AW4 Fluid

[Digger87xj]

I am a Chysler/Jeep Tech and a Level 4 transmission tech.
Here is my take on Dex III and ATF +4 debate.

Both have vitually the same properties as far as lubrication goes.
ATF +4 has some added friction modifiers that Dex III does not and, can withstand much higher heat before break-down.

As far as using ATF+4 in a AW4 trans, Its just fine, there will be no harm in a normally working transmission. Those that have issues with ATF+4 usually had problems to begin with and were trying to fix a problem with a fluid change. They would have likely seen the same results using fresh DEX III.

If the AW4 has been recenty rebuilt, and/or has a new torque converter, then DEX III will be required during break-in of the torque converter clutch. The same applies for early Chrysler transmissions that used ATF+3. The friction modifiers in ATF+4 will cause early failure of the clutch material. Once the break-in is achived, use of ATF+4 is recommended for it's superior heat stability.

Run what you want. Just keep the trans cool and it will go for a very very long time.

 

[lawsoncl]

Both have vitually the same properties as far as lubrication goes.
ATF +4 has some added friction modifiers that Dex III does not and, can withstand much higher heat before break-down.

Isn't this a contradiction? It's the friction modifiers that cause the extra slippage and heat. My point is that if they were truly interchangeable, Chrysler would not have blamed the inavertent use of DexIII for the death of several thousand minivan transmissions.

 

[Digger87xj]

Isn't this a contradiction? It's the friction modifiers that cause the extra slippage and heat. My point is that if they were truly interchangeable, Chrysler would not have blamed the inavertent use of DexIII for the death of several thousand minivan transmissions.

not a contradiction. DexIII cannot be used where ATF+3 or +4 is called for but, ATF+4 can be used where DEXIII and ATF+3 are called for, after the break in period...about 1500 miles.

 

[dlarrivee]

He means his reports come from people who actually own and operate a Jeep with an AW4 and have tried the "fluid that has proven to work all the time" and the one that is "hit or miss"

Just FYI, you're making yourself look like a real smartass and jackass on here. 5-90 is one of the most knowledgable and respected members on this board, and you attempting to go toe to toe with him shows your ignorance. You keep contradicting yourself - when in fact you should just listen to what the man says. His record speaks for itself.

atriot:

Actually, I was just simply asking a question... He's obviously very knowledgeable, why should it be a huge problem if I ask him what he does for a living? Maybe I'm interested in following a similar path with my career? Who knows. Why are you taking it personally when it was a question I had for him?

Either way, you really need to lighten up. Same with the guy who was calling me a troll. You're going to have to realize that not everyone spends countless hours on this forum, and not everyone pays attention to other peoples post count on here.

This is just the internet, it's not serious business, and I'm not out to offend or insult people I can't even see or hear, this is just a bunch of text on a screen. Forgive me for how I might have come off, however, I was not trying to cause a problem with someone who is knowledgeable I was just simply interested in where knowledge like his is obtained.

Can't we all just get a long even though this is a heated topic, and we might all have different opinions?

 

[5-90]

5-90, I meant that it was overkill to switch to a stick because no one can agree on what ATF to use.. haha, just a joke buddy.

What do you mean when you say reports from the field though? Do you work at a Dealer?

I honestly, think at this point I'd just use whatever Multi-Vehicle ATF (that's supposed to be used in a Dexron III spec tranny), or Dexron/Merc, would be what I would personally put in my tranny.

I just wonder, if I went to get a flush done, if the shop I took it to would argue with me if I wanted them to use a certain fluid but they insisted on ATF+4 or something...

No. "Reports form the field" means you guys, Pirate, JF, and personal contacts. I ask questions, I keep track of the answers. I'm an Archivist by nature, I'm almost obsessive about collecting information.

If you want a final arbiter of what fluid to use in the AW4, don't ask ChryCo. Just because they use the thing in the XJ doesn't mean they know everything about it. It's a Toyota box - ask them. They'd know more (Aisin is an OEM supplier to Toyota.)

