1995 Ply Voyager Xmission question

Hi, folks, , ,

I just bought a 1995 Plymouth Voyager, excellent condition, 120K
miles.
It shifts fine most of the time, but today, it shifted down at about
25~35 mph, and now doesn't want to shift out of lower gears, running
at abt 45-50 at 4K rpm. after shutting down, it works for a while, but
then the problem comes back again.
I am wondering if this problem can be solved by replacing the solenoid
package? If so, (or not) how much is this going to cost me?

Thanx
for your wisdom.

Ron C.
In the Calif. High Desert.

 

Which ENGINE? (2.5 litre 4-cylinder? 3.0, 3.3 or 3.8 litre V6?)
Which TRANSMISSION? (5-speed manual? 3-speed auto? 4-speed auto?)

OK, so it's probably a 3.0 or bigger engine and a 4-speed automatic, but
why do you make us guess?

This problem can be solved by proper diagnosis and repair, not by guessing
and throwing random parts at the problem. No further accurate information
can be given until you specify your van's configuration.

 

You'll need to have the unit scanned by a COMPETENT tech that knows morethan
just 2 words (replace transmission). NOt saying you don't need a rebuild or
reman but many of them are rebuilt/replaced for no good reason. I'll bet
more than 50%.
Larry

 

I'm not a competent tech but I am someone who just went through this
transmission business so might throw out a few gotchas.

1. Have someone scan the transmission codes. A very, very good
independent or an excellent mechanic should be able to do this.
I could not find either so did find an excellent and honest dealer
by asking around.

2. I updated the TCM, the Transmission Control Module. Apparently
the clutch is EECM, an electronically something-or-other clutch
controlled by software. My TCM needed an upgrade to its firmware.
Again, I went to the dealer. Cottman is a bit of a joke. I called them
up and they did not even know what I was talking about, at least
the fellow answering the phone. An independent tranny guy also
did not seem to follow my request for a firmware update or pretended
not to follow.

3. 1995 is when Chyrsler released the firmware upgrade to the TCM
for the A604 or the 4-speed tranny, that is 3 speeds with Overdrive,
making it four speed, a temperamental tranny that needs Chrysler's
own fluid, ATF+3 is safest, not ATF+4, not anybody else's. There
are equivalents, but if something is wrong with the tranny, get
the original fluid meant for that particular tranny. Weird but that's
the way it is.

You might want to change fluid and filter if your car has not been
serviced a lot. I would not be surprised if your had been serviced
and someone put it in the wrong fluid. Very easy to happen
since it was not known how fussy this tranny is for ATF+3 which
is really only at the dealer's. Not Dexron. Not this or that but
ATF+3. ATF+4 is synthetic and I would not trust that in a 1995.

You might be right about the solenoids. The firmware made the
tranny shift into faster gears more quickly, avoiding the
self-destruction of the torque converter. I do not remember
anything about it shifting downwards.

But changing the fluid and filter, not a power flush which might
destroy the tranny, the fellow can see if big chunks of metal
are in the fluid, meaning something is really bad. And since this
should be done on any used car that you just get, it's almost a
no-brainer. And no wise jokes from anybody

 

+4 works just fine. Used it in my 93 and my dad's 91 no issues. Use it in my
99 also. They ARE touchy though if you put wrong fluid in but hey so is
everything else. GM's use Dexron (don't put Mercon or type F in them, Fords
like Mercon, the jap stuff is something else altogether in many cases. All
units are engineered for certain characteristics and fluids.
Larry

 

What do you think though about the seals? Is that an urban legend
or is it better to use a non-synthetic oil, like ATF +3 just in case there
are some seals left-over or forgotten from a rebuild, a Cottman
rebuild, that are rated for synthetics?

Or does it not matter? The +4 being synthetic should be more
slippery and that should help the tranny. Is this what you
mean by being far superior, beside lasting longer than
non-synthetic ATF +3?

