+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47

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

  1. #1
    Ted
    Guest

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

    Hi All,

    Responding to that Amsoil poster got me into doing a bit of online
    research, I've
    compiled my findings here. Please comment and enjoy!

    The ATF+3 / ATF+4 transmission fluid issue

    As we all know, Chrysler vehicles with auto trannys are speced by the
    factory
    to use ATF+3 or ATF+4. Current recommendations are for ATF+4 in everything
    except minivans older than 1999. This normally would not be a big deal -
    except
    that over the last decade, a general consenses has been reached by everyone
    familiar with the Chrysler 4 speed auto tranny (known as the Ultradrive)
    that
    you have to change the fluid in it rather frequently. You can't just fill
    it with fluid
    and leave it for the life of the car. The problem here is that ATF+4 is
    EXPENSIVE,
    big time, because Chrysler has a lock on it! $8 a quart is not uncommon,
    and for
    a full Ultradrive flush you need at least a case of it. $100 for fluid
    alone isn't a
    particularly fun price to pay, espically when everyone else is buying Dexron
    and
    Type F and is paying a tenth of this.

    Now, for most mid-90's vehicles, you can escape this somewhat by buying
    ATF+3, which isn't sole-sourced by Chrysler, and as a result is much
    cheaper.
    It's still not as cheap as Dexron, but it's nowhere near as bad as ATF+4.
    But,
    it's now been 4 years since ATF+4 was mandated, and more and more Chryslers
    are now needing ATF+4 for those those preventative maintainence fluid
    flushes.

    At first glance, it seems that we can't do anything but bend over and
    take it in the shorts. There's pressure among fluid manufacturers on
    Chrysler to
    commence sales of ATF+4, but Chrysler hasn't given up this cash cow yet.
    Simply waiting out Chrysler in the hope that eventually the dam will burst
    isn't
    an option if you want your transmission to live. So, as it stands, we are
    screwed.
    Or, are we?

    It turns out that there's some cracks in that dam already. This is what I
    have turned
    up in my surfing on the web.

    1) ATF+3 and ATF+4 are Chrysler trademarks. Thus, ANY fluid manufacturer
    that
    uses ATF+3 on the bottle MUST get permission from Chrysler. Chrysler has a
    registration
    process for this.

    For reference, in
    the Product Data Sheet for Chevron ATF+3 Automatic Transmission Fluid, there
    is
    the following line: "Chevron ATF+3 Automatic Transmission Fluid has been
    registered
    with the Chrysler Corporation" There is also the line "Chrysler, Mopar ATF
    Plus, ATF+2 and ATF+3
    are registered trademarks of DaimlerChrysler"

    2) ATF+3 is mineral-oil based transmission fluid. ATF+4 is synthetic oil
    based transmission
    fluid.

    For reference, a Product bulletin from Gulf Lubricants for GULFPRIDE ATF +3
    there is the
    line: "Vehicles manufactured after 1999 require ATF+4, a synthetic-based
    ATF only available
    through DaimlerChrysler"

    3) ATF+3 cannot be used in transmissions requiring ATF+4, but ATF+4 can be
    used in
    transmissions designed for ATF+3.

    For reference, see Chrysler's TSB 21-006-01

    4) The commonly-seen claim of synthetic motor oils that they do not need to
    be changed as
    frequently also extends to transmission fluid, a claim from none other than
    Chrysler itself.

    For reference a web link for Mopar ATF +4 sales literature contains the
    line: "The approved
    automatic transmission fluid for all vehicles factory filled with ATF+4.
    Check dipstick for
    fluid identification. A "fill for life" quality fluid."

    For a second reference, a web link for sales literature for Mobile 1
    Synthetic ATF contains the
    line "This unique, advanced technology has demonstrated extended drain"

    The Chrysler TSB listed above also contains the line: "With ATF+4® fluid,
    color and odor are no longer indicators of fluid condition and do not
    support a fluid change." (ie: what do they expect that your going to use
    as a guideline for trans fluid change?)

    Amsoil also claims this for their ATF (Need I post the actual reference,
    they claim this for
    everything)

    5) At least one fluid manufacturer claims their product can "modify"
    standard Dexron into an
    ATF +4 compatible fluid.

    For reference, see LubeGuard's HFM-ATF Supplement

    6) Many of the fluid manufacturers claim that ATF +4 is only available from
    Chrysler.

