Well, considering I have it already (I bought it back when Walmart
carried Mopar brand stuff for a while for like $4/quart) I'll use the
ATF+4. I was leaning that way anyhow. I was saving it to change the
fluid in my wife's minivan, but as she's the known in the local
junkyards as "The Great Blonde Car Destructor" I doubt it'll stay out
of the scrapheap long enough to make it worthwhile. ;)
Agreed on the whole full synthetic vs. "super refined mineral oil"
debate. I remember hearding about that a few years back. It's a
bunch of crap.
While we're talking about ATF, does anyone think that putting an 11"
wide by 11" tall by 1.5" thick B&M Supercooler used as a tranny cooler
would cause problems with the transmission fluid being too cold/taking
too long to warm up in the winter? It's rated for something like
29,000lb GCVW. I have one laying around from my previous Chrysler
2.5L turbo racing days but that car never much saw the light of day,
much less in the winter, due to wiring issues I got tired of
chasing...
http://www.jegs.com/i/B%26amp%3BM/130/70274/10002/-1
Amazing how the price has gone up 40% since I bought it...
On Sun, 24 May 2009 20:13:35 -0400, bernd@dodgetrucks.org ("Bernd D.
Ratsch") wrote:
>
>Yup...I agree with ya Jon. Switching to another "Synthetic" ATF+4 (or
>equivalent) isn't going to get you any more benefits over the Mopar ATF+4.
>
>- Bernd
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jon@dakota-truck.net [mailto:jon@dakota-truck.net]
>Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 6:53 PM
>To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
>Subject: Re: DML: 134k - To Synthetic or not to synthetic?
>
>
>Matt Beazer <teseract@moparhowto.com> wrote:
>[...]
>> The tranny I've not decided on yet... I could use the
>> Mopar ATF+4 I have laying around or fork out the money for some
>> synthetic ATF.
>
>
> FYI - ATF+4 *is* a synthetic, at least, as far as "synthetics" in
>the USA go anyway. Its made of Group III base oil stock, which is the
>highest refined dino based stock. The next step up, Group IV is truly
>synthetic. However, here in the USA, oil producers are allowed to
>call an oil "synthetic" even though it technically uses a dino oil
>base stock. Most "synthetic" oils on the market use a Group III base
>oil, and ATF+4 also uses a Group III base.
>
> In most other countries, you must use a synthetic base in order to
>call your oil synthetic, but here in the USA, some idiot court
>somewhere (see: Mobil vs Castrol lawsuit) decided that the word
>"synthetic" was a marketing term as opposed to a descriptive one and
>so if your oil basically meets the same properties you could get with
>a truly synthetic base stock, you are allowed to call it synthetic,
>even though it may not be, in the strictest sense of the term. (This
>is why courts should not be allowed to implement policy decisions.) ;-)
>
> Anyhoo, I just wanted to bring that up, in case you didn't know it
>already. If you pass up that case of ATF+4 on your shelf in favor of
>a "synthetic" ATF, the stuff you buy may not be any better or may not
>be any more "sythetic" than the ATF+4 you've already got.
>
> I'd probably stick with the ATF+4 myself, as opposed to some other
>ATF which may or may not meet the standards. An ATF needs to be
>tested and approved by Chrysler in order to be called ATF+4, and ATF+4
>was specifically designed by Chrysler (with outside help) to be
>compatible with their transmissions and with ATF+3. (Actually, if it
>were me, I'd probably save some money by going with the ATF+3, but
>since you've got the +4 already...) :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 01 2009 - 00:37:01 EDT