ATF + 3........any reason NOT to use in older trans?

Print Thread

Re: ATF + 3........any reason NOT to use in older trans? [Re: Spike] #484774 10/02/09 02:54 PM 10/02/09 02:54 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,071 U.S.S.A. JohnRR I Win
JohnRR I Win Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,071 U.S.S.A.	Quote: Like John said and if you would like to read more- ATF trans fluids I just read that , looks like yet another MONEY GRAB by the Chrysler LICENSING STRONGARM division ... Quote: Manufacturers can make ATF+4 fluids, but to use the trademarked ATF+4 name in their compatibility list, they must have their fluids tested and licensed by Chrysler engineers, and must use Lubrizol in their formulations.

Entire Thread
Subject	Posted By	Posted
ATF + 3........any reason NOT to use in older trans?	todd440	10/01/09 12:17 AM
Re: ATF + 3........any reason NOT to use in older trans?	cantspel	10/01/09 01:21 AM
Re: ATF + 3........any reason NOT to use in older trans?	cool_cuda	10/01/09 02:16 AM
Re: ATF + 3........any reason NOT to use in older trans?	JohnRR	10/01/09 12:45 PM
Re: ATF + 3........any reason NOT to use in older trans?	cptn60	10/01/09 01:56 PM
Re: ATF + 3........any reason NOT to use in older trans?	WyleECoyote	10/01/09 02:01 PM
Re: ATF + 3........any reason NOT to use in older trans?	John_Kunkel	10/01/09 07:44 PM
Re: ATF + 3........any reason NOT to use in older trans?	Spike	10/02/09 06:39 PM
Re: ATF + 3........any reason NOT to use in older trans?	JohnRR	10/02/09 06:54 PM

Hop To