My wife was in the hospital, and I guess that I was preoccupied. I had gotten so used to using the ATF +3 in my 95 Caravan that I accidentally used it for a fluid and filter change in her 99 Concorde instead of the synthetic ATF +4. I feel that I need to get as much of this ATF +3 out of her car as possible.
Could I put a piece of tightly fitted tubing from the filter hole into a bucket of 6 quarts of fresh atf+4, and run the vehicle until the fresh fluid has all been sucked into the transmission, and the old fluid has been pumped out of the tube of the cooler? Is there any flaw in that logic? Not flushing with a machine, per se, just switching whatever is left in the torque converter using the transmission pump...
Also, I noticed that the last time that the transmission fluid was changed, they didn't put an o-ring on the filter tube going into the hole. I checked inside of the hole and around the tube, but there was nothing. Isn't there supposed to be one there? My Caravan's did.
yes, the O-ring makes the seal on the trans filter and should likely have been there.
On the ATF+3 versus ATF+4, I would not worry about it. If it were me, I'd leave it in there till it was changed down the road in about another 25-30K miles. FYI, ATF+3 was the non-synthetic predecessor and was probably used in that same transmission when it came from the factory in 1998 or 1999.
I've read a lot of the others feedback and feel they are being overly critical on you. Yes, the ATF+4 is the preferred fluid and should be used, but given the ATF+3 is already in there, I say leave it be. If you want to, just change it sooner.
I know that ATF+3 and ATF+4 are inter mixable and compatible with each other as I have used the newer ATF+4 in my vehicles that all came originally with ATF+3. You usually get about half the fluid capacity when you change the fluid using the drop the pan method. You don't say what they used when they changed it previously or what it came with when new. But, at the worst, you now have about 2/3 ATF+3 in the unit.
I went back through my drain pans, and found the o-ring... good news!
I'm using the cork right now, and it's holding well. I bought an aftermarket filter just to get the gasket. The last one that I bought for my Caravan had a hard, fiber gasket that really worked well. I'm not as thrilled with the cork one, however. This cork one works for now, but I am aware that it might start leaking long term.
I've had problems with the RTV grey that you're supposed to use, because the transmission will continue to leak fluid over the edge, no matter how long it sits. I don't like the fluid being in that place where the RTV is touching the pan and face of the tranny.
I'm pretty experimental with my vehicles, and I've never come out with any problems. I just try to use common sense when dealing with issues such as dealer vs. generic, etc.
With the touchy nature of Chrysler transmissions, I want to make sure that I do this right, but I don't want to go overboard, either. I'm in a holding pattern right now.
SUBJECT: New Automatic Transmission Fluid Usage (ATF +4 Type 9602)
**NOTE: THIS INFORMATION APPLIES TO MODELS AS FOLLOWS:**
MODELS BUILD DATE **GS****AFTER NOVEMBER 8, 1999 (MDH1108XX)** JA AFTER SEPTEMBER 7, 1998 (MDH0907XX) **JX****AFTER MAY 21, 1999 (MDH0521XX)** LH AFTER JULY 20, 1998 (MDH0720XX) **NS****AFTER OCTOBER 10, 1999 (MDH1010XX) WINDSOR ASSY PLANT****AFTER OCTOBER 18, 1999 (MDH1018XX) ST LOUIS ASSY PLANT** 11TH POSITION OF VIN - R = WINDSOR/B = ST LOUIS **PL****AFTER APRIL 24, 1999 (MDH0424XX)** PR AFTER JULY 20, 1998 (MDH0720XX)
DISCUSSION: A new transmission fluid (ATF +4 - Type 9602) has been developed and is being used as a factory fill in the above models. **Plants that build rear wheel drive models (other than Prowler) will introduce ATF +4 throughout the
2000 calendar year.** This Technical Service Bulletin will be updated as additional models are introduced to ATF +4.
**Always refer to this, or vehicle specific TSB's for the correct transmission fluid usage whenever performing service that requires fluid for
1999 or later models.**
NOTE: ATF +4 MUST ALWAYS BE USED IN VEHICLES THAT WERE ORIGINALLY FILLED WITH ATF +4. USING ATF +3 IN THESE VEHICLES WILL DECREASE THE BENEFITS OF THIS NEW FLUID.
AT THIS TIME, VEHICLES ORIGINALLY FILLED WITH ATF +2 OR ATF +3 SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE SERVICED WITH ATF +3 - TYPE 7176. **VEHICLE SPECIFIC TSB'S WILL BE ISSUED TO ANNOUNCE THE USE OF ATF +4 FOR EARLIER YEARS.**
The p/n for quarts of ATF +4 is 05013457AA. Following are the added benefits of ATF +4:
RECOMMENDED SERVICE INTERVALS
a.. Normal Maintenance (Schedule A) - None (Fill For Life) b.. Severe Maintenance (Schedule B) - Fluid/Filter 77,000 km (48,000 miles) ADDITIONAL BENEFITS
a.. Better anti-wear properties b.. Improved rust/corrosion prevention c.. Controls oxidation d.. Eliminates deposits e.. Controls friction f.. Retains anti-foaming properties g.. Superior properties for low temperature operation FLUID COLOR
a.. ATF +4 is red in color as previously used transmission fluid. NOTE: THE RED DYE USED IN ATF +4 FLUID IS NOT A PERMANENT QUALITY. AS FLUID AGES, IT CAN BECOME DARKER OR MAY EVEN APPEAR LIGHT BROWN. DISCOLORATION ALONE DOES NOT INDICATE THE NEED FOR A FLUID CHANGE. IF THE COLOR CHANGE IS ACCOMPANIED BY A BURNT SMELL AND/OR A DETERIORATION IN SHIFT QUALITY, NEW FLUID MAY BE REQUIRED.
