| From | Message |
toughwaters
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/26/2003
19:14:08
|
 Subject: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
What is the difference between AFT+2 and ATF+3? My 98 dakota calls for ATF+2 but I can only find +3 where I live. Will ATF+3 cause any problems with my transmission if I use it instead of +2? I really appreciate everyones help and responses. Thank you.
|
gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/26/2003
19:58:02
|  RE: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
Just an older version of the latest thing. Actually, they're up the ATF+4 at least, maybe +5 by now. It won't hurt. Might even be a little better. Mopar certainly seems to think so.
|
AmsoilSponsor
DakotaEnthusiast
10/26/2003
20:20:55
|  ATF+2 or ATF+3 or Amsoil Synthetic Universal ATF
IP: Logged
Message:
ATF+4 is the latest version. Dodge realized that their transmissions were weak and they had to reformulate.
As an alternative I would like to recommend ...
... Amsoil Synthetic Universal Automatic Transmission Fluid.
Recommended for applications requiring the following specifications:
Chrysler ATF+, ATF+2, ATF+3, ATF+4
-------------------------------------------------
AMSOIL synthetic automatic transmission fluid is a universal ATF designed to exceed nearly all foreign and domestic performance requirements. It improves fuel efficiency, reduces transmission temperatures by 20 to 50 degrees F and increases transmission life. Provides unsurpassed thermal stability and at least 3 times the life of conventional ATFs. Delivers maximum protection for towing and other severe-duty applications. Formulated with synthetic basestocks and the top-of-the-line additive package, AMSOIL ATF provides top performance, durability & efficiency.
Key Benefits to You:
Cleaner transmission components, More efficient power transfer, Lower Transmission temperatures, Dramatically less transmission wear, Smoother cold temperature operation, Long drain intervals, Compatible Applications: Nearly all passenger cars (foreign & domestic), Nearly all light duty trucks (including Dodge Dakotas).
Improves fuel efficiency, reduces transmission temperatures and increases transmission life. Provides unsurpassed thermal stability and up to five times the service life of conventional ATFs. Delivers maximum protection for towing and other severe-duty applications.
__________  __________
Recommended for applications requiring the following specifications:
GM Dexron II, Dexron III; Ford Mercon, Mercon V; Chrysler ATF+, ATF+2, ATF+3, ATF+4; Mitsubishi Diamond SP II & III; Allison C-3 & C-4 and TES-295; Caterpillar Powershift Transmission TO-2 & TO-3; Voith Commercial Transmissions; GM Strasbourg (European Imports) and Opel; Applications requiring Honda Z-1 transmission fluids; Toyota Type T and T-IV
__________________________________________________
Interested in requesting a FREE Amsoil Catalog click the following link:
Steven Roark , Amsoil Dealer , Proud Sponsor of www.DodgeDakotas.com
AMSOIL Synthetic Motor Oils, Lubricants, Filtration, and Truck Care Products
|
gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/26/2003
22:21:25
| RE: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
Yeah, whatever. Truth be known, it's just the latest thing to keep the prices up. Professionally built trannies with Raybestos clutches and Kevlar bands handle 600hp with the same steel parts and dextron fluid. Can you explain just how a reformulated synthetic liquid can make any transmission stronger? This I gotta see.
|
Pete
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/27/2003
06:45:51
| RE: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
I read (on other dakota/durango forums) that dodge transmissions had slippage or chatter problems from the factory, and that is why dodge changed from a +3 to a +4 ATF with more "grippers" or friction modifiers. Amsoil guy is correct in sayiing they are weak transmissions.
I have been using Amsoil ATF in my Dak for 4 years and it shifts smoother, even better in winter vs. using +4. No sluggishness and I swear that by switching my tranny, my oil, and my dif to Amsoil I am getting better performance and better mpg.
|
AmsoilSponsor
DakotaEnthusiast
10/27/2003
11:46:13
| ATF +2 , +3, +4, or Amsoil Synthetic Universal ATF
IP: Logged
Message:
For the Record (and to clear the air):
Maybe this helps ... and if it is not applicable to your situation ... maybe you will find it to be good reading.
