Replacement of fluid in Torque converter

My wife was in the hospital, and I guess that I was preoccupied. I had
gotten so used to using the ATF +3 in my 95 Caravan that I accidentally used
it for a fluid and filter change in her 99 Concorde instead of the synthetic
ATF +4. I feel that I need to get as much of this ATF +3 out of her car as
possible.

Could I put a piece of tightly fitted tubing from the filter hole into a
bucket of 6 quarts of fresh atf+4, and run the vehicle until the fresh fluid
has all been sucked into the transmission, and the old fluid has been pumped
out of the tube of the cooler? Is there any flaw in that logic? Not
flushing with a machine, per se, just switching whatever is left in the
torque converter using the transmission pump...


Also, I noticed that the last time that the transmission fluid was changed,
they didn't put an o-ring on the filter tube going into the hole. I checked
inside of the hole and around the tube, but there was nothing. Isn't there
supposed to be one there? My Caravan's did.

Thanks

yes, the O-ring makes the seal on the trans filter and should likely have
been there.

On the ATF+3 versus ATF+4, I would not worry about it. If it were me, I'd
leave it in there till it was changed down the road in about another 25-30K
miles. FYI, ATF+3 was the non-synthetic predecessor and was probably used
in that same transmission when it came from the factory in 1998 or 1999.

Bob

"mysticolor" > wrote in message
...
> My wife was in the hospital, and I guess that I was preoccupied. I had
> gotten so used to using the ATF +3 in my 95 Caravan that I accidentally
used
> it for a fluid and filter change in her 99 Concorde instead of the
synthetic
> ATF +4. I feel that I need to get as much of this ATF +3 out of her car
as
> possible.
>
> Could I put a piece of tightly fitted tubing from the filter hole into a
> bucket of 6 quarts of fresh atf+4, and run the vehicle until the fresh
fluid
> has all been sucked into the transmission, and the old fluid has been
pumped
> out of the tube of the cooler? Is there any flaw in that logic? Not
> flushing with a machine, per se, just switching whatever is left in the
> torque converter using the transmission pump...
>
>
> Also, I noticed that the last time that the transmission fluid was
changed,
> they didn't put an o-ring on the filter tube going into the hole. I
checked
> inside of the hole and around the tube, but there was nothing. Isn't
there
> supposed to be one there? My Caravan's did.
>
> Thanks
>
>

Thanks, Bob,

You see, that's what I was thinking once I realized that I had screwed up,
and I started thinking about it.

You're right, the tranny does have a notation of 1998 on it. I noticed it
on the innards covered by the pan while I was changing the fluid.

I wish that I had at least put the Maxlife in it, since it's synthetic, and
Valvoline is stating that it's a replacement for ATF +3 and ATF +4.

If the dealership can't even put the o-ring on when they're putting a new
filter on, why should I be so worried about the fluid at this point?

I won't let them touch my car again.

"Bob Shuman" > wrote in message
...
> yes, the O-ring makes the seal on the trans filter and should likely have
> been there.
>
> On the ATF+3 versus ATF+4, I would not worry about it. If it were me, I'd
> leave it in there till it was changed down the road in about another
> 25-30K
> miles. FYI, ATF+3 was the non-synthetic predecessor and was probably used
> in that same transmission when it came from the factory in 1998 or 1999.
>
> Bob
>
> "mysticolor" > wrote in message
> ...
>> My wife was in the hospital, and I guess that I was preoccupied. I had
>> gotten so used to using the ATF +3 in my 95 Caravan that I accidentally
> used
>> it for a fluid and filter change in her 99 Concorde instead of the
> synthetic
>> ATF +4. I feel that I need to get as much of this ATF +3 out of her car
> as
>> possible.
>>
>> Could I put a piece of tightly fitted tubing from the filter hole into a
>> bucket of 6 quarts of fresh atf+4, and run the vehicle until the fresh
> fluid
>> has all been sucked into the transmission, and the old fluid has been
> pumped
>> out of the tube of the cooler? Is there any flaw in that logic? Not
>> flushing with a machine, per se, just switching whatever is left in the
>> torque converter using the transmission pump...
>>
>>
>> Also, I noticed that the last time that the transmission fluid was
> changed,
>> they didn't put an o-ring on the filter tube going into the hole. I
> checked
>> inside of the hole and around the tube, but there was nothing. Isn't
> there
>> supposed to be one there? My Caravan's did.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
>

I've read a lot of the others feedback and feel they are being overly
critical on you. Yes, the ATF+4 is the preferred fluid and should be used,
but given the ATF+3 is already in there, I say leave it be. If you want to,
just change it sooner.