 

[5-90]

I am a Chysler/Jeep Tech and a Level 4 transmission tech.
Here is my take on Dex III and ATF +4 debate.

Both have vitually the same properties as far as lubrication goes.
ATF +4 has some added friction modifiers that Dex III does not and, can withstand much higher heat before break-down.

As far as using ATF+4 in a AW4 trans, Its just fine, there will be no harm in a normally working transmission. Those that have issues with ATF+4 usually had problems to begin with and were trying to fix a problem with a fluid change. They would have likely seen the same results using fresh DEX III.

If the AW4 has been recenty rebuilt, and/or has a new torque converter, then DEX III will be required during break-in of the torque converter clutch. The same applies for early Chrysler transmissions that used ATF+3. The friction modifiers in ATF+4 will cause early failure of the clutch material. Once the break-in is achived, use of ATF+4 is recommended for it's superior heat stability.

Run what you want. Just keep the trans cool and it will go for a very very long time.

Interesting. Is it just the friction modifiers that are different between Dexron and +4? I'd like to see your source information, if you have any (ref my "Archivist" bit in previous post. I'm not doubting you - I just collect information. That's why I started writing books...)

If the main problem with the +4 is that it's "slipperier" than the Dex II/IIE/III, then what you say makes quite a bit of sense. I liken it to synthetic engine oil vice dead dinosaurs - while synthetic works well, if you change over to it too soon (I usually think 15-30Kmiles,) your engine won't be "broken in," and will run like crap. Let the engine finish breaking/wearing in, then switch. Also, don't switch too late, or you could get a whole new batch of problems. Ideal time to change over to synthetic is usually 15-50Kmiles, or 300-1000 hours.

Friction is, after all, necessary to the break-in process. Parts are lapping against each other, and they need friction to do that. That's why the first run of an engine is done (usually) with 30ND oil (non-detergent.) You get sufficient friction from the natural oil, and the detergents added to oil tend to make it just a bit slipperier - so not having them actually increases friction slightly.

But, run dead dinosaurs for at least 15,000 miles or 300 hours, and go synthetic from there.

If the only major difference between +4/Dex is that +4 is slipperier, same sort of thing applies - but I'd think that 1500 miles is a bit early to switch. More like 10,000 miles, to me (but I could be wrong. It's happened before.)

For dlarrivee - I don't work as a dealer. I've worked as a professional mechanic - on industrial equipment, heavy trucks, forklifts, and the like. I've been swinging wrenches as a hobby for the best part of 30 years - I cut my teeth helping my uncle restore his Corvette collection (building engines, transmissions, and axles. He hates precision work - I love it.) Works in Progress is what I do now - I've gotten tired of hearing that I'm "overqualified and undereducated" in job interviews, so I've created my own job. There are pros and cons (as with any arrangement,) but it works for my wife and myself, so I'll keep doing it.

Go ahead and ask questions - how do you think I've learned what I have over the years? I don't know everything about everything, but I probably know something about damn near everything, and my Google-Fu allows me to find what I don't have room for in my hat anymore... What's the point in knowing all this if I can't teach it?

 

[8Mud]

Actually, I was just simply asking a question... He's obviously very knowledgeable, why should it be a huge problem if I ask him what he does for a living? Maybe I'm interested in following a similar path with my career? Who knows. Why are you taking it personally when it was a question I had for him?

Either way, you really need to lighten up. Same with the guy who was calling me a troll. You're going to have to realize that not everyone spends countless hours on this forum, and not everyone pays attention to other peoples post count on here.

This is just the internet, it's not serious business, and I'm not out to offend or insult people I can't even see or hear, this is just a bunch of text on a screen. Forgive me for how I might have come off, however, I was not trying to cause a problem with someone who is knowledgeable I was just simply interested in where knowledge like his is obtained.

Can't we all just get a long even though this is a heated topic, and we might all have different opinions?