--------------------------------------------------
Chrysler went from ATF+ (MS 7176B) to ATF+4 in less than ten years. Essentially they were trying to make up for shifting problems in some of their transmissions by "tweaking" the frictional properties of their fluid rather than recalling the affected units. The ATF+4 fluid does seem to have solved the problems with some of the transmissions from the mid 1990's.
However, I know many Dodge owners that have noticeable and significant improvements switching to Amsoil Universal Synthetic ATF. They state that the transmission characteristics are better than when it was new. Yes we all know ... transmissions from different manufacturers use various types of clutch pack materials. So ... is it possible to formulate a single fluid that will behave differently in GM, Ford and Chrysler transmissions? The specifications for friction characteristics are for how the fluid behaves in the particular application, given the types of materials used in that transmission. They are not the stand alone properties of the fluid, which is where I think the misunderstanding comes in.
Amsoil Universal Synthetic ATF is truely "Universal"
Amsoil did offer a Synthetic ATF specifically for ATF +3/+4 applications about 3-4 years ago. However once they were able to integrate this additive chemistry into their Dexron/Mercon formulation, they discontinued making this second fluid.
__________________________________________________
Interested In Requesting a FREE Amsoil Catalog click the following link.
Thank You,
Steven Roark , Amsoil Dealer , Proud Sponsor of www.DodgeDakotas.com
AMSOIL Synthetic Motor Oils, Lubricants, Filtration, and Truck Care Products
|
gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/27/2003
12:01:36
| RE: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
My point is that Torqueflites were running 250,000 miles in the 60's, but over the years this sank to 100,000 miles. The overdrive units (like my A-500, would barely get 15,000 miles). Synthetics do help these newer units last longer, but if they were made with the good stuff like T'flites of old, the synthetics wouldn't be necessary. My comments aren't directed at you (AmsoilSponsor, or anybody else in particular). But you have to ask, "What happened?"
|
Jaws
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/27/2003
21:10:55
| RE: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
You seem to know it all ! You tell us.
|
gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/28/2003
02:13:47
| RE: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
You tell me. Get a solid rebuild with some Raybestos clutches, kevlar bands, and a good tranny cooler and these things don't need synthetics. They'll run on dextron fluid and tow (decent loads, not the extreme) in overdrive. That info is straight from JVX. Comparing the SEVEN failures of the A-500 in my Dak with no towing involved to the rock solid 727 in my first car ('69 Charger- driven harder than the Dak ever was), I have to think they built the damned thing (overdrive) on a computer by eggheads who'd never really had their hands in one. A few simple changes by the aftermarket vastly improves their reliability and reduces operating costs. This overall issue has been ongoing for 14+ years. These trannies come from the factory with ATF+ whatever the latest is, and it's yet to make a difference. I'm still reading about the same failures. Planned obsolescence.
Jaws? I don't know it all, and never pretend to. One does not have to know everything to ask why we get screwed with these transmission failures. Don't you ever notice how things periodically get "updated"? Ever notice how the prices keep pace? Synthetics? Sure, they work. No dispute here, but are they necessary? Guess that depends on if you're a consumer or salesman. Hey, why pay 99 cents a quart when you can pay $3.99 a quart, right?
|
Spanky
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/28/2003
06:02:54
| RE: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
gen1dak, I think u nailed it --------------
----------------------- Planned obsolescence.
As to why pay more for synthetics?
Why pay more for a steak if u can eat a McDonalds?
Both are beef products. Right?
