Analysis by OAI, 10K on factory fill. I'm a bit concerned about the silicon levels (more on that later).
Iron: 72 ppm
Chromium: 0
Lead: 37
Copper: 30
Tin: 1
Aluminum: 14
Nickel: 0
Silver: 0
Silicon: 119 (!!!)
Boron: 96
Sodium: 12
Magnesium: 7
Calcium: 458
Barium: 0
Phosphorus: 450
Zinc: 19
Molybdenum: 0
Titanium: 0
Vanadium: 0
Potassium: 0
TAN: 0.86
Viscosity: 6.46 cSt @ 100C
Water: 0%
Solids: Trace
Lab recommended "resample at half the normal interval" due to abnormal silicon levels. The transmission pan is sealed with liberal amounts of black RTV from the factory and I've seen mention of silicone additives, but 119 ppm still seems a bit high.
I might resample and retest with another lab just to see the results.
2005 Chrysler Town & Country, Mopar ATF+4, 10K mi
- Thread starter sithscripter
- Start date
- Status
Quote:DC has their own version of RTV specifically for transmissions. I have no idea if it's actually any different but I used it on my last flush.
It makes one wonder what the results would've been with the use of the multi-use (no RTV needed) gasket.
Quote:And what credentials do you have that would establish you as an expert on this UOA? Do you really think that this one UOA can disprove the hundreds of accurate samples taken by DC and/or it's respective agents while doing the validation testing for ATF+4 for nearly the past decade that indicate this fluid to be good for continued use? The silicone is just RTV sealer. It's probably harmless contrary to what you may think. Or else DC would've made a note of it while doing internal testing. The TAN is nice and low so I wouldn't change this fluid for at least another 30k. Not sure why one would put another filter kit on it.
I would flush this fluid and install a good ATF filter kit.
It makes one wonder what the results would've been with the use of the multi-use (no RTV needed) gasket.
I am going to agree with unDummy on this one. The iron is approaching abnormal and the silicon is past excessive.
More than likely it is because of the "newness" of the equiptment. It is "alway's" best to change out transmissions, rearends, etc sooner than later. The TAN is below normal so that's good.
However, silicon is used on the pan and I just don't like using just silicon. I use a rubber/cork transpan gasket dry and it works great. I would R&R the fluid and filter, put the rubber/cork gasket on it change the fluid and sample in another 30K It should be fine.
One of the problems with an ATF UOA is that noone does particle counts. Spend some time inside a transmission and take a look at all the seals. The tranny wear is what grinds away at the seals. Some of that wear is not picked up as a PPM in a UOA. That same wear is what kills that valve body(VB wear is becoming an issue in many vehicles).
Iron seems high for 10k miles. And, since it is factory fill, I'd dump it just to remove that SI(you assume its RTV, I'll assume a dirty assembly line or parts manufacturing), remove that break in wear and debris(Pb+Fe+Al+Si).....
If you don't want to do start a drain/refill regimen, or a flush schedule that isn't more aggressive then OEM pathetic recommendations, then install an ATF filter. ATF filters can be had with <10 micron ratings. What is the OEM filtration capable off? You can't answer that!
For those that don't want to drop a pan, the cooler line method and fluid extractor are 2 good ways to remove ATF. A gallon or 2 of ATF, once or twice a year(and why I like OEMs that use drainplugs), will do plenty to extend the life of the transmission, and above all maintain the 'quality' of the shift and 'feel' of the transmission. Too many consumers wait until issues occur.
ATF+4 isn't overprice dealer unobtainium anymore. At ~$4 quart, $20 once or twice a year is pretty cheap insurance. And, that preventive maintenance sure beats the cost/benefit of a UOA and not acting on it.
It is citical to use the proper RTV for a transmission pan. I belive the product that is identical to OEM is call "The Right Stuff". If the wrong type of RTV is used the silicone can cause foaming in the ATF. No understand that not all types of silicone behave the same as silicone is normaly used as an anti-foam. It has been too long since I read the paper but GM discovered thatthe type of bond holding the silicone sealant together made a huge difference in how it affected the ATF. It has something to do with crosslinking of the silicones. I would also recomend Redline C+ATF itis even better then the ATF+4.Walmart carries ATF+4 and it is even the geniune Mopar product. I belive they sell it for $2.39 a quart.
These transaxles use a lot of RTV. There are three Covers/pans and two Alumumn driveshaft housings that take a 1/16 to 3/16 inch bead of silcone RTV. If the nuckleheads used like a 1/4 inch bead and it smushed into the inside you will get a high Silcone reading.
I am not an expert, just a car nut thats been playing with these FWD Mopars from the begining in 78. I followed the recomendation of two Chrysler parts manager I used Dexron III in my 92 Plymouth Dusters A604 transaxle. Both managers said its the same as ATF+3, just cheaper. Well $1500 for a reman is "CHEAPER"? The Factory filter, I was told, filters about a 30 micron size and anything bigger than 25 microns is said to cause dammage. I have 170,000 miles on a (Ex GTE Phone company) 91 Dodge Spirit LE 3.0L AOD that was serviced as a fleet car. They used Volvoline ATF+3 on a 12K change interval. I know its not a sponsered site but I learned a lot at Allpar.com about these Cars/Vans. DaveJ
The Critic: I'm gonna be tempted to start calling you "Critter" here too myself pretty soon.
Lab get it wrong? Nope, the UOA doesn't distiguish between the two. So what is silicone made off? Is there Si lurking in that fancy polymer?
The same can be said concerning ALL the PPM readings. Is it from the fluid? is it wear? is it being ingested? is it debris from the assembly line?
Why worry? dump the fluid!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
