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

 

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.

 

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, 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

 

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")

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

I

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

 

Anyone know the greatest mystery of all. What is the name of the
company the makes the ATF for CC.

Warren

 

I don't have a problem with non-compatible fluids between brands, because the
Tran. fluid today is so tightly tied in with the transmission design. Requiring
a standardized fluid would handicap the design and innovation for the
transmission fluid, and also the transmission itself. I want car makes to make
improvements without waiting for the entire industry to do the same. I also
expect the price of the ATF+4 fluid will fall quite a bit in the next few years
as servicing of the newer transmissions becomes commonplace.

 

As you mentioned, Chrysler doesn't manufacture the fluids, and it probably
didn't invent them either--it contracts with a specialty supplier to do that.

The fluid maker probably spent quite a bit in R&D to develop a fluid for
Chrylser's transmissions that works well and lasts a long time. It may even
hold some patents used in the manufacturing of the fluid. That would explain why
that manufacturer gets to make all of it. As time passes, however, expect that
to change, just as it has with other products.

 

According to a post almost exactly a year ago in this ng
(http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...kdmfprvb9snf43r431sitauke7kl%404ax.com&rnum=3),
"Currently, there are only two
companies that make ATF +4 (both marketed as Mopar fluid) which are
approved by DC: Equilon (makers of Havoline and Shell oil products in
the US) and Petro-Canada. (From what I can tell, Equilon makes +4 for
most of the North American market, and PC makes it mostly for export.)"

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

 

You said it was "not uncommon". I and several others told you you're fulla
shit, 'cause you are. The only logical conclusion is you're paying too
much for trans fluid.

Yeah, and you can't guarantee that a month from now frogs won't develop
claws and start living in toilets.

DS

 

Just for giggles http://www.synlube.com/prod02.htm

 

If you would kindly read the link I included in my post labeled

"Article that details Chrysler's monopoly on ATF +4"

you would see that the fluid manufacturer is being prevented by Chrysler
from
selling the ATF +4 additive package.

Furthermore, even if the fluid manufacturer did sell the ATF +4 additive
package,
the bottle can't say ATF +4 unless Chrysler gives it's permission, as ATF +4
is
a registered trademark of theirs.

Ted

 

Let's apply the same reasoning to motor oil, gasoline, anti-freeze, chassis
lube,
etc.

I don't. The problem isn't the wholesale cost of ATF +4. I'm quite sure
the
volume of it being consumed is sufficient for whichever fluid manufacturer
has
the contract to make it to be able to sell it to Chrysler at the same
wholesale
cost that they would sell any other comparable synthetic trans fluid.

The problem is that the only distribution channel for ATF +4 is Chrysler's
dealers. This dealer network and Chrysler itself add most of the cost to
the fluid. Chrysler and the dealer network are designed and optimized to
distributing cars, not fluids. A typical auto parts retailer is by contrast
optimized for distributing stuff like trans fluid, which means they can do
it cheaper, and these savings would be passed along to the consumer if
there was competition.

Ted

 

And the interesting thing is that in the product data sheet for
Petro-Canada's
synthetic ATF, they claim ATF +4 compatability.

Ted

 

Sorry, didn't follow this thread from the start. Is the ATF-3 and the
ATF-4 compatable. We have a 93 Caravan that uses the ATF3.

Warren