Comparing Mercon V, ATF+3, ATF+4 specs
- Thread starter G-MAN
- Start date
- Status
MolaKule
Staff member
The differences are in the additive packages and the friction modification.
PC's ATF+4 fluid is based on GroupIII fluids, while the MerconV is based on GroupI, II fluids.
Schaeffer's new Universal ATF is based on Majority GroupII fluids as well, not GroupIII as was previously thought.
PC's ATF+4 fluid is based on GroupIII fluids, while the MerconV is based on GroupI, II fluids.
Schaeffer's new Universal ATF is based on Majority GroupII fluids as well, not GroupIII as was previously thought.
I've read a couple of trade papers that state Mercon V can't be made without some Group III at least. The Mercon V cold flow specs require it. The same thing with the new Dexron-IIIH spec. This is why you are starting to see most of the dual rated Mercon V fluids now carrying the Dexron-IIIH approval as well.
Would you agree that IF the additive packages and friction mod characteristics of ATF+3 and ATF+4 are the same, with the only difference being the base oil blend, that these two fluids can be considered interchangeable? (Though with ATF+4 giving a longer service life, of course.)
If the base oils are different, the additive packages must also be different even if they are trying to achieve the same results.
Some logic escapes me here.
If the base oil is different, the base oil charictieistics are different. How can two oil with different bases end up the same if the exact same additive pacgage is used?
As I understand, as the oil companies have upgraded their base stocks, they have needed to completely re engineer their additive packages.
Where did I go wrong?
If the base oil is different, the base oil charictieistics are different. How can two oil with different bases end up the same if the exact same additive pacgage is used?
As I understand, as the oil companies have upgraded their base stocks, they have needed to completely re engineer their additive packages.
Where did I go wrong?
MolaKule
Staff member
I think that nearly the same friction modification is used for both. The ATF+4 has a smidgeon more for the CSTCC problem.
Big Jim:
The other additives in the additive package have been changed as well but only slightly.
Due to lack of solvency in some GROUPII, II+, and GroupIII fluids, more "esterified" additives have been introduced to counteract this problem, or certain esters have been added with conventional additives to increase solvency.
I know one of my additive suppliers has esterified many of their former additives to cope with the solvency problem.
Most of the blends now use mostly GroupII and GroupIII fluids with some PAO's and esters. What they are attempting to do with this mix is keep the cost below $4.00/quart while providing an almost synthetic solution, an "enhanced lubricant" as the new keyword will be.
I guess that's why in TSB 21-004-04 DaimlerChrysler states the following: "A new transmission fluid (ATF+4 - Type 9602) has been developed and is being used as factory fill for all vehicles with Chrysler automatic transmissions. ... ATF+4 is compatible with ATF+3 and ATF+2. ATF+4 can be used to top off vehicles that currently have ATF+2 or ATF+3 except for 1999 and earlier minivans with the 41TE/AE transmission."
Granted, the TSB also says not to use ATF+3 in a transmission that came with ATF+4, but the fact that it is backward compatible with ATF+4 indicates that the friction modification properties are the same so that ATF+4 can be used in transmissions that originally specified ATF+3.
If the trans originally came with ATF+4, that's what it should have in it. It's that simple. Why go backwards in terms of protection, performance, etc?quote:
Originally posted by G-Man II:
I guess that's why in TSB 21-004-04 DaimlerChrysler states the following: "A new transmission fluid (ATF+4 - Type 9602) has been developed and is being used as factory fill for all vehicles with Chrysler automatic transmissions. ... ATF+4 is compatible with ATF+3 and ATF+2. ATF+4 can be used to top off vehicles that currently have ATF+2 or ATF+3 except for 1999 and earlier minivans with the 41TE/AE transmission."
Granted, the TSB also says not to use ATF+3 in a transmission that came with ATF+4, but the fact that it is backward compatible with ATF+4 indicates that the friction modification properties are the same so that ATF+4 can be used in transmissions that originally specified ATF+3.
The whole purpose of the TSB is to get the older trannies using the better (and more profitable for Dodge) fluid for better performance and life.
There will be a day when you can no longer get ATF+3......just like you cannot get 7176 or ATF+ or ATF+2 anymore....eventually ATF+4 will be the only Dodge/Jeep ATF you'll be able to use until they come out with another revision.
Transmissions are quite pricy....hopefully your little ATF+3 "experiment" doesn't backfire on you. I'd hate to see you save a few bucks and in the process, smoke the trans. If it were my car, ATF+4 would be going back in. I think you are the first person I've heard of putting ATF+3 in a ATF+4 trans.
Believe me, at the first hint of a degradation in shift quality/performance, ATF+4 will be going back in.
I think the performance benefits of ATF+4 over ATF+3 are marginal at best. ATF+3 (5176E), when it was introduced in 1997, was considered by Chrysler to be the ultimate transmission fluid for their fully electronic transmissions. This fluid fully addressed the friction needs of the 42TE/42LE family of transmissions IF it was produced to the MS-5176E specs. With the introduction of ATF+3, Chrysler no longer listed Dexron as an appropriate substitute fluid. The use of Dexron as a top off and refill fluid was responsible for 99% of the problems these transmissions had since their introduction in 1989. By introducing ATF+3 and stipulating that only this fluid could be used, that should have solved the problem. Unfortunately, it didn't. Chrysler licensed ATF+3 but not all companies were careful to produce it exactly to spec. The result was a lot of the same problems that had shown up with Dexron began to show up with aftermarket ATF+3. To finally put an end to this Chrysler issued the MS-9602 specification in 1999 as ATF+4 and they did not license the spec for aftermarket production. They have been widely criticzed for this by the independent oil groups, but no one can argue with the result: No more transmission problems caused by poorly made fluids.
Oh, I'm sure it happens a lot. A lot of people are not willing to return to the dealer for fluid. Chrysler should really rethink their "proprietary" fluid strategy.
In Michigan, Murray's Auto Parts sells Chrysler ATF+4 in quarts for about $5 dollars. Blue bottle, Chrysler logo, etc..
I wonder why other auto parts stores don't stock it.
I wonder why other auto parts stores don't stock it.
ATF+4 has more friction modifiers than ATF+3, definitely NOT interchangeable unless you want more slippage to occur.
Mercon-V has a tad more FM than Mercon and thus can be backwards compatible with systems requiring Mercon. However, the newer transmissions that are spec'd to use M-V should not use Mercon.
Mercon-V has a tad more FM than Mercon and thus can be backwards compatible with systems requiring Mercon. However, the newer transmissions that are spec'd to use M-V should not use Mercon.
It may be too late at that time. It doesn't take much to ruin a set of frictions or screw up the lockup clutch within the convertor. And you'd have to have a trans flush/convertor flush/cooler flush/cooler line flush done to get all of the fluid out so you can start over fresh with all ATF+4. Good luck.
That's a good price if it's really authentic Mopar fluid.
Knowing this, why did you put the +3 in a +4 trans?
Because I'm quite confident XOM makes their ATF+3 exactly to the MS-7176 specifications, especially since they are DaimlerChrysler's largest OEM lubricant maker. If the XOM fluid had not been available I would not have used ATF+3 since the only other brands available OTC in my area are Valvoline, Castrol, and SuperTech.quote:
Originally posted by 99:
Knowing this, why did you put the +3 in a +4 trans?
Have you run all this past a Dodge/Chrysler transmission tech just for giggles? I'd love to know what that person would tell you. LOL
- Status
Similar threads
