Tran fluid confusion.

I have three Chrysler vehicles. The vehicles (and owner's manual recomended tran fluid) are:

1994 Dakota - Mopar ATF 2000 Grand Caravan - Mopar ATF+3 2003 Jeep Liberty - Mopar ATF+4

Now the questions:

The stores have ATF+, and ATF+3. What should I "feed" the various tranny's? Do I have to pay premium price at the dealer to get ATF+4 for the Jeep?

Is there some allowable fluid that is good for all 3 vehicles so I don't have to stock multiple varieties?

Oh for the days when you only had to worry about DexronII and Type F (grin)!

Reply to
Bruce Yelen
Loading thread data ...

Reply to
jdoe

Feed them all ATF+4. Its backward-compatible, and the best fluid. Last I checked, the dealer price on ATF+4 was about the same as Quaker State or Chevron ATF+3 at Pep Boys. QS, Chevron, and others will also eventually start selling (heck, may already sell) ATF+4 spec fluid, so you might keep checking if its inconvenient to go to the dealer.

Its easier now. Use ATF +(highest number) in EVERYTHING Chrysler.

Reply to
Steve

Richard, you are partially correct. My 2001 minivan has ATF+4

This is per ALLPAR: ATF+4 is recommended for all Chrysler transmissions (except as noted below) except 1999 and earlier minivans. (TSB 21-06-01) You can use ATF+3 with all Chrysler transmissions (except as noted below). An important exception for Jeep owners Danny noted: "The Jeep AW-4 (Aisin-Warner) transmission should use Dexron III. Pennzoil's ATF+3 phamphlet says it is good for "1988 and newer....All Jeep models without AW-4 automatic transmissions". See the Pennzoil document (PDF). We believe, based on Robert A.'s note, that the AW-4 transmission was used as late as 1999 (possibly later!) with the 4.0 liter engine.

Dennis Williamson wrote that Chrysler 7176 / ATF+3 fluid is no longer the only fluid to use in a late model transmission. Chrysler TSB#

21-16-99 lists the current vehicles that only use ATF+4 type 9602, part 05013457AA (for quart bottles). The vehicles that use this fluid include:

Starting Model Year Car Built After

1999 Prowler 7-20-98 2000 Neon 4-24-99 2000 Minivans (11th letter of VIN=R) 10-10-99 2000 Minivans (11th letter of VIN=B) 10-18-99 1999 Concorde, Intrepid, LHS, 300M 7-20-98 2000 Sebring convertible 5-21-99 1999 Cirrus, Stratus, Breeze 9-7-98 2000 All Others 10-18-99

Robert Alderson, a Chrysler transmission tech with gold certification, noted that 2000 and newer vehicles use 9606 (ATF+4) fluid.

Reply to
Richard Benner Jr

The caution over using +4 in older transmissions was in regard to the TCC not properly burnishing. Since your interests are in changing the fluid on a vehicle that has already accumulated mileage, the TCC -is- already burnished. +4 will work fine.

All spelled out in the TSB.

Reply to
Neil Nelson

You are totally right...people are reading the tsb wrong...I have a

1999 dodge grand caravan and am using ATF+4. I have 106,000 on it...the tsb only warns you if you have rebuilt a tranny that you may have a problem of shudder during break in...well after 106,000 I think that mine is broke in already. I was told by the dealer that aft+4 is also used for the power steering fluid now...

Reply to
robert

You may be accurate but I did call Chrysler's Tech people and they told me that ATF+4 was not recommend in my 96 Town and Country under any circumstances. That is how I read the TSB; but perhaps it has been revised.

Richard.

Reply to
Richard

well I also called them before I used atf+4 and they told me what I stated in my previous reply. I have over 30,000 woth atf+4 and no trouble at all.

Reply to
robert

You're right Bill, ATF+4 is now being used in the p.s. I will double check next time I'm in Pepboys because if memory serves me right the Valvoline Syn p.s. fluid (silver/goldish bottle) is speced the same as the mopar fluid previous to ATF+4. The spec is MS-9933.

Lou

Reply to
Cirrus99x

I'm venturing into the realm of foggy memory here, but I *think* that when ATF+4 first appeared, the advice was "don't use it in ANYTHING that originally required ATF+3." The clarification that it was indeed backward-compatible and could fully supersede ATF+3 in all applications came out later, and was in essence a reversal of the first recommendation.

robert wrote:

Reply to
Steve

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.