Mopar ATF +3, +4 Do I have it right??

[Russ300H]

I just bought a '94 New Yorker to replace my '95 as the "new beater"

The miles on the car are 116K which is about half that of the '95. The lady I bought it from owned the car for the last 10 years, purchasing it with 18K on it. SO, according to her, the transmission is original.

I just added a B&M trans cooler designed for towing and will add a Wix in line magnetic filter when I do the oil & filter change. I have no idea what's in the trans now or how long it has been in there. It does look very clean, so that's a plus. The recommended trans fluid in the owners manual is 7176 which I believe has morphed into ATF+3.

My question is: Do I have it right?

A change to ATF+3 would be fine, ATF+4 has the same friction properties, just in a synthetic base. As long as I change the fluid frequently, I won't see any benefit from +4.

I have some Amsoil muitipurpose ATF bought an number of years ago that I thought would be OK. (The '95 transmission died while on a diet of this stuff) It says it meets the ATF+4 spec. Now I find out that the Valvoline is the only APPROVED ATF+4. So Amsoil didn't get approval for whatever reason, but it will work as well as the new Valvoline? My concerns stem from a few threads that do not seem to value multipurpose ATF's.

If the above is right, which should I use? Dino +3 or Amsoil from the "stash", or go buy some Valvoline +4.

Thanks for any input

 

[zrxkawboy]

Yes, I think you have it right. I have used Amsoil ATF in Mopar transmissions, and it worked OK for me, but some have reported problems. I wouldn't have a problem using it again. Besides the Amsoil, I have also used both Mopar ATF+3 and Conklin ATF+3, and our Intrepids seems satisfied with any of them. I have not yet tried ATF+4.

If you're changing it on a regular basis, I'd use ATF+3. The only thing I wouldn't use is DexIII + HFM additive. To me that's just asking for trouble.

Jeff

 

[G-MAN]

Type 7176 is ATF+3. (To be more precise ATF+3 is Type 7176E). ATF+4 is Type 9604. Chrysler now back specs ATF+4 for all ATF+3/Type 7176 applications.

Last fall Chrysler finally started issuing aftermarket service fill licenses for ATF+4. Valvoline just happened to be the first one to get their ATF+4 to market. Others will follow.

Your transmission should do fine on either ATF+3 or ATF+4.

 

[-Clayton-]

You dont what to run ATF+4 in that because of seal compatability. Try it if you wany though

http://www.allpar.com/fix/trans.html

quote:

---

You can use ATF+3 with all older Chrysler transmissions (except as noted below - some Jeeps). ATF+4 is another story. This is from a Chrysler engineer:

If there is a doubt about which grade of ATF to use, follow the owners manual recommendation. AFT+4 in certain specific tests was shown to be incompatible with certain seal material. This incompatibility may cause a premature failure depending on the duty cycle of the vehicle. The fluid will work as intended however, it may cause a seal failure.

---

quote:

---

We have been told that ATF+4 is not compatible with transmissions requiring ATF+3. Scott Brown tracked down an engineer who noted that ATF+4 can degrade the seals of ATF+3-compatible transmissions.

---

 

[G-MAN]

The official word from Chrysler is that ATF+4 is suitable for all previous ATF+, ATF+2, and ATF+3 applications.

 

[-Clayton-]

You think they care if your seals fail?

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 95_carvan:
You think they care if your seals fail?

---

 

[Ray H]

Anyone care to dispute the possibility that current ATF+4 may have been slightly re-formulated to deal with the older seal issue?

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ray H:
Anyone care to dispute the possibility that current ATF+4 may have been slightly re-formulated to deal with the older seal issue?

---

Ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

ATF+3 was MS7176E, the fifth iteration of Type 7176 fluid. I suspect that the current MS9602 spec for ATF+4 is probably MS9602B or MS9602C.

 

[Russ300H]

So if my Amsoil "meets ATF+4 specs" is a few years old, does that mean it could possibly cause seal damage? OR due to the fact it's a universal fluid, it would be OK from that aspect?

I expected great things from the Amsoil. Changed the third trans to it early, about 50K later changed it again, then 6K after the third change the trans went up in smoke. I'm sure Amsoil's response would be their oil can't overcome a poor design, but the trans was a Mopar factory rebuilt unit with all the latest upgrades.

 

[G-MAN]

Russ, if I were you I would not use the Amsoil fluid in your Chrysler transmission. Just go get some Valvoline ATF+4 (since that seems to be the only aftermarket ATF+4 available now) or Exxon ATF+3 (branded as AAMCO fluid) and use that.

 

[acewiza]

Russ, I cannot believe the Amsoil burned up your other transmission and you are now asking if it is OK to use it!

The Allpar seal "theory," well I'll try to be PC and call it that - is the same old synthetic vs. dino wash seen and discussed ad nauseum here too many times. Notice how they don't say specifically what trannys and what seals "might" be adversely affected by the +4. This (anecdotal) evidence is likely gleaned from those who either themselves put it in 727s and 904s that already had borderline seals, or found such to be the case when a leaking trans rolled in.

And of course like G-Man says, 5th iteration, get some +4, put it in and fuggedaboutit. I'm just glad my trans service cycles will be at least another year before I start in on the +4 and maybe the price comes down a bit more by then. It will be quite awhile before anyone sees me with the red stuff on my hands again after that...

 

[Pablo]

Here's the type of thread that get's me all defensive.

Should I not respond to this? I think I must, if no other balanced person will respond.

We have no objective evidence that Amsoil ATF "burned up" this transmission. We have known many DC AT's to fail prematurely, rebuilt or not. There was no claim made, with evidence presented at the time of failure to Amsoil.

On the other hand, many customers use Amsoil ATF in DC and many other AT's with zero issues. There is no evidence of gross failures from any source at Amsoil, official or unofficial, with people using any iteration of Amsoil ATF. Amsoil has recommended and continues to recommend Amsoil Universal ATF for ATF+3 and +4 applications.

Words are easily thrown out, people piggy back on these words. Please be careful with accusations.

If you don't feel comfortable using Amsoil ATF, I have no problem with your choice of another fluid.

 

[G-MAN]

Pablo, I don't think Russ thinks Amsoil fluid caused his transmission to go. He certainly didn't say that in his post. And I didn't say it in mine. I just think there are better alternatives for a Chrysler transmission that calls for ATF+3 or ATF+4 than Amsoil's universal fluid.

 

[Pablo]

Fair enough G-Man II - I was mainly responding to acewiza's first line.

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pablo:
Fair enough G-Man II - I was mainly responding to acewiza's first line.

---

Yeah, but you said "Here's the type thread that gets me all defensive" when there is only one isolated post in the thread that implies something negative about an Amsoil product. Wouldn't it have been better to have quoted the language you took issue with and responded to that?

 

[The Critic]

Though the failure of your DC transmission while operating on Amsoil may've been highly suspicious to you, it’s best not to condemn any fluid brand/model for causing the failure unless there's evidence from a fluid analysis linking the fluid to the component failure.

If you feel uncomfortable using Amsoil ATF, then I'd use either Schaeffer's All-Trans Supreme ATF or Mobil 1 Multi-Vehicle ATF Full Synthetic ATF. Both have been recently reformulated for upgrades. The Schaeffer's is now a Group III product instead of the previous Group II+ and PAO blend. The Mobil 1 ATF is now suitable for use in ATF+4 and Mercon-V applications as well. Specialty Formulations Autoglide ATF+4 is formulated by BITOG’s “Molakule” and is a good choice as well.

Similar to the Amsoil, neither the Schaeffer’s nor the Mobil 1 product is approved for use in Chrysler ATF+4 by DC. Valvoline ATF+4 and Mopar ATF+4 are the only two licensed service fills for ATF+4 on the market. The subject of whether Schaeffer’s, M1, or Amsoil’s products are superior to the DC licensed ATF+4 formulations are open to debate, as the DC licensed ATF+4 fluids already require a unique Group III base oil. If the Valvoline ATF+4 is unavailable to you, I wouldn’t hesitate using one of the aftermarket ATF+4 equivalents though. M1 ATF averages about $6.50/qt with tax, while the Schaeffer’s ranges between $5-$6/qt shipped. Autoglide ATF+4 is about $32/gal shipped.

I wouldn’t be concerned about the seal compatibility. ATF+4 is the replacement for ATF+3. If your current seals are possibly “weak” due to a false seal, new fluid, regardless of type or brand, may start a “cleaning” action in your transmission, and possibly expose any false seals. Thus, it may be wise to add 6 oz of Auto-RX to the transmission for the recommended treatment length to clean your transmission and chemically condition the seals prior to doing pan drain and filter change, followed by a second one within 5K.


http://www.schaefferoil.com/datapdf/204SAT.pdf
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_Synthetic_ATF.asp

 

[Russ300H]

quote:

---

Originally posted by acewiza:
Russ, I cannot believe the Amsoil burned up your other transmission and you are now asking if it is OK to use it!

---

acewiza: I was just asking from the aspect of seal damage only. If I was reassured, I was only going for 20K not the 50K I had prevoiusly.

Pablo: I wasn't blaming Amsoil for the failure, but on the other hand, it didn't prevent a failure either. I only got marginally better (120K vs. 100K) service out of an updated transmission maintained with Amsoil than I did with the original trans using 7176(X)and frankly not maintained well as I was unaware of the issues with the trans.

I think I had a feeling of invincability by maintaining it and using Amsoil that didn't materialize when the transmission blew last fall. The latest car I am using has 116K on the original trans. I expect it to loose the trans, I just want to keep it going for at least the summer with the trans that is in the car now.

I am frankly much more familiar with cast iron Torqueflites and 727's than I am with the 604, 606, 42le family.

 

[psudaytona]

Everything I hear about ATF+4 is that it outperforms +3 in every test, friction, heat, so on. Only iffy part is that seal issue. But if anyone was running an A604 transmission I would switch to +4 in a sec, those trannies are very sensitive to high quality fluids and if the new stuff gives smoother and cooler operation, go for it.

I would avoid ANY non mopar fluids for Chryco trannies, based on others' experiences it doesnt usually work out very well.

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ300H:
I am frankly much more familiar with cast iron Torqueflites and 727's than I am with the 604, 606, 42le family.

---

Wasn't 61 the last year Chrysler made the Torqueflite in cast iron? From 62 on they were aluminum and redesigned to take up less space. There is a noticeable difference in the size of the "hump" between a 60 Chrysler and a 62.