I know that ATF+3 and ATF+4 are inter mixable and compatible with each other
as I have used the newer ATF+4 in my vehicles that all came originally with
ATF+3. You usually get about half the fluid capacity when you change the
fluid using the drop the pan method. You don't say what they used when they
changed it previously or what it came with when new. But, at the worst, you
now have about 2/3 ATF+3 in the unit.

Good luck.

Bob

"mysticolor" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks, Bob,
>
> You see, that's what I was thinking once I realized that I had screwed up,
> and I started thinking about it.
>
> You're right, the tranny does have a notation of 1998 on it. I noticed it
> on the innards covered by the pan while I was changing the fluid.
>
> I wish that I had at least put the Maxlife in it, since it's synthetic,
and
> Valvoline is stating that it's a replacement for ATF +3 and ATF +4.
>

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Bob Shuman wrote:

> I've read a lot of the others feedback and feel they are being overly
> critical on you. Yes, the ATF+4 is the preferred fluid and should be
> used, but given the ATF+3 is already in there, I say leave it be.

Your opinion does not match Chrysler's specification.

> I know that ATF+3 and ATF+4 are inter mixable and compatible with each other
> as I have used the newer ATF+4 in my vehicles that all came originally with
> ATF+3.

ATF+4 is backward compatible. ATF+3 is not forward compatible.

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Bob Shuman wrote:

> On the ATF+3 versus ATF+4, I would not worry about it.

'Course not. Not your transmission, so why should you care? Please try to
have *some* reasonable basis for your recommendations beyond WAguesses.

> ATF+3 was the non-synthetic predecessor and was probably used in that
> same transmission when it came from the factory in 1998 or 1999.

The vehicle is a 2000 Concorde. Factory fill was ATF+4.

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, mysticolor wrote:

> My wife was in the hospital, and I guess that I was preoccupied. I had
> gotten so used to using the ATF +3 in my 95 Caravan that I accidentally
> used it for a fluid and filter change in her 99 Concorde instead of the
> synthetic ATF +4. I feel that I need to get as much of this ATF +3 out
> of her car as possible.

Doing so will be a nuisance, but very good and inexpensive insurance
against expensive transmission damage due to incorrect fluid.

> Could I put a piece of tightly fitted tubing from the filter hole into a
> bucket of 6 quarts of fresh atf+4, and run the vehicle until the fresh fluid
> has all been sucked into the transmission, and the old fluid has been pumped
> out of the tube of the cooler?

It'll be messy, but should do the job as long as you work carefully and
pay attention to what you're doing.

> Also, I noticed that the last time that the transmission fluid was
> changed, they didn't put an o-ring on the filter tube going into the
> hole. I checked inside of the hole and around the tube, but there was
> nothing. Isn't there supposed to be one there?

Yes.

Also be sure to get the reusable pan gasket.

> Also, I noticed that the last time that the transmission fluid was
>> changed, they didn't put an o-ring on the filter tube going into the
>> hole. I checked inside of the hole and around the tube, but there was
>> nothing. Isn't there supposed to be one there?
>
> Yes.

I went back through my drain pans, and found the o-ring... good news!

>
> Also be sure to get the reusable pan gasket.

I'm using the cork right now, and it's holding well. I bought an
aftermarket filter just to get the gasket. The last one that I bought for
my Caravan had a hard, fiber gasket that really worked well. I'm not as
thrilled with the cork one, however. This cork one works for now, but I am
aware that it might start leaking long term.

I've had problems with the RTV grey that you're supposed to use, because the
transmission will continue to leak fluid over the edge, no matter how long
it sits. I don't like the fluid being in that place where the RTV is
touching the pan and face of the tranny.

I'm pretty experimental with my vehicles, and I've never come out with any
problems. I just try to use common sense when dealing with issues such as
dealer vs. generic, etc.

With the touchy nature of Chrysler transmissions, I want to make sure that I
do this right, but I don't want to go overboard, either. I'm in a holding
pattern right now.

Bob Shuman wrote:

> I've read a lot of the others feedback and feel they are being overly
> critical on you. Yes, the ATF+4 is the preferred fluid and should be used,
> but given the ATF+3 is already in there, I say leave it be. If you want to,
> just change it sooner.
>
> I know that ATF+3 and ATF+4 are inter mixable and compatible with each other
> as I have used the newer ATF+4 in my vehicles that all came originally with
> ATF+3. You usually get about half the fluid capacity when you change the
> fluid using the drop the pan method. You don't say what they used when they
> changed it previously or what it came with when new. But, at the worst, you
> now have about 2/3 ATF+3 in the unit.