Well ---------------------- U get what u pay for.
|
gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/28/2003
12:36:31
| RE: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
Now hang on. I'm not against synthetics. It's a fact that they are better. My issue is being required to use them. You see, things are no longer set up to where you run a given fluid, but for extended life, run synthetics. Now, you have to run synthetics and pray it lasts at all. No illusions. I know it's not gonna change. Doesn't change the fact that it's whacked.
|
Spanky
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/28/2003
15:33:28
| RE: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
Synthetic's ain't whacked.
Every industry is producing some type of "synthetic" product.
Synthetic Fuels to replace Petroleum (Gasoline)
Synthetic Human Organs for transplants/Blood/Plasma/DNA
Synthetic Medicines and Vitamins
Synthetic Diamonds for Industry (and maybe your girlfriend)
Synthetic Nanoparticles, estimated to be a $25 billion industry 2004
Synthetic Elements
Etc., Etc. Etc.
It has been proven that synthetic oils are also much better and that is why the entire industry (and many other industries) are moving in that direction.
Welcome to the 21st Century.
What worked for your grandpa ain't what is best today.
Synthetics are more perfect products that work better and in many cases will replace our depleted natural resources.
|
Jaws
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/28/2003
19:47:52
| RE: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
If you are running .99 tranny fluid, the 7 failures speak for themselves.
|
MauiRT
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/28/2003
20:01:46
| RE: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
Don't waste your money on Amsoil Synthetic for the tranny as you are just thorwing away good money...I have a RT that runs in the 13's using a tranny fluid right off the shelf.....My brother has a RT also tried the synth Amsoil for 2 tranny fluid changes and so NO difference in any of the above so called claims..guess if my living depended upon selling it I too would try to go for the upsell kinda like the BS behind prolong..or any other engine additive..when it sounds too good to be true it usually is..but as genidak posted installing a good tranny cooler will help much more than any synth trans fluid..so if ya want to piss money away feel free. I have 65,000 miles on my tranny.bought the truck new and have never had a problem...just ran it from San Antonio to Santa Fe cruise control set at 100 and never a problem..still shifts as smooth as the day I bought it and its been to the track over 150 times now...for my the .99 cents stuff works just fine..but then again I do not sell Amsoil :)
|
gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/28/2003
20:35:25
| RE: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
Why do I bother? Jaws, are you totally incapable of following a discussion? I mean, I'm not trying to be vindictive, but go back and read it again. I didn't say I was running 99 cent fluid. My tranny failures were run with the fluid as prescribed by Mopar. I never even got to change the crap as it was just rebuilt at normal (15-20,000 miles) fluid change intervals, so it was done at the dealership. The fact that synthetic fluid is REQUIRED is rediculous. By the way, off-the-shelf ATF+ fluids are synthetic formulas as well. The 99 cent reference was to basic dextron fluid, which is what properly built trannys with GOOD converters (non-chatter models) run 100,000 hard miles on. I'd MUCH rather Mopar charged me an extra $500 for good clutches, etc and let me run on dextron, than give me a cheap tranny that REQUIRES expensive synthetic fluids and will still die at the drop of a hat.......ANY hat. On the steak analagy. Eat steak every day. Eat any cheaper meat and you die. So, we all have to eat what they say. Period. Now here's another short attention span....Spanky. Read it again. I never said synthetics were whacked. I SAID BEING REQUIRED TO USE THEM IS WHACKED.
|
Spanky
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/29/2003
07:03:42
| RE: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
Gen1dak,
Glad you finally acknowledged that all ATF + fluids are synthetic. Heck, I have a synthetic valve in my heart. Yea SYNTHETICS ..... or I would be dead already. Yea Synthetics !!!!
The problem lies not with the "synthetic" nature ... but with the fact Dodge has been manufacturing inferior transmissions for over a decade. They refuse to change their design.
Can we take off the gloves now?
|
Spanky
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/29/2003
07:15:25
| RE: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
I forgot to talk with MauiRT,
I guess you and your brother got lucky and got the two out of 100 "good" Dodge Transmissions that came off the line. For the rest of us (the other 98) ...... ours are pure crapola.
