DODGE power steering fluid CONFUSION

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol

You mentioned that the joint-venture transfer cases call for Mercon V or Dexron III. My question is "Does it really recommend Dexron III?" because that's an obsolete spec that can't be licensed for anymore. Did you mean Dexron VI, or does it really call for the "universal, aftermarket" Dexron III?


Perhaps you misunderstood me. I don't recall mentioning Mercon V either.

The transfer case in my truck requires DexIII and my Jeep's requires +4. Both transfer cases were made by the same company.

As for what new GM and Chrysler products require, I have no idea. I am not even sure what transfer cases they have?

 

[meep]

Early 2000's chrysler MINIVANS were picky and they changed around 2002. With ATF+4 they would shudder harshly, yet with PSF they were smooth as silk. I had a 2001 which experienced this, and test-drove several (3-4) others which did the same. I later owned a 2002 which did just fine on ATF+4, and if I recall, the manual showed the difference as well.

For the truck, I'd say as long as it isn't affecting driveability it's probably just fine.

-m

 

[Nyogtha]

Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
So can you elaborate further on this?


No. I can't.
The dual recommendation circumstantially appeared to be a supersession of the ATF+4 recommendation and that was my assumption.
Perhaps you can elaborate on why both fluids overlap in your vehicle literature, to shut me up.

Quote:

Also help me understand what LV stands for in Motorcraft Mercon LV ATF, Kendall Versatrans LV ATF, Pennzoil Platinum Multivehicle LV ATF, etc. if it's not shorthand for Low Viscosity with reference to prior generation ATF's? I see it more as a design designation for differentiation than a marketing term.

It stands for Las Vegas. Viva Las Vegas!
Really though, we all know, and it's no secret, that newer ATF specs have trended to lower viscosities. That's all irrelevant to the discussion, however. In this thread, not once have I been comparing the viscosities of one generation ATF to another generation of ATF. This thread is about Power Steering fluids and my contention is that all ATFs, regardless of ATF specification, are low viscosity power steering fluids. That's a distinction that I'm personally making. Look out for the words "relative" and "relatively" to determine what the comparison is being made between.

Why should I think so? Simply because PS fluids typically have a kinematic viscosity around 7.5cSt@100C not unlike older ATFs, but with a narrower VI relative to ATFs. That means that ATF does not thicken as badly as PS fluid (and indeed hydraulic fluids, generally) in extreme cold weather. Again, not a secret. People have been selecting ATF instead PS fluid in some PS applications for this reason for decades. This is why I refer to ATF as a "low viscosity power steering fluid", because when it's used in a power steering application, or any other basic hydraulic application, it will remain a lower viscosity in the cold. Despite calling it that, ATF is not a power steering fluid at all IMO, but it serves the purpose of a high VI, low viscosity PS fluid. ATF is optimized for Automatic Transmissions and PSF is optimized for power steering systems. That's just kind of a fact that you are more than welcome to challenge.

Again, I apologize for short-handing "low viscosity" to "LV" because of the confusion and exploitability that a lack of explicity invites. It's also really annoying to have to craft posts like legal documents that can stand up in a court of law when you're just trying to share thoughts.

PS - "LV" is certainly marketing; or rather a 'proprietary' terminology I should say, since it's been selected as a proper name for a given trademarked specification. (and I can't even be sure the proper name of the specification has been trademarked, so I could be wrong about that) Point: when a technical documentation needs to refer to low viscosity, it's usually represented as "low viscosity", not "LV".


Both fluids overlap in my vehicle literature showing either fluid functionally satifies warranty requirements. The manual is available on-line. There's plenty of aftermarket licensed ATF+4 available bringing price down to around $4 /qt. if you shop around or go to Walmart. I have not seen any i formation on licensed alternatives to Mopar PSF+4 is $18 / pint on Amazon, likely more expensive at the dealer, so again I like having OEM approval for using the same fluid in both applications as I can choose the less expensive one.

https://www.amazon.com/Genuine-Mopar-Fluid-5166226AA-Steering/dp/B000TX96X0

For all I know PSF+4 doesn't contain ATF additives as you mention, but it's hardly a bargain for the consumer. I haven't seen anything advising PSF+4 is specified as an alternate to ATF+4 in the transmission so this is quite plausible. I suppose if I was under warranty and had issues with ATF+4 a dealership might replace it with PSF+4 and may even use and charge for PSF+4 in power steering systrms by default. Personally if I have problems with ATF+4 in my power steering system I'll try Redlinw C+ instead of PSF+4, at a more attractive price point. But for me so far no problems with ATF+4 in my power steering system.

Pentosin (among others) market an LV brake fluid, unquestionably an automotive hydraulic fluid. So in terms of automotive hydraulic fluids, LV can apply to more than just ATF. However I stand by and slighly amend my prior statement: your use of LV in the context of automotive power steering flyids appears to be unique.

Communication once muddied is more difficult to clear up than clarity throughout. Unique use of terminology will require more effort for clarity. There's even an old saying with reference to an ounce of prevention relative to a pound of cure.