Digger67XJ, gets his data from experience, he has likely seen the same type of tranny have the same or similar failures on numerous occasions. He has likely figured out the cause (like he said excess heat will kill your tranny).

Others get there info from empirical data, they are intimately familiar with a specific vehicle driven in (general) the same way for years or decades. If you do this or this or that, good or bad things happen. You usually notice rather subtle differences.

Others use the technical experience, empirical experience and the observations of others to arrive at a general consensus. Part theory, part experience, part technical observation and even part design parameter.
5-90 is kind of the Dr. House of XJ knowledge around here :rof:

Think for a minute, the tech. usually only sees the failures, he rarely sees the successes. Input from individuals that have managed to nurse there trannys along for 200-300 thousand miles is obviously relevant. The input from those, who compile the sum and form a conclusion are likely correct.

The medication was correct, the operation was a success but the patient died. Or the patient was sick, is still sick, but the medicine and the operation didn't kill him. Or the patient was given a home remedy that all the specialists said was witchcraft, but the patient got better.

As far as I can tell Dexron has never hurt an AW4 tranny, but does break down from heat, it's properties change and it can leave what appears to be varnish deposits in odd corners of a tranny. In my experience, next to heat, clutch slippage is the next biggest tranny killer, though they can be nursed along for years. Dexron does seem to shear rather quickly, it may be my imagination, but the earliest Dexrons didn't seem to heat damage and/or shear as easily as the newer Dexrons. I base my observations on 40 some years experience with hydraulic systems and pumps of various flavors and having handled enough fluids to float a ( rather large) boat. As a side note, I'm allergic to many hydraulic fluids and refined oils, I tend to pay close attention to them, which actually worked out to a plus factor for me, I've prevented numerous machine failures due to early detection of fluid failures.

 

[dlarrivee]

This is what I was looking for, and didn't find when I searched, this thread has brought a lot of different info to one table and that's nice to see. All I did was ask a question and state what I had read on numerous official publications.

However, I'm not sure why I'm being called, ignorant, a troll, a smartass, a dumbass, etc. etc.

JNickel101, please if you don't have anything to contribute please just don't post, especially if you're going to just call people names.

w_howey, I believe I am allowed to disagree with anyone I chose to...

5-90, 8Mud, lawsoncl, Digger87xj, thanks guys.

So do we actually know for sure that ATF+4 is a true synthetic vs. the older Dexron III which was derived from a conventional base stock?

 

[Pelican]

Without comment:

From my 1993 owners manual:

In the body of the book under maintenance:
Automatic Transmission
Fluid Type: Mopar Mercon/DexronII preferred. Mopar ATF Plus(Type
7176) may be used to top off

On the back cover under fluid capacities:

Automatic Transmission Fluid
Mopar ATF Plus (Type 7176) preferred

Good Luck! (Okay, a small comment.)

 

[dlarrivee]

Without comment:

From my 1993 owners manual:

In the body of the book under maintenance:
Automatic Transmission
Fluid Type: Mopar Mercon/DexronII preferred. Mopar ATF Plus(Type
7176) may be used to top off

On the back cover under fluid capacities:

Automatic Transmission Fluid
Mopar ATF Plus (Type 7176) preferred

Good Luck! (Okay, a small comment.)

Okay... Obviously ATF+4 wouldn't have even existed in 1993, so what good does that do us?

 

[Pelican]

Not intended to do you any good but might supply some insight about the competency of Chrysler Corporation at a point in time since a goodly part of this thread deals precisely with that subject. As with all the other divergent opinions on the forum, you can make of it what you wish.

I personally am more concerned about the synthetic question. After I refilled with Valvoline high mileage fluid, someone pointed out that it is a synthetic ATF. I called Ashland and talked to a transmission technician. I pointed out that many XJ owners feel that synthetic ATF will destroy the AW transmission. He confirmed that their high mileage ATF is 100% synthetic. He said that they test AW units along with virtually every other brand 24/7 and that there is absolutely no reason that syn ATF per se, should harm AW trannies in Jeeps or otherwise. I said, so this is an urban legend and he laughed said, no question -- should be on Mythbusters.