Me ..... mine started developing shifting problems within the first year .... and yes I was one of the ones that switched to Amsoil many years ago (looking for any cure) .... and now it certainly runs like when it was brand new. I ain't calling Amsoil a miracle cure .... but it worked for me and gave me better shifting. Something in their ATF sure works better in my tranny.
Heck, after receiving my synthetic heart valve transplant I switched almost everything in my life that I could over to synthetic. (gotta support the industry you know).
Yea SYNTHETICS, and thank you scientists for my synthetic valve. I kiss the ground you walk upon.
|
small world
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/29/2003
12:45:20
| RE: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
"I guess you and your brother got lucky and got the two out of 100 "good" Dodge Transmissions that came off the line. For the rest of us (the other 98) ...... ours are pure crapola."
So which day are you referring to? Cause that's about how many Dodge trucks come off the line in one day.
|
gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/29/2003
20:18:57
| RE: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey, Spanky. Sorry, didn't know I needed to write on a 4th grade level. How else can I say that I am not against synthetics? From the way you write, it seems you wish we could all just cut off body parts and replace them with synthetics. Haven't I said throughout this thread that the TRANSMISSIONS are made poorly? Where do you not get it. Synthetics are miraculous in many ways. I work in medicine, see it every day. You want to support the industry, be my guest. Once again. I am not against synthetics, never said I was against synthetics. Glad it saved your life. Try to make better use of it than repeatedly missing the point. THE POINT IS if the transmissions were made as well as they were in the 60's, they'd last much longer. Imagine how long they'd last on synthetics. By requiring synthetics from the beginning, the bar is already set too high, and it's a BS excuse for premature failure. If it's MY choice to run synthetics, that's fine. I finally acknowledged ATF+ was synthetic? When did I deny it? Put your gloves back on. What the hell does that mean any way? Don't answer that. I'm just pointing out how rediculous that statement was. You seem to want to argue the validity of synthetics, and you seem to think I am against them. Once again, I am not. I am against transmissions being made of such wimpy materials that they WILL NOT LAST EVEN NORMAL MILEAGE. It seems that in your mind if one synthetic isn't working, buy an even more expensive one. Yeah, that makes sense. You go ahead and do that. I'll take my tranny with REAL BEEF, and I won't need the synthetics. That way, there will be more of synthoil for you. However, if I do decide to run synthoil, is it okay with you? Oh, hey, if not, it's okay. I'll still give you a ride to the shop for more synthetics for your wimpy stock tranny when it quits on you.
|
orderly on 4
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/29/2003
22:03:49
| RE: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey gen 1 you are needed to empty some bed pans.
|
DSW
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
10/30/2003
03:00:42
| RE: ATF+2 or ATF+3
IP: Logged
Message:
Hmmm, Gen1dak is right, why should we as consumers have to pay $6.00 a quart for DC ATF+4 when a tranny should be happy with $2.00 a quart fluid? Furthermore, why should we have to run only ATF+4 to maintain the warranty? It should be our choice to run any synthetic we want to.
I run Amsoil synthetic in my tranny because it was the same price as DC's ATF+4 hydrocracked cocktail. Mobil 1 in the engine and rear diff, and Amsoil ATF in the P/S pump.
Synthetics are great, but if they are a requirement to make vehicles last past the warranty period, there's something fishy out there.
I was at 3 Dodge service departments this week getting some insurance estimates and saw an ATF display at each of them saying that your ATF needs to be replaced with their power flushing machine. I asked how muck the service was and it was only a piddly $140, Wholly crap, just think if it cost this much to do an oil change. I have changed my ATF 3 times and used Amsoil the last time. Everytime the fluid looked a little discolored, but it wasn't totally burned up like the AFT that the DC service centers were showing.
Looks like DC is trying to get us to change to their ATF so their tranny's don't blow up.
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
