 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / August 2007Transmission Fluid again
I know that this topic has been beaten to death in this NG, but I have it come up again. A local transmission shop rebuilt the transmission in my 1993 Voyager at 95,000 miles. There were many worn parts. I had hoped to get over a 100,000 miles, but no such luck. When I went to pick it up, I asked what kind of fluid they put in. They told me that they put in Mercon III, with Lube Guard. When I asked them why they didn't put in ATF+3 / 7176, they got very defensive, and showed me the label on the Lubeguard bottle. It says that Lubeguard enchances the fluid so that it exceeds ATF+3 and ATF+4 specs. They also told me that they have never had any problem with the Mercon III / Lubeguard combo. He also showed me a chart indicating how Lubeguard reduces the acidity way below other fluids. This shop has been in business for more than 23 years that I can remember. They also do warranty repairs for the local Chrysler / Dodge dealerships. Everything I have read in this NG, and allpar says only to use ATF+3 / 7176 for this vehicle. Should I drain the fluid and refill with the correct stuff, or leave it? The transmission repair far exceeded the value of the vehicle, but is in good condition otherwise, and I do not wish to buy a newer van at this time. I am hoping to recoup my investment by getting another year or two of use from this van The only thing that makes me concered, is that this same van was in the same shop in January 2006 at 89,000. At that time, they replaced the ignition switch as the solenoid pack was not always getting power. At that time, I had them service the transmission which meant a fluid change. They most likely put in the same fluid. Could this fluid have cause the death of the transmission over the next 6,000 miles? Prior to this time, the fluid had always been changed at the closest Chrysler / Dodge dealership. They most likely used ATF+3. Thanks for reading, Kirk Matheson >I know that this topic has been beaten to death in this NG, but I have > it come up again. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Kirk Matheson Based on my own experience with how rough the shifts can be with Dexron I would say yes you need to put the proper fluid in there ASAP. Don't just do a drain and refill though make sure you do a full flush. I like the "unhook the cooler line" method as it seems to work well. I wouldn't worry about it. The difference in fluids is friction modifiers. The lubeguard adds those modifiers. I personaly have 2 chrysler products and that is what I use. I also do the same thing when overhauling one,as do the majority of transmission shops.  Signaturemarc-o-matic http://www.automotiveforums.com On Jul 30, 10:41 am, marc-o-matic <marc-o-matic.2uj...@no- mx.nodomain.com> wrote: > I wouldn't worry about it. > The difference in fluids is friction modifiers. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.automotiveforums.com Thank you. I would like to think that after all the discussion that there has been on this topic, no product supplier would dare to claim ATF+3 / ATF+4 equivalency unless they can truely back up that claim. But then again, there are still a lot of *snake oil* products out there. The FTC cannot stay on top of all of them. I read the *fluid testimonial section* on Allpar.com, and they appear to be dated. Until recently, Chrysler was the only supplier for ATF+3. I have seen ATF+3 eqivalent fluid from Quaker State, Chevron, and Vavoline. -KM > I know that this topic has been beaten to death in this NG, but I have > it come up again. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > specs. They also told me that they have never had any problem with the > Mercon III / Lubeguard combo. Here they go again.... WHY is it so hard for some shops to get it through their headbones that Mercon plus some additive jizz is not the same as ATF+4?!? Sure, they can add friction modifiers, but that doesn't get rid of the WRONG friction modifiers that are in the fluid they start with. Why is it so hard to err on the side of caution? It can't save them *that* much money. > He also showed me a chart indicating how Lubeguard reduces the acidity > way below other fluids. That may be. ATF+3 is a pretty shitty fluid, really, with terrible longevity and terrible oxidation rates- which is why ATF+4 is preferred. But back to Lubegard- its no big deal to change pH, but how does its friction modifier package override and correct the friction modifier package in Mercon, though? Does it magically transmogrify the Mercon friction modifiers? I think not. > Everything I have read in this NG, and allpar says only to use ATF+3 / > 7176 for this vehicle. > > Should I drain the fluid and refill with the correct stuff, or leave > it? You can certainly bet that *I* would put ATF+4 in it, and the shop would pay for the labor to change the fluid and filter, too (I don't mind paying the extra for the right fluid- they can pass that on to me and I won't complain at all, and in fact I'll THANK them for using the right fluid). >> I know that this topic has been beaten to death in this NG, but I have >> it come up again. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > won't complain at all, and in fact I'll THANK them for using the right > fluid). FWIW, the latest TSB that I show on this subject is TSB No. 21-010-06 (April '06) - it shows the '93 Voyager as ATF+3 (i.e., not recommended to switch over to ATF+3). However, I do vehemently agree with those who say *NOT* to use something else with an additive. The OP is free to go whichever way they see fit - their money - their risk. I found it interesting that the shop said that "...they have never had any problem with the Mercon III / Lubeguard combo", yet here the customer is 6000 miles later with a problem. How do they know it *isn't* fluid related or caused. Sounds to me like they have just gotten used to saying they've never had a problem with it and are forgetting to consider that it could be the problem. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > FWIW, the latest TSB that I show on this subject is TSB No. 21-010-06 > (April '06) - it shows the '93 Voyager as ATF+3 (i.e., not recommended > to switch over to ATF+3)... Oops - that should say "it shows the '93 Voyager as ATF+3 (i.e., not recommended to switch over to ATF+4)". Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > > FWIW, the latest TSB that I show on this subject is TSB No. 21-010-06 > > (April '06) - it shows the '93 Voyager as ATF+3 (i.e., not recommended [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') That's the way that I had understood the TSB. All newer vehicles can run ATF+4, except for 1999 and earlier mini-vans. They should stay on ATF+3. It did not give any reason for this however. There have been some in the NG that have used ATF+4 with no problems reported -KM >>>FWIW, the latest TSB that I show on this subject is TSB No. 21-010-06 >>>(April '06) - it shows the '93 Voyager as ATF+3 (i.e., not recommended [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -KM I could swear that someone found a TSB where that exception has been removed. Since ATF+4 is a true backward-compatible fluid, there *should* be no fundamental reason that the minivans shouldn't switch while other cars with the same transmission can. >>>FWIW, the latest TSB that I show on this subject is TSB No. 21-010-06 >>>(April '06) - it shows the '93 Voyager as ATF+3 (i.e., not recommended [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -KM The TSB that KMath is remembering is an earlier TSB that was superceded by the one I cited - it did have a blnket statement about '99 and earlier minivans. That latest one does not have that blamket statement in it and allows more vehicles, but still does not list some even earlier minivans (like the '93) as being ATF+4 compatible. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >>> I know that this topic has been beaten to death in this NG, but I have >>> it come up again. [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > gotten used to saying they've never had a problem with it and are > forgetting to consider that it could be the problem. Hi... I'd kinda hoped that as I aged I'd become a little more mellow; however it appears not. Maybe they've never had a problem with it (bringing customers back for more and more work) Take care. Ken >> ...I found it interesting that the shop said that "...they have never had >> any problem with the Mercon III / Lubeguard combo", yet here the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Ken Ha! Maybe you have something there, Ken. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') In article <1185811999.626043.118670@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > I know that this topic has been beaten to death in this NG, but I have > it come up again. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > When I went to pick it up, I asked what kind of fluid they put in. > They told me that they put in Mercon III, with Lube Guard. <snip> Three speed or four speed? > In article > <1185811999.626043.118...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Three speed or four speed? It's the four speed. I cannot remember what the latest name is for it. -KM A-604 Signaturemarc-o-matic http://www.automotiveforums.com > A-604 That's the OLD name for the transverse version. The new standardized term is 41TE (transverse/minivan version) or 42LE (longitudinal version). I don't know exactly what they decided, but the rear drive version would be a 4xRE (2.7L Chargers, 300s, Magnums) and the 5-speed transverse version (eg. Pacifica 4.0) would be 5xTE where x is a number that indicates the (relative, on an arbitrary scale) torque handling ability. First digit = number of forward gear ratios Second digit = arbitrary torque hanling number (a 47RH is beefier than a 46RH for example Third digit = drive layout (T= transverse FWD, L = logitudinal FWD, R= RWD) Fourth digit = control method (H=hydraulic, E = electronic). |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.