Sign In Join 



Chrysler Minivan Transmission Problems

1833 messages,  Last post on Nov 10, 2009 at 3:54 AM

You are in the Chrysler Town & Country/Dodge Grand Caravan Forum. Your Host is Karens

What is this discussion about? Chrysler Town and Country, Dodge Caravan, Plymouth Voyager, Chrysler Grand Voyager, Dodge Grand Caravan, Transmission, Van


Messages Page 131 of 184
1
...
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
...
184
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#1300 of 1833
Re: ATF+3 vs ATF+4 [tsu670] by flavife
Mar 08, 2007 (5:00 am)
Reply

Replying to: tsu670 (Mar 07, 2007 6:20 pm)

Like you, I discovered that my dealer no longer sells ATF+3 so I purchased 9 quarts of ATF+4, drained the fluid and poured in 4.5 quarts of ATF+4. About 2 weeks later (1000 miles) I drained the fluid mix, changed the filter and poured in 4.5 quarts of ATF+4 and my 99 Caravan is running fine with 107,000 miles on it. Please note the smell of the ATF+4 is like burnt fluid and it appears to be thicker consistency so I would drive more gently on a real cold morning until it warms up. You can visit the Allpar forum which has information of the Chrylser transmissions. The ATF+4 is what Chrysler has the dealers use. Walmart is now selling the MOPAR ATF+4 fluid for about $4.50/qt. I only use Mopar transmission filters.
 
Frank
#1301 of 1833
Jasper, anyone? by crybick
Mar 08, 2007 (11:16 pm)
Reply
I drive a 1997 Grand Caravan ES with 3.8 that has 177,000 miles on the clock. It's a shame that the build quality of the van is actually not that bad, and the reliability has been decent, excepting the transmission. Transmission number five was just installed on Monday.
 
Almost three years ago my mother backed the van out of the garage when it made an awful noise and came to a stop. She got about 134,000 miles out of the original. Her shop (she has a great, honest shop and one particular mechanic that always works on her cars) recommended a Jasper transmission because it had a 3 year warranty and at the time Chrysler only offered...I think it was a one-year warranty? This was April 2004. She paid about $3000 for the Jasper and installation. Since then, the transmission has been replaced three more times.
 
No. 2 got to where it wouldn't shift in the mornings when it was cold (I go to school at Mississippi State University, and it's just not that cold in Starkville), and apparently it would shift once or twice while the primer pump (something like that) was working, then when it went off it wouldn't shift again until the transmission had warmed up. I'd get to the end of my street and the van would behave like it was in neutral, and the engine would rev and eventually the tranny would catch (this could happen at 3000 rpm, which must've been very hard on it).
 
No. 3 was replaced because the van couldn't stay in overdrive and would hunt between 3rd and 4th gear.
 
No. 4 failed Monday before last apparently due to overheating. There was some sort of blockage that prevented the fluid from circulating well and the transmission burned up.
 
With 177,000 on the clock, I can honestly say that my mother has gotten her money's worth out of the van (ordered direct from the factory, delivered with only 7 miles on the odo Halloween of 1996), but it's a shame that a vehicle that drives great, rides well, has so much interior space, looks great, and has some clever engineering is hamstrung by such poor transmission reliablity.
 
Transmission numbers 2, 3, and 4 were all replaced for free, but the warranty ends in April. Has anyone else had experience, positive or negative, with a rebuilt Jasper? I can't say I'm impressed, and I baby this vehicle.
 
Thanks,
Cliff
#1302 of 1833
By the way by crybick
Mar 08, 2007 (11:29 pm)
Reply
I read earlier that someone had mentioned the planetary gearing in his transmission failing, and another poster said that he'd never heard of it before.
 
From Jasper's website on the 41TE page:
 
6. For 3.3 and 3.8 applications, to handle the torque of larger V6 engines, we install a heavier planet and larger transfer shaft.
 
Original planets and stock transfer shafts were known to break under heavy loads.
#1303 of 1833
Re: By the way [crybick] by shipo
Mar 09, 2007 (3:51 am)
Reply

Replying to: crybick (Mar 08, 2007 11:29 pm)

I frequent a number of different forums (fora?) that discuss the DC minivans. Regardless of where I go there is almost universal disdain for the Jasper rebuilds. That your mom's van has eaten three of their units in less than 50,000 miles doesn't sound at all out of line with other rants that I've read about their products.
 
Last year when the tranny lunched itself in our 3.8 liter DGC I went for a factory remanufactured transmission from my dealership. Priced at $2,600, including a 3 year/36 month warranty, it was the best deal going. The other little tidbit about the factory reman unit is that every one they sell is upgraded to the latest engineering build of that generation of transmission, which in the case of our Gen3 vans means from the 2000 model year. That in turn means that the new transmissions are designed explicitly for the newer/better/more robust ATF+4 transmission fluid.
 
If (when?) your mom's van chews its way through the forth and final Jasper unit, you just might want to consider a Chrysler reman to take its place.
 
Regarding the planetary gears, while it is true that transmissions meant for installation with either the 3.3 or the 3.8 liter engines have been reinforced to deal with the extra torque, something in the back of my mind says that it wasn't the planetary gears that were the subject of said reinforcement. Regardless, planetary gear sets are considered to be a very robust methodology for changing rotational ratios. Ever heard of a Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp engine? It powered (among MANY others) the Vought F4U Corsair, the Grumman F6F Hellcat, the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, the Douglas A-26A (nee B-26 (nee A-26)) Invader, the Curtiss-Wright C-46 Commando and the Douglas DC-6, and in every configuration and regardless of output (often times more than 3,000 hp for short durations), that engine used a planetary gear reduction to drive the propeller. Not too shabby.
 
Best Regards,
Shipo
#1304 of 1833
Re: ATF+3 vs ATF+4 [flavife] by tsu670
Mar 11, 2007 (6:06 pm)
Reply

Replying to: flavife (Mar 08, 2007 5:00 am)

Thank you for your response, flavife. I did indeed visit the Chrysler site and found an interesting article comparing ATF+3 to ATF+4 that noted that in some cases ATF+4 may not be compatible on older model Chryslers in that it may cause certain seals to fail. It said that ATF+4 vastly improves on the viscosity breakdown rate of ATF+3, which starts to lose effectiveness after as little as 30,000 miles. The ATF+4 is supposed to keep its viscosity for up to 100k miles.
 
I don't mind having the ATF+3 replaced every 30k miles, but I just can't find any anywhere. I can't believe Chrysler would abandon it in favor of ATF+4 if there was a chance that seals might fail in older models, so I'm beginning to wonder just what the article meant by "older" models. Perhaps they are talking about pre-1989 vehicles (before the electronic 4-speed transmissions).
#1305 of 1833
Re: ATF+3 vs ATF+4 [tsu670] by shipo
Mar 11, 2007 (7:02 pm)
Reply

Replying to: tsu670 (Mar 11, 2007 6:06 pm)

There have been three TSBs issued regarding ATF+3 and ATF+4 usage in 1999 and earlier 41TE/AE transmissions.
 
TSBs 21-006-01 (June 2001) and 21-004-04 (March 2004) specifically say NOT to use ATF+4 in 1999 and earlier MiniVan transmissions. One of them (I forget which) states that the reason for the restriction is that the torque converter lock up feature might have a problem with the ATF+4. I read elsewhere (allpar.com IIRC) the same as you that the ATF+4 could present a problem with the seals.
 
Then, not even a year ago, Chrysler released TSB 21-010-06 (April 2006) that inexplicable reverses the two previous TSBs with no explanation as to the reasons for the apparent contradiction.
 
Personally I still suspect that the introduction of ATF+4 into my 1998 DGC with just over 90,000 miles on the clock was a contributing factor to my transmission failure. I have been soundly criticized from many fronts for stating that opinion, however, that continues to be my opinion none-the-less. In my case the good news is that my Factory Remanufactured transmission is specifically designed for AFT+4, so I no longer have to worry about the lack of ATF+3 availability.
 
Best Regards
Shipo
#1306 of 1833
Re: ATF+3 vs ATF+4 [shipo] by tsu670
Mar 12, 2007 (9:22 am)
Reply

Replying to: shipo (Mar 11, 2007 7:02 pm)

Many thanks, Shipo, for the reply.
 
This morning I took our '96 LXI to the independent transmission shop that has serviced the transmissions in all of our cars (mine, wife's and all of my sons') and once again allowed him to change out the fluid with the universal fluid containing ATF+3 additive that he used 3 years and 30,000 miles ago. Did not use ATF+4. The magnet in the pan was clean of any debris. He also inspected the small leak and said it was a common problem with the crimp that connects the steel line to the rubber line on the transmission cooler (for the towing package). A new line is $65 plus installation, but he acknowledged that it probably would not cause a catastrophic failure, and that as long as I continue checking the tranny fluid it should be fine. The vehicle only has 92,600 miles, so I'm hoping to get about 3 more years of service out of her.
 
He said it would not be a problem topping off with ATF+4. I still have 1/4 quart of ATF+3 left in my garage.
#1307 of 1833
Re: ATF+3 vs ATF+4 [tsu670] by 97xpresso
Mar 12, 2007 (1:37 pm)
Reply

Replying to: tsu670 (Mar 12, 2007 9:22 am)

If ATF+3 is no longer available, ATF+4 is a MUCH BETTER alternative than a "one size fits all" fluid with an additive to make it "just like" ATF+3. I can't believe with all the available information out there, shops that "specialize in transmissions" still don't get it! It should be illegal to introduce any fluid into a Chrysler 4 speed electronic transmission, that is not a certified DC licensed fluid.
#1308 of 1833
Re: ATF+3 vs ATF+4 [97xpresso] by shipo
Mar 12, 2007 (2:56 pm)
Reply

Replying to: 97xpresso (Mar 12, 2007 1:37 pm)

"If ATF+3 is no longer available, ATF+4 is a MUCH BETTER alternative than a "one size fits all" fluid with an additive to make it "just like" ATF+3."
 
I have to agree. In spite of the fact that I think that ATF+4 isn't the best fluid for a pre-2000 minivan transmission, I'd still rather use it than a Pep-Boyz mystery mix.
 
Were it that I still had a transmission that speced ATF+3, this is what I would be using:
http://www.havoline.com/products/na/trans_atf3.html
 
Best Regards,
Shipo
#1309 of 1833
Any opinions on replacing an overdrive tranny with a three speed? by toasted_tranny
Mar 12, 2007 (4:41 pm)
Reply
Hey folks.
 
The overdrive transmission in my V-6 91 Plymouth Voyager is almost completely gone. We dropped by a wreckers and they have suggested we could replace the the my toasted tranny with a three speed transmission.
 
Any body want to tell me some pros or cons of this idea?

Messages Page 131 of 184
1
...
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
...
184
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement