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.quote:
Originally posted by MolaKule:
PC's ATF+4 fluid is based on GroupIII fluids, while the MerconV is based on GroupI, II fluids.
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.)quote:
Originally posted by MolaKule:
The differences are in the additive packages and the friction modification.
Not true.quote:
Originally posted by Big Jim:
If the base oils are different, the additive packages must also be different even if they are trying to achieve the same results.
I think that nearly the same friction modification is used for both. The ATF+4 has a smidgeon more for the CSTCC problem.quote:
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.)
quote:
Originally posted by metroplex:
ATF+4 has more friction modifiers than ATF+3, definitely NOT interchangeable unless you want more slippage to occur.
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:
quote:
Originally posted by metroplex:
ATF+4 has more friction modifiers than ATF+3, definitely NOT interchangeable unless you want more slippage to occur.
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.
Believe me, at the first hint of a degradation in shift quality/performance, ATF+4 will be going back in.quote:
Originally posted by 99:
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?
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.quote:
Originally posted by G-Man II:
Believe me, at the first hint of a degradation in shift quality/performance, ATF+4 will be going back in.quote:
Originally posted by 99:
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?
That's a good price if it's really authentic Mopar fluid.quote:
Originally posted by doitmyself:
In Michigan, Murray's Auto Parts sells Chrysler ATF+4 in quarts for about $5 dollars. Blue bottle, Chrysler logo, etc..
Knowing this, why did you put the +3 in a +4 trans?quote:
Originally posted by G-Man II:
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.quote:
Originally posted by 99:
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?
Oh...the sky is falling! The sky is falling!quote:
Originally posted by 99:
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.
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?quote:
Originally posted by G-Man II:
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.quote:
Originally posted by 99:
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?