As an aside, I have been using an O-ring of the Buna-N type in
a water filter housing. I have been lubing this with petroleum
jelly. Ordinarily this would be a big no-no. But this particular
seal is impervious to petroleum products. Now these are slightly
more expensive than regular seals, but if these types of seals
were used, relatively speaking, then yes, I would see your point.
For almost 20 years, these Buna-N seals have neither leaked nor
deteriorated, astonishingly well made.

My point is that the gains might not outweigh the losses if
the tranny starts leaking. So I ask your advice on this. Does
it matter if the tranny takes 10 years and leaks a few drops,
probably not. But if the leaks occur internally, could that
affect matters? I just don't know and read contradictory
comments so you seem to have a good handle on this...

 

+4 is not only "just fine", but far superior to +3. There was a service
bulletin at one time that said not to use +4 in older minivans because of
the potential for objectionable torque converter clutch shudder under
certain circumstances, but this has been cancelled.

 

SORRY. . .
My 95 Van is a 3.3 engine and automatic tranny.
Ron C.

 

What about them?

ATF+3 and ATF+4 are both fully compatible with all seal materials found in
any Chrysler transmission. Seal compatibility is not even on the radar
screen as far as reasons to pick ATF+4 vs. ATF+3. ATF+4 has much greater
thermal stability, much more consistent frictional characteristics across
a much wider temperature range, a lower pour point for shift consistency
at low temperatures, and greater resistance to shear-induced
deterioration.

Full details directly from the horse's mouth:
http://www.sae.org/servlets/productDetail?PROD_TYP=PAPER&PROD_CD=982674

DS (I use ATF+4 in *ALL* of my Chrysler products, ranging from 1962 models
on up)

 

Now that's very helpful information. I had read on the allpar.com about someone
from Chrysler, not knowing how high a tech or engineer, who expressed concern
about ATF+4. If I had known it did not matter, then I would have prefer ATF+4
for all the reasons you stated about, especially about temperature stability
and frictional characteristics.


SAE Technical Papers
Document Number: 982674
Title: Development and Introduction of ChryslerS New Automatic Transmission Fluid
Meeting Where Presented: International Fall Fuels and Lubricants Meeting and Exposition, October
1998, San Francisco, CA, USA, Session: Automatic Transmission Fluids (ATF) (Part 1&2)

The price is about $12 snail mail which is par for the course, but $30 for a fax. I gather then
they had tested the fluid extensively before releasing it to the market. And they had tested on
older cars and you are satisfied with your cars going back to the early 60's which is good to hear.

This leads though to synthetics and engine oil. Now that is not the same as synthetic transmission
oils? Is there any truth to synthetic engine oils hurting seals and the cars beginning to leak if
used in older cars, such as mine, which is almost 200,000? What is your experience here? The same
as with the synthetic transmission?

I am now using Conoco semi-synthetic 5W-30 [really by default from the dealer's oil change] and it
seems fantastic. Less oil consumption and the engine is awfully smooth, knock on wood, considering
the very high mileage. So my fears are abated sometwhat since it uses less oil. And if the dealer
goes to a full synthetic, then fine. I can change the oil myself but it gives the dealer something
to do and keeps us on a cordial basis. I tried the local independents, but it turned out quite
badly.

 

DS:

 

Allpar is a terrific resource, but there is not much vetting for accuracy
of technical information.

Definitely. The paper is a very interesting read, full of comparisons
between ATF+3 and ATF+4.

The myth that synthetic oils cause leaks in old engines has been floating
around since synthetic oil first hit the consumer market in the early
'70s. Like most myths, it has at its core a kernel of truth: The first
synthetic oils available were 5W20 and 5W30, which were very much thinner
than the conventional oils widely used at the time (1970s). So, existing
small leaks leaked more of the thinner oil, and the myth that synthetic
oil causes or worsens leaks was born. Over the years, handwavers added all
kinds of nonsense about synthetic oil dissolving sludge that helps the
engine seal, etc.

Engines that leak conventional oil will generally leak synthetic oil.
Engines that don't leak conventional oil will generally not leak synthetic
oil.

That's a lot of miles; you must be doing something right!

DS