 

[PeterPolyol]

dlundblad,
Whoopsie. Wrong brand substitution. Imagine that, being preoccupied with something else during a reply. (What blunder!) Please don't set the noose just yet, though.

Quote:

The transfer case in my truck requires DexIII and my Jeep's requires +4. Both transfer cases were made by the same company.

The whole interest in your post was trying to piggyback an earlier point onto what you said, but let's just discard that whole thing for this example: NAG1 and MB WA580 transmissions. ChryCo wants ATF+4 and nothing else in their units, MB wants nothing but Esso LT71141 in theirs. To the point, these pieces of equipment are NOT anal about which fluid they use, and apparently OEMs know this also, allowing them to recommend their own spec, simply because it's their own.

In this example, I know that NAG1/WA580 employs a type of mechatronics, where it "detects" and learns the FM characteristic of whatever fluid is in it, and it really does. Having one of these in the fleet, I used this knowledge to save myself buttpain and $$. The last service on the WA580 was well over 3 years ago, and I used various one-off quarts of quality ATF specs for the refill. They included Castrol DexVI, M1 ATF, Castrol ATF+4. Combined with the used LT71141 in the system, that makes it at least 4 different ATF types in the slushbox. With 400+ HP behind it, the WA580 shifts flawlessly. (inbefore "Just because nothing blew up doesn't mean monsters are not hiding under your bed and in your closet")

I don't like getting anal about ATF specs when they're so similar to each other. I wanted to let the OP know, just as trivia or something to consider, that he need not bust his back over getting exactly ATF+4 for his PS system, even though he most likely will-- and that's okay. There is not a darn thing about ATF+4 that makes it suitable for a PS system over any other basic hydraulic fluid, including other ATFs. DexIII in his Chrysler PS system will work no differently, and I'd put big money on that. Not a gambling man, but I'd put money on that.

And then came the point about all ATFs, regardless of specs, descriptors and initialisma, will all function as Low Viscosity hydraulic fluids in a PS system.

I would have just not replied, but didn't want to let this one die without being perfectly clear on what was being conveyed- so many strawmen I feel like I'm in a corn field.


Originally Posted By: Nyogtha

Both fluids overlap in my vehicle literature showing either fluid functionally satifies warranty requirements.

Sure. Yes. The question is 'why'? I'd some discussion and speculation on why Chrysler would make two different fluids available with such an apparent price difference, yet not mention the differences between the two or suitability to one operating regime vs another.

Quote:
Mopar PSF+4 is $18 / pint on Amazon, likely more expensive at the dealer,

That's crazy. At that price point, it's worth reiterating my suspicion that it's a synthetic hydraulic fluid. No doubt you're right that there are plenty more economical alternatives.


Quote:
Pentosin (among others) market an LV brake fluid, unquestionably an automotive hydraulic fluid. So in terms of automotive hydraulic fluids, LV can apply to more than just ATF. However I stand by and slighly amend my prior statement: your use of LV in the context of automotive power steering flyids appears to be unique.

Ha ha. Yes brake fluid is technically a hydraulic fluid, but you try pouring glycol ehters into your AT or PS system

(Disclaimer: Pentosin LV brake fluid may possibly not be formulated with glycol ethers- it's an assumption)

Quote:
Communication once muddied is more difficult to clear up than clarity throughout. Unique use of terminology will require more effort for clarity. There's even an old saying with reference to an ounce of prevention relative to a pound of cure.

Is that Lao Tzu? j/k

 

[Nyogtha]

It's certainly not a new question or discussion whether it was Chrysler, Daimler Chrysler, or now Fiat Chrysler America. See this thread from 5 years ago.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2601755

I agree with the points Molakule and Widman make in their posts in that thread. Whe ATF may contain ingredients that aren't necessary in a PS system (such as friction modifiers), they will contain beneficial additives nonetheless relative to at least some specific PSF formulations.

I can't find a MSDS for Mopar PSF+4 on-line, much less anything like a PDS/TDS. No way to even start on a quantitative or qualitative comparison to ATF+4 for me anyway.

BrianF posted he's using an Amsoil ATF product as PSF in his climate to solve a squeal issue with the Mopar product(s). This bolsters my preparation to switch to Redline C+ for PSF if I experience similar problems instead of say Redline PSF or Lubegard PSF.

 

[doitmyself]

I had always thought that Chrysler's material specification MS9602 specifically applied to only ATF+4.

You guys are saying that Mopar PSF+4, that also has MS9602 designation, has a different additive package.

Interesting.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjs2Yz09MzVAhXJ1IMKHZ1CCGkQFghOMAc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.617.847%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&usg=AFQjCNG5gjN0F8Puhqo3juO--uo7FbLVew

 

[Nyogtha]

PERHAPS (even probably) has a different additive package in PSF+4, and I also noted I have seen no literature stating PSF+4 is an acceptable alternative to ATF+4 in the transmission.