2000 chrysler concorde 3.2L trans service advice

[scott37300]

A family member has a 2000 chrysler concorde 3.2L with just over 100,000 miles on it. I don't know that the trans has ever had any service done to it before. I would like to at least do a pan drop and filter change if possible. Anyone have experience with one of these before? I haven't even looked under it yet to see the pan. Advance shows a filter for it that comes with a gasket so I assume the gasket that is on there now isn't reusable?

Also what kind of fluid does a concorde take? Is it alright to use maxlife, I have a couple of gallons of it at home?

Thanks

 

[EricF]

If the fluid's still pink/red color then it's a good indicator that things are probably OK.
If it's brown or darker.. well a flush might be in order.

I'd definetely change the filter & gasket, reusable or not, you get a gasket with the kit anyway.
I'd also put the ATF +4 in it and start driving.
the +4 is synthetic so if there's any buildup it should clean it up decently.

 

[UNC017]

I used to own a '93 Vision TSI 3.5, the same basic engine and exactly the same transaxle. Fluid/filter changes are about the same as most rear-drive transmissions- drop the pan, make a huge mess, replace the filter, and re-install the pan

IIRC, the transaxle comes from the factory with NO pan gasket, but instead has an RTV-like (Permatex Right Stuff is a good replacement) form-in-place gasket. Mopar sells a multi-layer "reusable" gasket for that application, but most people I talked to who tried it said it was more prone to slow leaks than just using Permatex Right Stuff when you put it back again.


As for fluid type, use NOTHING other than an ATF+4 certified fluid. If you have any ATF+3 lying around or find it in a store, do not be tempted. ATF+4 is better in every possible way. Don't be tempted by the Lubegard spooge that allegedly makes any Dexron fluid "compatible" with ATF+4 either. It doesn't.

 

[PHANI1]

440Magnum
As for fluid type, use NOTHING other than an ATF+4 certified fluid. If you have any ATF+3 lying around or find it in a store, do not be tempted. ATF+4 is better in every possible way. Don't be tempted by the Lubegard spooge that allegedly makes any Dexron fluid "compatible" with ATF+4 either. It doesn't.

What is your evidence that Lubegard Black bottle when added to standard DEXRON®/MERCON® ATF will not perform as well as ATF+4 certified fluid?
(I see you own several Chrysler vehicles)

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: PHANI1
440Magnum
As for fluid type, use NOTHING other than an ATF+4 certified fluid. If you have any ATF+3 lying around or find it in a store, do not be tempted. ATF+4 is better in every possible way. Don't be tempted by the Lubegard spooge that allegedly makes any Dexron fluid "compatible" with ATF+4 either. It doesn't.

What is your evidence that Lubegard Black bottle when added to standard DEXRON®/MERCON® ATF will not perform as well as ATF+4 certified fluid?
(I see you own several Chrysler vehicles)


Back in the 90s when the 41TE (and to a lesser degree the 42LE) transmissions were popping like corn in a kettle, I was a frequent participant in several Chrysler forums and the old Mopar Mailing List. Its not scientific, but a lot of people who posted that they used Dexron + Lubegard ultimately wound up developing TCC shudder or had an outright failure and vowed that they'd never NEVER try that again. It was significantly more often than people who went out and bought ATF+3 (at that time- +4 came later and is far, FAR better than +3).

And think about it... nothing in a black bottle is going to correct the fact that the bulk Dexron VI fluid you get today is thinner than ATF+4, nor will it suck out the Dexron VI specific additive components and replace them with all the correct ATF+4 friction modifiers in the exact correct proportions, while simultaneously doing the same for Honda-spec fluid (so it claims...). It might make the fluid MORE compatible with Chrysler and Honda transmissions, but its never going to be as good as something that meets the whole specification.

 

[chad8]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: PHANI1
440Magnum
As for fluid type, use NOTHING other than an ATF+4 certified fluid. If you have any ATF+3 lying around or find it in a store, do not be tempted. ATF+4 is better in every possible way. Don't be tempted by the Lubegard spooge that allegedly makes any Dexron fluid "compatible" with ATF+4 either. It doesn't.

What is your evidence that Lubegard Black bottle when added to standard DEXRON®/MERCON® ATF will not perform as well as ATF+4 certified fluid?
(I see you own several Chrysler vehicles)


Back in the 90s when the 41TE (and to a lesser degree the 42LE) transmissions were popping like corn in a kettle, I was a frequent participant in several Chrysler forums and the old Mopar Mailing List. Its not scientific, but a lot of people who posted that they used Dexron + Lubegard ultimately wound up developing TCC shudder or had an outright failure and vowed that they'd never NEVER try that again. It was significantly more often than people who went out and bought ATF+3 (at that time- +4 came later and is far, FAR better than +3).

And think about it... nothing in a black bottle is going to correct the fact that the bulk Dexron VI fluid you get today is thinner than ATF+4, nor will it suck out the Dexron VI specific additive components and replace them with all the correct ATF+4 friction modifiers in the exact correct proportions, while simultaneously doing the same for Honda-spec fluid (so it claims...). It might make the fluid MORE compatible with Chrysler and Honda transmissions, but its never going to be as good as something that meets the whole specification.


+1 and add that chrysler makes the worst transmission on the planet. I know a tech who makes $100,000 a year rebuilding them. As far as making a mess dropping the pan, you can use either a mity vac or a pump bottle like a j/e lower unit fluid pump with a longer piece of tubing to pump the pan somewhat dry before you drop it. I did this on my taurus and did not spill a drop.
Filter change + fluid exchange= happy transmission.

 

[artificialist]

That kind of car with the longitudinal FWD also has a separate sump for the final drive. It takes GL-5 gear oil and the viscosity is written on the side of it. Change that stuff out at the same time.

 

[meep]

Originally Posted By: chad8

+1 and add that chrysler makes the worst transmission on the planet. I know a tech who makes $100,000 a year rebuilding them. As far as making a mess dropping the pan, you can use either a mity vac or a pump bottle like a j/e lower unit fluid pump with a longer piece of tubing to pump the pan somewhat dry before you drop it. I did this on my taurus and did not spill a drop.
Filter change + fluid exchange= happy transmission.


Agree with filter+fluid... would actually do a fluid drain refill, THEN a filter+fluid swap, so you'll get 2/3 of the fluid changed.

I've seen stock ATF+4 come out looking pretty good at 60,000, but still think it's useful life can't be much more than that.

But I don't know if Chrysler AT's can be singled out so simply. The problems were not engineering problems any more than Honda, earlier 'yotas... but management problems... 1) stupid "lifetime fill" leads to failures. If folks changed the fluid, the AT would last longer. 2) the old minivan AT failures was a result of chrysler stating non-ATF+3 being just fine, which it wasn't. folks that stayed with oem fluid specs had "in the curve" lifespans for their AT's.

I towed beyond my minivan's rated limit with the 41TE, without an aux cooler, and never had a single AT problem. bought it used and put over 60,000 miles on it, and yanked a 3000 lb camper through the mountains west of MD.

We have an LHS, highly abused, in my ex's family... ATF changed once, passing 200,000, and the AT will likely outlast the engine (highly neglected). They have a second LHS, that never sees maintenance, at 100,000, shifted smooth as silk the last time I was in it.

Yea, they were commonly bashed for failure, as they did fail often, but I don't know how much was from poor engineering, vs poor maintenance guidelines. The Ram trucks had some bad runs for a couple of years too, but the RE series AT's is generally regarded as very sturdy. I've owned 2 jeeps and one minivan from them - knock on wood, zero AT issues.

M

 

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted By: chad8


+1 and add that chrysler makes the worst transmission on the planet.


Tell that to someone with a Taurus or Sable. They may disagree.

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: chad8

+1 and add that chrysler makes the worst transmission on the planet.


Sorry, but that honor has passed to Honda for the past 8-9 years, if not longer. I got 150k miles out of my first 1993 42LE, then sold the car with 260k total after rebuilding it. Even the last years of the Chrysler 41TE were pretty good. As another thread on here pointed out, the 545RFE is proving to be an absolute brute- 200k on the original fluid is not uncommon. The days of the A727 seem to be back at Chrysler- the days when Chrysler made the BEST automatic transmission on the planet and even former engineers at GM didn't argue the claim.