ATF+4 (9602) can be used in vehicles originally designed to use ATF+3. The
converse is not true.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Bob Shuman wrote:
>
> > On the ATF+3 versus ATF+4, I would not worry about it.
>
> 'Course not. Not your transmission, so why should you care? Please try to
> have *some* reasonable basis for your recommendations beyond WAguesses.
>
> > ATF+3 was the non-synthetic predecessor and was probably used in that
> > same transmission when it came from the factory in 1998 or 1999.
>
> The vehicle is a 2000 Concorde. Factory fill was ATF+4.
NUMBER: 21-004-04

GROUP: Transmission



SUBJECT:

Automatic Transmission Fluid Usage ATF+4 (Type 9602)

MODELS:

1989 - 1995 (AA) Spirit/Acclaim/Lebaron Sedan

1989 - 2003 (AB) Ram Van/Wagon

1989 - 1993 (AC) Dynasty/New Yorker/New Yorker Salon

1989 - 1993 (AD) Ram Truck

1989 - 1994 (AG) Daytona

1989 (AH) Lancer/Lebaron GTS

1989 - 1995 (AJ) Lebaron Coupe/Lebaron Convertible

1989 - 1990 (AK) Aries/Reliant

1989 - 1990 (AL) Horizon/Omni

1989 (AM) Diplomat/Gran Fury/New Yorker fifth Avenue

1989 - 2004 (AN) Dakota

1989 - 1994 (AP) Shadow/Sundance

1990 - 1991 (AQ) Maserati

1990 - 1993 (AY) Imperial/New Yorker Fifth Avenue

1994 - 2003 (BR/BE) Ram Truck

2004 - 2005 (CS) Pacifica

1998 - 2003 (DN) Durango

2002 - 2004 (DR) Ram Truck

1995 - 2000 (FJ) Sebring/Avenger/Talon

2000 (GS) Chrysler Voyager (International Market)

2004 (HB) Durango

1995 - 2000 (JA) Cirrus/Stratus/Breeze

2001- 2004 (JR) Sebring Sedan & Convertible/Stratus Sedan

1996 - 2000 (JX) Sebring Convertible

2002 - 2004 (KJ) Liberty

1993 - 2004 (LH) Concorde/Intrepid/Vision/LHS/New

Yorker /300M

2005 (LX) Chrysler 300/Magnum

2000 (NS) Town & Country/Caravan/Voyager

1995 - 2004 (PL) Neon

2002 - 2003 (PG) PT Cruiser (International Markets)

2001 - 2005 (PT) PT Cruiser

1997 - 2002 (PR) Prowler

2001 - 2005 (RG) Chrysler Voyager (International Markets)

2001 - 2005 (RS) Town & Country/Caravan/Voyager

1997 - 2004 (TJ) Wrangler

2001 - 2004 (WG) Grand Cherokee (International Markets)

1999 - 2004 (WJ) Grand Cherokee

1989 - 1995 (YJ) Wrangler

1996 - 1998 (ZG) Grand Cherokee (International Markets)

1994 - 1998 (ZJ) Grand Cherokee/Grand Wagoneer

NOTE: This bulletin applies to all transmissions manufactured by Chrysler
except for

1999 and earlier minivans with the 41TE/AE transmission, This Service
Bulletin DOES

NOT apply to all AW-4 transmissions, Sprinter transmissions, Crossfire
transmissions

and WG bodies equipped with a W5J400 or NAG1 transmission (sales code DGJ).

DISCUSSION:

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.It is

recommended that all vehicles with Chrysler automatic transmissions EXCEPT

FOR THOSE LISTED ABOVE be serviced with ATF+4®..

NOTE: ATF+4® must always be used in vehicles that were originally filled
with ATF+4®.

NOTE: Service intervals do not change. The service interval currently in

effect for a given vehicle should continue to be followed.

NOTE: 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. Do not use ATF+2

or ATF+3 to top off vehicles that have ATF+4® fluid.

BENEFITS

..Better anti-wear properties

..Improved rust/corrosion prevention

..Controls oxidation

-3- 21-004-04

..Eliminates deposits

..Controls friction

..Retains anti-foaming properties

..Superior properties for low temperature operation

FLUID COLOR

Mopar ATF+4® is a World Class Fluid having exceptional durability. However,
the red dye

used in ATF+4® is not permanent; as the fluid ages it may become darker or
appear brown in

color. ATF+4® also has a unique odor that may change with age. With ATF+4®
fluid, color

and odor are no longer indicators of fluid condition and do not support a
fluid change.

PARTS REQUIRED:

Qty. Part No. Description

AR 05013457AA Fluid, Transmission, ATF+4® (Type 9602),Quart






>
>