Go back and re-read the original post in the thread. The vehicle in question is clearly a 1999 Concorde, not a model year 2000 as you somehow believe. I may well still be wrong, but I thought the 1999 model year used ATF+3 (7176) fill directly from the factory.
While I agree the ATF+4 is superior for the reasons cited in the TSB posted by maxpower (and certainly would have been a better choice), I find it hard to believe that the exact same fluid that it came with directly from the Chrysler factory back in 1998 or early 1999 would now cause major problems.
BTW, I am done contributing to this thread ... the OP will do what he thinks best and I am sure he appreciates all the information he received to make that decision. As you pointed out, it's not my vehicle, so I am not going to lose any sleep over whatever he decides.
I'm really looking for something more than "what Chrysler states" or ""what's in the manual", so your posts are exactly the kind of thinking that I'm using.
I appreciate your input. What you say makes perfect sense. Sure, the manual says "ATF +4 only" but I just have a hard time believing that they changed the transmission so much that you absolutely must use only the ATF
+4, especially when they're telling you that you can add +4 to +3 in older applications.
What I'm hearing is that you can have a roughly 50/50 mix in an older Caravan, but the same mix can't be put in that 99 Concorde.
I hear what everyone is saying, I'm seeing the manuals and TSBs, but I'm also open to common sense thinking on this issue. And 9 bucks for a quart of fluid is a large amount of money, especially now that I need to do a full torque converter fluid switchout to accomplish the level of purity that this transmission seems to require. We're looking at over $140 bucks for this whole procedure. Add Chrysler filter, reusable gasket, etc. Wow, we're getting up to ebay value on my car... just kidding. Actually, we're getting closer to what the insurance co. would give us for this car totalled out!!! Seriously. Olay, maybe exaggerated, but not by too much.
Hell, I might come out with a better protected transmission because of this if I follow through on the full torque converter fluid switch using the +4 now, than I would have doing just the recommended pan/filter switch, without doing the torque converter.
What I'd REALLY like to hear is from some salesman who drives hundreds of miles a day, and has the exact same car that I do, and has been using the ATF +3 for several years, and hasn't had a problem with it at all. Or from a transmission specialist who knows for sure if there is a difference between the specs of the 99 transmission and the previous ones, or if it's just about specifying one better fluid over the other, for the sake of the better fluids.
What if a transmission repair guy comes on and tells us that the parts, computer settings and tolerances on a 98 transmission and a 99 transmission are exactly the same? THAT's where common sense comes into play. We just need more information.
My mechanic and I have quite a bit of experience with these transmissions, and we both decided that most of the problems with Chrysler transmissions are from using Dexron or Dexron with additives. I'm pretty sure that when I ask him about this, he'll tell me not to worry about the +3 in the tranny.
Is there anyone on the board who has had a 99 or newer Chrysler transmission that they used +3 fluid with, and had problems or not?
This is no disrespect to the people who are, in my opinion, smart enough to go by the book.
Next time you have the pan off, use the DC gasket P/N 05011114AA. It's metal sandwich construction. Superior to the RTV or cork aftermarket gaskets. Reuseable up to 3 times, per DC's TSB.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x')
See this thread on the 300M Enthusiasts forum to see how it's done (300M and Concorde power trains and chassis are identical - in fact, the photos in my post in that thread show where I spliced the cooler return line on my Concorde for changing out the tranny fluid):
formatting link
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x')
If you're paying more than $5.20/qt. or $20 by the gallon for ATF+4, you're being overcharged. (That ain't cheap either, but a lot better than $9/qt.!)
BTW - my Concorde is a '99 also, but I can't say that I have ever used ATF+3 in it - unless that's what was in it when I bought it with 58k on the ticker.
Also - have your dealer check the firmware version in the TCM to make sure it's the latest (per TSB No. 18-17-00). There was a firmware update released in Sept. '00 for the 99MY that makes the tranny shift much smoother - or let's just say that when I replaced whatever fluid it had in it with fresh ATF+4 and had the firmware update done at the same time, the tranny worked much smoother, and has done nothing but get better since then - now has 140k miles on it and running great (with the
2.7L engine no less).
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x')
Which line is the return line? The one coming from the top of the radiator, or the lower one? I still can't tell from the pics, and the Haynes service manual doesn't even specify.
I would normally assume that the "fluid in" hose would be going in high and the "return fluid" line would be low, but when you mentioned that the fluid was just being dumped back into the transmission, I wasn't sure that the lower one would offer enough gravity for this.
Someone later in the thread asked the same question (word for word). Answer: The higher line is the return line (see aft of the alternator in the photo - the spliced return line is above the other line (output line from tranny to radiator).
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x')
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.