You are here: Forums Vans & Minivans Chrysler Town & Country/Dodge Grand Caravan Chrysler Minivan Transmission Problems

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

#1302 of 1833 By the way by crybick Mar 08, 2007 (11:29 pm)
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. Replies to this message: shipo (Mar 09, 2007 3:51 am)
#1303 of 1833 Re: By the way [crybick] by shipo Mar 09, 2007 (3:51 am)
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)
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). Replies to this message: shipo (Mar 11, 2007 7:02 pm) tsu670 (Mar 12, 2007 9:22 am) 97xpresso (Mar 12, 2007 1:37 pm) and 2 more...
#1305 of 1833 Re: ATF+3 vs ATF+4 [tsu670] by shipo Mar 11, 2007 (7:02 pm)
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 Replies to this message: tsu670 (Mar 12, 2007 9:22 am) 97xpresso (Mar 12, 2007 1:37 pm) shipo (Mar 12, 2007 2:56 pm) and 1 more...
#1306 of 1833 Re: ATF+3 vs ATF+4 [shipo] by tsu670 Mar 12, 2007 (9:22 am)
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. Replies to this message: 97xpresso (Mar 12, 2007 1:37 pm) shipo (Mar 12, 2007 2:56 pm) 97xpresso (Mar 13, 2007 2:31 am)
#1307 of 1833 Re: ATF+3 vs ATF+4 [tsu670] by 97xpresso Mar 12, 2007 (1:37 pm)
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. Replies to this message: shipo (Mar 12, 2007 2:56 pm) 97xpresso (Mar 13, 2007 2:31 am)
#1308 of 1833 Re: ATF+3 vs ATF+4 [97xpresso] by shipo Mar 12, 2007 (2:56 pm)
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 Replies to this message: 97xpresso (Mar 13, 2007 2:31 am)
#1309 of 1833 Any opinions on replacing an overdrive tranny with a three speed? by toasted_tranny Mar 12, 2007 (4:41 pm)
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? Replies to this message: 97xpresso (Mar 13, 2007 2:21 am)
#1310 of 1833 Re: Any opinions on replacing an overdrive tranny with a three speed? [toasted_tranny] by 97xpresso Mar 13, 2007 (2:21 am)
Replying to: toasted_tranny (Mar 12, 2007 4:41 pm) Pros: 3 speed is less complex more reliable. Cons: No overdrive, less MPG, may not match up to existing transmission wiring/computer harness, may not be able to achieve electronically controlled torque converter lock-up in 3rd gear, may not match up to bell housing etc. etc....
#1311 of 1833 Re: ATF+3 vs ATF+4 [shipo] by 97xpresso Mar 13, 2007 (2:31 am)
Replying to: shipo (Mar 12, 2007 2:56 pm) Yes, the Havoline ATF+3 is a DC licensed product. Problem is, where do you find it, and how much longer will it be available? As soon as DC discontinued ATF+3, it seems like everyone else who was licenced to produce it, shifted to ATF+4 production during the last two years when DC dropped exclusive rights to it.

You are here: Forums Vans & Minivans Chrysler Town & Country/Dodge Grand Caravan Chrysler Minivan Transmission Problems