This is, of course, what I would expect an employee to say but I also do believe that they test the hell out of their products before marketing them. I am still nervous about the synthetic in my own transmission and will probably phase it out as I refill. In the meantime I would like to find a definitive study on the matter if one exists. I will admit that I have not yet done a proper internet search.

 

[dlarrivee]

The competency of Chrysler?

Man, and I thought I was cynical... Ahaha

Why is everyone so down on Chrysler anyways? I personally really enjoy my Jeep, and it's a 2001, I realize the XJ was not originally a Chrysler product... I haven't had any major issues with it, but I suppose there are a lot of other vehicles Chrysler produces that aren't worth being proud of.

 

[Digger87xj]

5-90, I don't personally have any published data on +4. It's what was told in my last trans training class. +4 was developed to withstand higher temperatures, less prone to torque converter shudder, flow more readily in low temps, last longer (100,000 miles as opposed to +3's 30,000 mile lifespan) and have a higher resistance to foaming.

I did find this link to SAE paper #982674. It is simply packed with interesting data about the development of ATF+4. http://u225.torque.net/cars/tech/trans/982674.pdf

After scanning this article, It is highly superior over DEX III in viscosity breakdown, and anti wear characterisitcs. Overall a much better suited fluid for 'wheeling. I think I'm going to flush my AW4 and fill it with +4.

 

[5-90]

5-90, I don't personally have any published data on +4. It's what was told in my last trans training class. +4 was developed to withstand higher temperatures, less prone to torque converter shudder, flow more readily in low temps, last longer (100,000 miles as opposed to +3's 30,000 mile lifespan) and have a higher resistance to foaming.

I did find this link to SAE paper #982674. It is simply packed with interesting data about the development of ATF+4. http://u225.torque.net/cars/tech/trans/982674.pdf

After scanning this article, It is highly superior over DEX III in viscosity breakdown, and anti wear characterisitcs. Overall a much better suited fluid for 'wheeling. I think I'm going to flush my AW4 and fill it with +4.

Cool - got that .pdf. Don't suppose you'd know, offhand, where I could find datasheets on Dex II/IIE/III, ATF +/+3/+4, and the like? Not comparison sheets, but individual datasheets on each fluid. I'm not interested in someone else's comparison - I'd prefer to draw my own conclusion from the raw data...

 

[lawsoncl]

If the Dexron numbers at http://www.castrol.com/liveassets/b...ssets/downloads/a/Auto_Trans_Fluids_B1191.pdf are believable, it shows that ATF+4 has a lower viscosity.

 

[8Mud]

5-90, I don't personally have any published data on +4. It's what was told in my last trans training class. +4 was developed to withstand higher temperatures, less prone to torque converter shudder, flow more readily in low temps, last longer (100,000 miles as opposed to +3's 30,000 mile lifespan) and have a higher resistance to foaming.

I did find this link to SAE paper #982674. It is simply packed with interesting data about the development of ATF+4. http://u225.torque.net/cars/tech/trans/982674.pdf

After scanning this article, It is highly superior over DEX III in viscosity breakdown, and anti wear characterisitcs. Overall a much better suited fluid for 'wheeling. I think I'm going to flush my AW4 and fill it with +4.

I'm generally a fan of synthetics and even half synthetics. I started using them around 1980 Overall they retain viscosity better, stay cleaner longer, often tolerate high temps better, resist shear, anti foaming, a whole list of pluses. I use them whenever possible in pumps and most any gearbox that will tolerate them (automotive and industrial).
The down side has been seal and "O" ring compound compatibility and wet clutch slippage issues, in gear boxes and pumps designed for earlier fluids.
I'm like any other old timer, I get stuck in my routine. Seal swelling and some compatibility issues with some "O" ring compounds have caused grief. Wet clutches designed for non synthetic applications, often don't do well with synthetics.
I imagine the friction properties of the newer synthetics are much better researched, but almost have to be a compromise.
The superior cleaning agents, seem likely to move unwanted solids through a valve body.
And the seals are going to be affected, even if it's a fairly mild softening or swelling. Worst case is some seals are non compatible.
Clutches almost have to slip at different rates, the clutches and working pressures, were likely designed for the fluid and not the converse.
A one size fits all fluid solution seems unlikely.

I guess if it was easy, they would have never needed Dexron IIe or 3, ATF 2,3 or 4 .

I was around for the debacle in the mid 70's when the new high flash point hydraulic fluids were introduced. That one sure kept me in overtime. Or the silicon based fluids that just didn't perform as advertised.

 

[JNickel101]

This is what I was looking for, and didn't find when I searched, this thread has brought a lot of different info to one table and that's nice to see. All I did was ask a question and state what I had read on numerous official publications.

However, I'm not sure why I'm being called, ignorant, a troll, a smartass, a dumbass, etc. etc.

JNickel101, please if you don't have anything to contribute please just don't post, especially if you're going to just call people names.

w_howey, I believe I am allowed to disagree with anyone I chose to...

5-90, 8Mud, lawsoncl, Digger87xj, thanks guys.

So do we actually know for sure that ATF+4 is a true synthetic vs. the older Dexron III which was derived from a conventional base stock?

I have plenty to contribute, and I just call em as I see em. You went way beyond just asking a question - otherwise this thread wouldnt be 6 pages long, about a topic that's been covered eleventy billion times. I put in my 2 cents about my experience with Amsoil....but once this thread got heated, I thought I'd let you know how you were acting....you werent asking a question - you were doubting and questioning a respected member.

 

[dlarrivee]

I have plenty to contribute, and I just call em as I see em. You went way beyond just asking a question - otherwise this thread wouldnt be 6 pages long, about a topic that's been covered eleventy billion times. I put in my 2 cents about my experience with Amsoil....but once this thread got heated, I thought I'd let you know how you were acting....you werent asking a question - you were doubting and questioning a respected member.

Another useful post...

If you hadn't noticed there's plenty of very useful info within this thread, a lot of stuff you can read here is not in the other 200 threads of the exact same thing.

Once again, if he's not offended, don't bother being offended for him.

 

[JNickel101]

:banghead:

 

[JNickel101]

The competency of Chrysler?

Man, and I thought I was cynical... Ahaha

Why is everyone so down on Chrysler anyways? I personally really enjoy my Jeep, and it's a 2001, I realize the XJ was not originally a Chrysler product... I haven't had any major issues with it, but I suppose there are a lot of other vehicles Chrysler produces that aren't worth being proud of.

Considering Chrysler is now a cast off of Daimler, purchased by an investment firm in NYC, finalized 3 Aug 2007, I wouldnt trust them. I can bet that since this TSB came out shortly after the finalizing of the purchase, it was part of a sweeping change initiated by accounting, having nothing to do with the actual vehicle technicians. Why ELSE would they all the sudden make such a recommendation, switching to a completely different TYPE of fluid. I would bet it doesnt have anything to do with the DexIII licensing expiration, otherwise, they'd recommend Dex VI - the next logical fluid in that line of fluid types.

I would use DexVI or a fluid developed that is COMPATIBLE with DexIIe/III fluids, not something that is completely different - no matter how "good" of a fluid ATF+4 is. Its obviously diffrent enough that in the past 20 years since the AW4 first was put in an XJ, it was never a recommended fluid til Cerberus took over the company.

To me, it sounds like a decision made in accounting, rather one that was made with any technician input...

and finally, let me sincerely apologize to you for blowing up - i went back and re-read all 6 pages of this thread, and while you did kind of come off as being a prick, i understand your frustration and your line of questioning. i'll admit i get into "Mr Furious" mode and i'm quick to fire back...but most of the time, half of my frustration and anger is b/c i'm 10,000 miles from my family, my jeep and my home, trying to help a bunch of people who dont want my help and hate me regardless of my intentions in their country.

atriot: