Chrysler: A bit of research on the ATF +3 ATF +4 issue

"Bill Putney" <net> wrote in message
news:net... 
 

Depends on what you mean by the term compatible. In terms of mixing, yes.
But they are
not compatible in terms of having the same characteristics, otherwise you
could use
either kind of fluid interchangably in all Chrysler transmissions that call
for either fluid.

Ted

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <placo.com> wrote in message news:<newscache$z9k3nh$qxt1$ipinc.net>... 

Ted, how about posting the kinetic and brookfield viscosity numbers
for DC ATF+4 as well as the labelled ATF+4 from Havoline, Valvoline,
and Amsoil ATF.

Yes, there are makers who are selling branded ATF+4 tranny fluid. I
can get a 10 quart pail of the stuff for less then $60-.

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: 

I think it was pretty clear both in the context of Warren's original
question and in the exact quote from the TSB which you snipped and
therefore removed the context. Go back and read it again.

From the TSB, it was made clear in both of my posts that (1) The ATF+3
can be drained and ATF+4 put in in its place, and (2) ATF+4 can be used
to top off ATF+3. Is there another scenario that needs to be covered
other than those two?

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

x-no-archive: yes
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
 

You are committing a false dichotomy fallacy. Typically in these situations
(vendor arrangement) there is cost sharing so the answer is both.
 

See above. Again, think of the Zerex G-05 example I gave you above.
 

But my straws are well saturated in a cup of facts.
 

Gray area is not a problem at all. Jurisprudence on this is quite clear.
 

Not at all. Follow the guidelines of the law and you are fine.
 

But you would only be doing so with the support of your larger customer in the
first place, assuming you are their supplier, so that is a non-issue.
 

All they have to do is state that product abc meets the specifications of xyz
car company. If that car company doesn't like it, than they would need to prove
why it didn't meet their specifications.
 

I've had to work with the lawyers about trademark issues enough times to know
what works and what doesn't without getting sued. Your positions have no basis
in the law. But go ahead, make your own fluid and use it. I'll stick with
what I know works, and I'm not going to jeopardize a transmission for a few
bucks in fluid purchases.

"Greg Johnson" <spm> wrote in message
news:spm... 
situations 

OK, so first it was the fluid guys paid for it. Next it was DC paid for it.
Now it's both of them paid for it.
 

If there's a time limit, then why didn't the lubrication article mention so?
 
the 

Duh! I only said that in the beginning. DC does not want ATF+4 out there,
they
are the largest customer of it for the 2 suppliers that make it, thus those
suppliers have no support from their largest customer. I think you just
argued
yourself into agreeing with me.
 
know 

Anyone can get sued over anything. Your talking about what works without
getting a lawsuit that is found against you.

Apparently you must not put any stock in the idea that harassment lawsuits
that
are unwinnable are never filed by companies.

Ted

"Bill Putney" <net> wrote in message
news:net... 
 

Can ATF+3 be used in new Chrysler trannies that are factory-filled with
ATF+4? No. Thus, they do not have the same characteristics. If they
did, then Chrysler would have no basis for the claim that ATF+3 cannot
be used to fill ATF+4 trannies (or top them off)

Thus, as I said, ATF+3 and ATF+4 are not compatible in terms of
having the same characteristics (ie: being interchangeable)

Ted

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: 

No argument there.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"chuck" <rr.com> wrote in message
news:google.com...
 

There is no labeled ATF+4 from Havoline or Valvoline. There is labelled
ATF+3 from Havoline and Valvoline. The kinetic and brookfield viscosity
numbers
for all of them (including Amsoil) are not identical and are available on
the list of links in my original post. I could not find
viscosity numbers for the Mopar ATF+4
 

Name them. Every fluid manufacturer I could find that sells ATF+ only sell
branded ATF+3. Only Mopar sells branded ATF+4. A few synthetic ATF
manufacturers claim compatability with ATF+4 but they do not use the ATF+4
trademark on the bottle in any way that a customer would believe they are
buying ATF+4.

Ted