Valvoline Transmission Fluid ATF+3 Chrysler Approved?

Your confusing what Chrysler as a company wants with what it's dealers want.

Chrysler's position is that everyone would want to take their Chrysler vehicle to a dealership for service, no matter how old it is. That way when Chrysler decides that your car's too old, your right there in the dealership service area, prime material to pitch a new car to.

Don't you see - Chrysler discontinues parts because they want to 'encourage' people to move to a new vehicle, not because they want to force them to move. They know that just because they discontinue a part doesen't mean that the part will become unavailable - there's always salvage yards. My father has an older Buick and he goes to a dealer he likes, and there's many times he's called me with that "part not available" shtick and I've arrainged for a local wrecker to supply the part. Some of them even run it over to the dealer service area. Of course the dealer service guys grumble about not being willing to warranty the part but I don't give a damn about that and neither does my father. I'm sure that one of these days something really serious will finally blow up on that car and when it does he will trade it in and that dealer will have first shot at selling him a new car.

The problem is really more subtle than what your implying. First, some dealerships really only want to cherry pick the service work and thus only want the warranty work - because it's a guarenteed customer (since the customer is obviously going to keep coming back to the dealership since they are getting it fixed for free) and it's a guarenteed payment (since Chrysler has no choice but to pay out on warranty claims) So if it's not a warranty job they just do a half-assed job on the repair and if it falls apart 2 miles down the road, so what. Or they quote these outrageous service fees hoping the customer will go away. That ISN'T what Chrysler wants, but it is what the dealership wants, and for the 100th time in this group, the dealers don't represent Chrysler corp. The dealers simply have a franchise to sell Chrysler cars, but what they do is not always going to be what Chrysler wants them doing.

Secondly, too many customers out there aren't willing to pay any decent money for good repairs, even when the dealer does fix it right, the first time, they piss and moan about the cost.

Last, too many customers don't take any responsibility to learn the least thing about their cars, 90% of them don't read the entire owners manual let alone any pages of it at all.

That is different - they aren't suddenly saying once they discontinued that throttle cable that now a cable out of a 2000 Caravan will work.

If Chrysler was saying that they are going to discontinue the ATF that is required in all 1999 and earlier minivans, and customer will just have to get it from the aftermarket, that would be fine and equivalent to what your saying. But they aren't saying this - they are saying "we discontinued it, but no mattter use this new fluid, and by the way, that tsb we put out a few years ago saying NOT to use this new fluid in your older car - well just ignore it, we are going to pretend we never wrote it!!"

Either they were lying then, or they are lying now. If they were lying then, then they have proved they are liars and how can I trust what a known liar says about ATF +4 now? And if they were telling the truth then, why then they are lying now, so once again, I can't trust a liar.

That is the problem.

Ted

Ted,

For the record, and as I've indicated previously, I've used the ATF+4 in my

From what I recall reading and what a local dealer mechanic told me, the ATF+4 has slightly different (improved?) friction characteristics. As such, if the transmission already had significant mileage on ATF+3, and if the computer had adapted it to account for worn clutches, then it might exhibit problems (shuddering or not lock up the torque converter completely) after converting to the newer ATF+4. The mechanic mentioned a re-learning procedure that should be used under these circumstances. (I'd assume if you do not have the computer tool that you might be able to just remove the battery cable for 5 minutes, though I did not ask.) In my case, this re-programming was not needed due to the mileage... It is possible that this is how they intend to use ATF+4 with the pre-2000 minivans, although it would seem that the option still remains open for the dealer to purchase ATF+3 from the open market as well.

I know several dealer mechanics/technicians frequent this forum. So it would be interesting to learn what fluid they use currently and will use going forward in the 1999 or older minivans.

Bob

Either they were lying then, or they are lying now. If they were lying then, then they have proved they are liars and how can I trust what a known liar says about ATF +4 now? And if they were telling the truth then, why then they are lying now, so once again, I can't trust a liar.

Exactly!

Richard.

Gimme a damn break, Richard, you're *way* smarter than this. Ted may not be, but you certainly are. It takes time and testing and analysis of test results to be sure that a new fluid is fully compatible with a transmission originally specced for an old fluid. The progression of allowable applications for ATF+4 clearly shows that: First it was recommended only for transmissions filled with it from the factory, then it was okayed for certain prior models but not others, then it was approved for most prior models but not all...do you see the pattern here?

I'm not quite ready to attribute that level of evil to them. I'm more inclined to think it just stops being profitable to continue stocking parts with diminishing sales volume after a certain point, and they really don't expect older car owners anywhere near the dealer for service.

Good lord, Ted. Get a grip on reality. Or would you still insist on Type A transmission fluid for a '55 DeSoto, too?

Poppycock.

DC knew that ATF +4 would work in the older transmissions simply because there's no difference between ATF +4 and ATF +3. They were lying back with the first TSB that said not to use ATF +4 in minivan transmissions and they knew they were lying. But if they had admitted that there was no difference between fluids then nobody would have bought the $6-a-bottle ATF +4 they would have just kept using the $2-a-bottle ATF +3 from the aftermarket. DC didn't want that so they created this myth that there was this huge difference between fluids, that's why you need to buy the new stuff. But for a lie to be believable it has to be supported, and in order to support this myth they pretended that the new fluid was so different that it might not work well in older vehicles.

If there really had been a difference like your implying, then age doesen't make the fluid suddenly work.

If there really had been a difference and the transes were so forgiving as to be able to tolerate it, then cheaper alternatives like Lubeguard and Valvoline Maxlife and Scamsoil should have a shot at working too.

Now of course since you will be able to get the fluid from the aftermarket, DC has no interest any longer in maintaining the fiction that ATF +4 is better, so they are simply glossing over the old TSB.

I'm not saying here that the fluids are identical, they aren't. I'm saying that the differences aren't of any practical importance to a transmission - other than the fact that for a long time DC was charging a rediculous amount of money for fluid and getting it because they were lying to the public about it's benefits. Now that they can't make a killing on trans fluid anymore they will stop lying - on this issue.

Ted

Ted and Dan, I may have a reading comprehension problem here, but the way I am reading Chrysler's current position is that +4 is still not recommended for use in certain pre-2001 mini-vans, and perhaps a few other models. This has not changed from their previous position concerning clutch chatter if the computer has to go through retraining. If I am reading their current position incorrectly please set this straight.

Richard.

Richard.