    For reference, see URL's from Gulfpride, Shell, and Chevron listed later in
    this post

    7) The major oil companies are getting pissed that Chrysler isn't putting
    out on ATF +4

    For reference, see the imakenews.com article URL at the bottom of this post

    8) There are a total of THREE manufacturers that claim to be selling
    Synthetic Automatic
    transmission fluid that is compatible with ATF +4. They are:

    Amsoil (duh) with it's Synthetic Automatic Transmission Fluid

    Valvoline with it's MaxLife ATF

    Petro-Canada with their Synthetic Blend Automatic Transmission Fluid

    So, in summary, what I am concluding is that we are seeing the beginnings of
    a war between
    the oil companies and Chrysler over ATF +4, and Chrysler's attempt to
    squeeze it's customers.
    Quite obviously, Chrysler looks upon the lock on ATF +4 as a way to force
    people into the
    dealer parts departments, and as a way to gouge people for money. Yet at
    the same time they
    are not above catering to the "synthetic oil = extended drain" crowd (of
    which I am NOT a
    member) by winking and nodding that their special ATF +4 tranny fluid can
    last forever. I
    guess they are inferring that they should be allowed to gouge people because
    after all it's
    a "fill for life" Yah, right. In the meantime the oil companies are
    pressuring Chrysler
    behind the scenes, but if DC doesen't capitulate, they are getting ready to
    go ahead and start
    selling synthetic ATF and claiming that it's ATF +4 compatible. As time
    passes, and more and
    more Chrysler cars require ATF +4, the major oil companies aren't going to
    give up a source of
    aftermarket fluid revenue.

    As for the idea that the synthetics (like Valvoline and Petro-Canada) that
    claim to be ATF +4
    compatible are actually the same as Mopar ATF +4, well legally and
    technically, if those
    companies are not buying the additive package from the sole-source that
    Chrysler has defined,
    then they are not the same as Mopar ATF +4. HOWEVER, this does NOT mean
    that someone
    other than the Chrysler-blessed supplier of the ATF +4 additive package
    cannot come up with
    an additive package that is functionally equivalent. Obviously this will
    have to be done with a
    synthetic ATF. As of now, I am skeptical that anyone has yet done so,
    because the ATF
    manufacturers who ARE claiming that their synthetic ATF is compatible with
    ATF +4 are ALSO
    claiming that the same fluids are Dexron III replacements. There's plenty
    of ancedotal evidence
    that ATF +4 and Dexron III are completely different, (besides what Chrysler
    is saying) and
    it isn't logical to believe that Dexron III and Synthetic Dexron III are so
    vastly different as to
    make Synthetic Dexron III the same as ATF +4. To me, the early bird
    synthetic ATF producers
    are attempting to grab some extra money by getting a few fools to buy their
    fluid, who should
    be getting ATF +4 from Mopar.

    But, sooner or later the installed base of cars that require ATF +4 will be
    big enough as to constitute
    an appreciable market, and one day one of these fluid manufacturers is going
    to come out with a
    synthetic ATF that claims compatibility ONLY with ATF +4, and NOT with
    Dexron III. At that
    time if DaimlerChrysler is still trying to hang on to their ATF +4 monopoly,
    it will be doing a huge
    disservice to the public, because people will not have any way of knowing
    what fluids really
    are equivalent. I urge people to write DaimlerChrysler and tell them to
    allow ATF +4 to be sold
    by aftermarket fluid producers such as Valvoline, Mobil and others.


    URL's:

    http://dodgeram.info/tsb/2001/21-006-01.htm
    Chrysler's TSB mandating ATF +4 transmission fluid

    http://www.imakenews.com/flashpoint/e_article000113903.cfm
    Article that details Chrysler's monopoly on ATF +4

    http://www.valvoline.com/pages/products/product_detail.asp?product=6&section=406
    Valvoline MaxLife ATF that claims ATF +3 and ATF +4 compatability

    http://www.petro-canada.ca/eng/prodserv/lubesgreases/6886.htm
    Petro-Canada's Lube page (has a link to their ATF +3, and a link to their
    Synthetic ATF
    which claims compatability with ATF +4)

    http://www.amsoil.com/products/atf.html
    Amsoil ATF that claims ATF +3 and ATF +4 compatibility

    http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_ATF3.asp
    Mobil ATF+3 Automatic Transmission Fluid

    http://www.castrolusa.com/products/productpageo.asp?product_id=10&product_category=3
    Castrol ATF +3 information

    http://www.valvoline.com/pages/products/product_detail.asp?product=63
    Valvoline ATF +3 information

    http://www.gulflubricants.net/pb/332025_Gulfpride_ATF+3_PB.pdf
    American Refining Group's GULFPRIDE ATF +3, notes that ATF +4 is
    monopolized by DC

    http://www.shell.ca/code/products/commercial/lubricants/tips/tips-header/1-33.pdf
    FormulaShell ATF +3 product data sheet, also notes that ATF +4 is
    monopolized by DC

    http://www.bplubricants.com/bple/bpleus.nsf/ProductsIntro?OpenForm
    (then click on Transmission Fluids on the left hand menu)
    URL for BP Lubricants Autran ATF+3, warns that ATF +3 <> ATF +4

