and paragraphs. Unfortunately for the likes of you, this means you must put on your thinking cap when reading, so that you won't make an ass of yourself when you blurt out fatuous nonsense that could only come from disregarding any but the words' individual definitions.

Multiple choice:

If a weld is going to fail, it is most likely to fail when:

A) The welded components are under relatively low levels of mechanical and thermal stress B) The welded components are under relatively high levels of mechanical and thermal stress C) Neither; the weld is equally likely to fail regardless of mechanical and thermal stress levels

Sound policy. I follow it religiously.

Not sure why you're giving it to me...I've never claimed the sun gear wasn't changed.

There certainly are. Most of them do not involve physical attributes that "anybody can see".

If you can find where I've made any such an argument, I'll send you $10.

And I provided engineering-level proof from Chrysler that you're wrong. You then dismissed that proof as a PR exercise on Chrysler's part. Would you care to recant?

And this claim is without any basis other than your own opinion.

Powertrain packaging and weight restrictions were such that they could not, as evidenced by the high failure rates and extreme nature of the failures in most manufacturers' analogous 4-speed automatic transaxles, compared to those same manufacturers' earlier designs from an era when there was considerably less pressure to make the transmission as compact and lightweight as possible *and* provide as many gear ratios as possible.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Transmissions don't have to meet crash standards, while seats do. But the seats don't enter into this discussion unless you're into comparing the stains left by ATF+3 and by ATF+4.

Non-sequitur. There exist many thousands of products that exist for no good reason. Many hundreds in the automotive fluid-and-chemical sector alone.

That's certainly your perception, but you'll simply have to excuse those who perceive you as talking out of your ignorant, myopic ass.

I am sure I don't care what you do with your scan tool, or what you think it tells you.

Riiiight, Ted. I'm the one who doesn't understand how the auto industry works.

It's been fun, but I think it's probably getting on for your naptime now, so...sweet dreams!