Oh, and the NAG-1 (aka WA580) in the LX/LC cars (300, Charger, Challenger, Magnum) is also rock-solid reliable, but I don't count it since it is a modified design from Daimler, not home-grown. And it grates me that it is one of those "sealed" transmissions without a dipstick.

We'll have to see how the upcoming Chrysler/ZF 8-speed works out. Looks promising though.

 

[Hokiefyd]

My family has owned a number of ChryCo products and has never had any transmission issues with any of them. In order from oldest to newest: 88 Cherokee, 91 Cherokee, 96 Grand Cherokee, 97 Dakota, 99 Grand Caravan, 03 Grand Caravan, 05 Liberty, 06 Grand Cherokee, 06 Wrangler, 07 Town & Country. The best part about Chrysler for us has been the powertrains...the engines and transmissions have been very good.

I concur on previous comments about ATF+4, and that extends to any "universal" fluids for me. I won't use additives that supposedly turn one product into another, and I won't use products that supposedly meet every single manufacturer's specification at the same time, in one product. The proper fluid is available (and licensed) from enough sources (even Super Tech and Coastal), the risk of not using it isn't justified in my opinion.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: chad8
+1 and add that chrysler makes the worst transmission on the planet.
Filter change + fluid exchange= happy transmission.


Funny. First a completely misinformed statement and then a smart one! But you get to have any opinion you want.

The whole "Chysler = bad trans" thing is all over now. The newer units are holding up well and if people maintained them properly per that excellent advice above they would probably never need work!

I know of one LX with a supercharged 6.1 developing around 545 rear wheel HP that has the stock trans in it for over 60k miles. The NAG1 is truly one of the best autoboxes on the planet for big torque engines.

 

[artificialist]

My Grandmother's 2004 Chrysler T&C van had the AT fail before 90,000 miles.
She took great car of her car.

So much for the idea that bad Chrysler transmissions are a thing of the past.

 

[meep]

I'll bet she followed the "lifetime fill" mantra and didn't ask for a fluid/filter service, eh?

Not her fault, mind you-- the company should include the AT as a maintenance item.

I know of an '03 T&C that died at 90k. But he (even when I advised him at 60k) refused to service his, and he used to be a "car guy".

I think that by 60k, ATF is done. Any driving on it past that is a heightened state of stress on an AT. Those minivans are big, heavy vehicles using one of the most compact AT designs out there. IIRC there is even a chain drive to the final drive... and those things eat oil.

Artificialist-- out of curiousity, was hers the 3.8 or 3.3L? My buddy with the failure had the 3.8, and his wife was pretty aggressive with it. Mine was the 3.3, and I was more incline to drive for mpg and passenger comfort.

Nobody wants to see an AT dump at 90k-- and I think if cared for properly (old school OCI), they will reward.

Just for fun-- our 2nd-hand '02 acura is starting to exhibit AT problems, and it's at around 85k, WITH a fluid-serviced AT (have dealer records), so again, who sets the standard for good AT's?

ford taurus- no...
honda/acura- no
certain toyotas- no (TC failures)
hyundai? (I hope not....)
subaru- hmm

M

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: artificialist
My Grandmother's 2004 Chrysler T&C van had the AT fail before 90,000 miles.
She took great car of her car.

So much for the idea that bad Chrysler transmissions are a thing of the past.


I'd say 2004 == "the past." But even then, the failure rate was WAY down at that point.

Furthermore, minivans are probably the worst overall vehicle on transmissions on the planet. They've gotten VERY big and VERY heavy, with relatively powerful engines... but the transaxle still has to be the size and shape of the transaxle in a mid-80s front-drive compact car. Its just hot a happy combination, and every minivan manufacturer has had transmission issues at one time or another, and in most cases fairly constantly. Just google Honda Odyssey, Ford Windstar, and Toyota Sienna transmission problems.