    http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/nafl/auto/content/atf.shtm#atf34
    Chevron ATF+3 transmission fluid URL, that also warns that ATF +3 <> ATF +4

    http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/nafl/auto/content/faq.shtm
    Chevron URL that says that LubeGuard is snake oil

    http://www.lubegard.com/automotive/trans_atf_hfm.html
    Lubeguard's Dexron to ATF +4 converter snake oil

    http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil1SyntheticATF.asp
    Mobil Synthetic ATF that claims extended drain, also claims incompatibility
    with ATF +4

    http://www.mopar.ca/CA/02/EN/MOPAR/1,,CA-02-EN-MOPAR-MAINTENANCE-REPLACEMENT_PARTS-FLUIDS,.html
    Mopar's blurb on ATF +4 claiming that it's a "fill and forget" fluid

    http://www.synthetic-oil-online.com/articles38.htm
    Amsoil dealer's website that claims Amsoil ATF works for both Dexron and ATF
    +4 and
    then rather contradictorly states that ATF+4 is supposed to be "Moderately
    slippery" and
    Dexron is supposed to be "Slippery" I couldn't figure how they reconciled
    that one. Included
    for amusement only.


    REMEMBER: A TRANSMISSION FLUID IS A PRODUCT THAT IS A COMBINATION OF
    A BASE OIL WITH AN ADDITIVE PACKAGE. THE ADDITIVE PACKAGE IS WHAT
    LETS AN OIL COMPANY CALL IT ATF +4. RIGHT NOW THIS IS CONTROLLED BY
    CHRYSLER. NEXT TIME YOU SPEND $100 AT MOPAR FOR A CASE OF TRANNY
    OIL, YOU WILL KNOW WHO TO CURSE.

    Ted




  2. #2
    Neil
    Guest

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

    In article <newscache$yrewmh$d1n1$ipinc.net>,
    "Ted Mittelstaedt" <placo.com> wrote:
     

    [snip]
     

    Not exactly...

    MerconV is synthetic based. (AFAIK)
    I don't have current cost per quart at hand but even if it
    were priced at $2 a quart, dig this;

    Some Ford automatic transmissions now have a drain plug
    in the pan (that's the good news).

    Now the bad news.

    The drain plug is also the fill plug.

    Yup, no dipstick tube, no fill hole.

    Well, we now know who's been hiring from the bottom of the
    engineering class.

    Chrysler ain't so bad.

  3. #3
    jdoe
    Guest

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

    Sorry to rain on yur parade but I buy +4 for my vans (93 & 99) at my local
    dealer and the cost is not much different for when I by mercon or dexron
    (from name brand suppliers i.e. penzoil, mobil etc.) from any local place
    i.e. autozone etc. Many mfgrs. have designated specific fluid types for
    years. Maybe you don't remember when dexron put nto a ford would kill a c-6
    or type f put into a turbo 400 would cause issues the other way. Why all the
    bitching at chrysler for doing nothing different? Frankly I find it a whole
    lot less problematic than dealing mercon, mercon IV, dexron, dexron III,
    mercon/dexron in all it's differnt types. I'd just as soon keep one fluid
    and be done with it.
    Larry
    "Ted Mittelstaedt" <placo.com> wrote in message
    news:newscache$yrewmh$d1n1$ipinc.net... 
    everything 
    everyone 
    Dexron 
    Chryslers 

    there 
    ATF 
    +3 
    to 
    than 
    from 
    in 
    post 
    of 
    because 
    to 
    Chrysler 
    so 
    their 
    be 
    going 
    monopoly, 
    http://www.valvoline.com/pages/products/product_detail.asp?product=6&section=406 
    http://www.castrolusa.com/products/productpageo.asp?product_id=10&product_category=3 
    http://www.shell.ca/code/products/commercial/lubricants/tips/tips-header/1-33.pdf 
    +4 
    http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil1SyntheticATF.asp 
    incompatibility 
    http://www.mopar.ca/CA/02/EN/MOPAR/1,,CA-02-EN-MOPAR-MAINTENANCE-REPLACEMENT_PARTS-FLUIDS,.html 
    ATF 



  4. #4
    Daniel
    Guest

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

    On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
     

    Ted, I cannot figure out why you're paying $8 for a quart of ATF+4. I
    don't pay even close to that in Canadian dollars, let alone American ones.
    "$8 a quart is not uncommon" -- horsepuckey! You've just apparently spent
    your time posting a missive about evil bad Chrysler versus oil companies
    instead of finding a dealer who won't wallet-rape you.

    *shrug* Your choice, ace.

    DS


  5. #5
    Bill
    Guest

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



    Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: 

    My dealer charges me, a walk-in consumer, a little over $5US/qt. by the
    quart, and something like $4.80US/qt. in gallon containers. I flushed
    (and will do future flushes of) my Concorde's 42LE with 16 qts. at a
    time, so, yeah, that's about $75 for the flush. Someone who wasn't as
    anal would still pay about $50 for 10 qts. I have seen enough posts on
    various forums to believe that there are some dealers around the U.S.
    that do indeed charge over $7/qt. - seems to be more prevalent in the
    (northern?) metropolitan areas.
     

    So apparently if a given modern, with-it, movin'-n-shakin' manufacturer
    could convince you that they've come up with a true equivalent of ATF+4,
    you would buy it as long as they just did not tell you that it was the
    same stuff that was in their bottles labeled Dexron™, but just in a
    different package labeled for equivalency to ATF+4? 8^)

    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! =-----

  6. #6
    Greg
    Guest

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



    Bill Putney wrote:
     

    Apparently there is a factory rebate in effect for many Mopar service items,
    including many fluids, belts, brakes, belts, shocks, etc through the end
    of November. Ask your dealer to see if this applies, which could help
    lower the price.


  7. #7
    Ted
    Guest

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


    "Greg Johnson" <spam> wrote in message
    news:spam... 
    items, 

    Thanks, good info. However I don't use ATF +4, I have a 1995 minivan that
    runs fine on ATF +3. Hope this helps someone out there.

    Ted



  8. #8
    Ted
    Guest

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


    "Bill Putney" <net> wrote in message
    news:net... 
    ATF 
    with ATF+4 

    No, your missing the point. Right now the ATF +4 additive package is
    sole-sourced. Sooner or later if Chrysler doesen't let go of it, the rest
    of
    the oil companies are going to get tired of playing games with them, and
    one of them that makes additive packages is going to produce a duplicate
    of the ATF +4 additive package, and sell it to all the rest of the blenders.
    The point I am making is that when this happens they won't be able to
    use the ATF +4 trademark and so will create something else then that
    will be used by the rest of the ATF producers, which will be rather
    confusing
    for the customers.

    The last thing that we need is to make transmission fluid labeling even more
    complicated
    than they are. It's bad enough that the automakers can't standardize on one
    fluid, but at least the ones that are out there are known by recognizable
    trademarks.
    This is only because nobody has as of yet played the games that Chrysler is
    playing. If all the rest of the automakers decide that what Chrysler is
    doing is
    a great way to make extra money, your going to see all of them redesign
    their trannys so as to take incompatible fluids.

    Ted



  9. #9
    jdoe
    Guest

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

    My dealer doesn't even stock +3 anymore. So unless I search around or buy it
    aftermarket. So next fluid change my 93 will be going to +4 also.
    Larry
    "Ted Mittelstaedt" <placo.com> wrote in message
    news:newscache$393ymh$h1o1$ipinc.net... 
    the 
    on 



  10. #10
    Ted
    Guest

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


    "Daniel J. Stern" <umich> wrote in message
    news:engin.umich.edu... 

    Daniel I expected better from you. $8 is an example figure as anyone
    reading can plainly see. The problem is that Chrysler has a lock on
    ATF +4 and can set the price anywhere they choose. You cannot
    guarentee or even give any hope at all that a month from now Chrysler
    might not just decide to start charging $15 a quart.

    By contrast, with Dexron, Type F and so on, because those are not
    sole-sourced, competition will prevent one company from gouging it's
    customers.



    Look, I don't even own a 1997-or-later Chrysler that requires ATF +4,
    I own a 1995 minivan that takes ATF +3. The last time I flushed it, I used
    off-the-shelf Valvoline ATF+3 and it cost about $1.79 a quart. Compare that
    to the lowest price for ATF +4 that any respondent has posted - $5 a quart,
    and I paid $21.48 for a case, while your paying $60.00 And on top of that,
    one of my relatives that works at a Dodge dealership gave me 2 cases of
    ATF +4 for free that he bought for a car he owned then sold, and never
    ended up using. They are sitting collecting dust now.

    The point is that there's a rising number of companies out there which are
    trying to follow the "razor/blade" marketing strategy, where they give away
    the item then screw you for the consumables. This has of course always
    existed in a small way in the auto business for many dealer-only parts like
    body trim, etc. But those parts are at least well within the core
    competency
    of the automakers who after all deal with parts every day.

    But, getting into consumables like oil, ATF and other fluids is most
    definitely
    not in the automakers core competencies. Chrysler does not have a single
    oil
    refinery and is most definitely not an oil company. They add absolutely no
    value to the ATF +4 product, and by sole-sourcing it, they merely are adding
    more costs to the product for no reason. The fluid vendors by contrast are
    actually making the fluids, plus they already have an existing distribution
    network,
    adding in ATF +4 to their product lines could be done far cheaper than
    Chrysler doing it.

    You wouldn't buy a car manufactured and sold by Exxon, why do you think it's
    normal to buy automatic transmission fluid from a car maker?

    Ted




 
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48