Mike Romain

So is the Chrysler stuff 'really' synthetic or is it just one of those
fake labels they went to court to be able to put on normal refined dino
oil to jack the price way up?

Maybe Pennzoil is just being honest with their label and price?

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

Coasty wrote:
>
> Personally the Pennzoil® Synchromesh stuff says,
> a.. Suitable for use in Chrysler transaxles and transmissions requiring Part
> No. 4874464
> It does not sat it meets Chrysler Part No. 4874464 the difference is the
> Chrysler Part No. 4874464 is synthetic and Pennzoil® Synchromesh is not.
>
> Suitable is not good enough for me but, that is just me.
>
> Coasty
>
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:GvWdnb1EOcoPTjvZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> > Last I checked it was something like $12/qt at dealer, that's why I was
> > looking around for it. Got into a snipping match with D-C because the
> > factory service manual and owner's manual says do not use anything but the
> > dealer stuff, but if there is no aftermarket equivalent they are supposed
> > to provide it for free. At the time the Pennzoil wasn't available.
> >
> > "Troy" <@ .> wrote in message
> > news:mMmdnVYIQYkgIzvZnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> >>I went and got the pennzoil syncromesh. Thanks guys for the
> >>clarification. It was $6.50 at autozone, but I didn't go searching
> >>everywhere for a better deal, just wanted to get out of the heat.
> >>
> >> Its in a 2001 TJ and I just topped 55000 miles recently. I drove it
> >> around a bit and it was shifting smoothly again. As far as I can tell
> >> the clutch still operates fine, I can be idling and gently let it out in
> >> first and I dont even have to give it gas. My buddy (drives a honda) is
> >> amazed by that.
> >>
> >> Troy
> >>
> >> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> >> news:JeSdnbj3RcipAjjZnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> >>> Use the Pennzoil Syncromesh, that's what I have in mine, it's the same
> >>> as the dealer stuff. Napa's computers are wrong, the 3550 was intro's in
> >>> 2000, prior models had teh AX15 which uses standard gear oil. The fellow
> >>> using ATF in his 3550 will have a siezed transmission soon.
> >>>
> >>> "Troy" <@ .> wrote in message
> >>> news:_u6dnaImxf8ERTnZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> >>>> BTW its sitting in my yard, transmission empty, until I know what I can
> >>>> fill it with.
> >>>>
> >>>> Troy
> >>>> 01 TJ
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >

Matt Macchiarolo

Thing is, I do remember reading somwhere (not on the net) that for
maintenince issues like oil and fluids, the manufacturer (not dealer) is not
supposed to charge for it if the manufacturer specifies only their own fluid
and no other, which was the case for the NV3550 when it was intro'd. I was
googling for a pertinent link about this issue and the Magnusson Moss act
but can't find it yet.

"Greg Johnson" <Islander2000@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13962-44A6EE86-177@storefull-3317.bay.webtv.net...
> "if there is no aftermarket equivalent they are supposed to provide it
> for free."
>
> Why in the world would you say something like that? Don't beleve
> everything you read on the internet.
>

Matt Macchiarolo

Thing is, I do remember reading somwhere (not on the net) that for
maintenince issues like oil and fluids, the manufacturer (not dealer) is not
supposed to charge for it if the manufacturer specifies only their own fluid
and no other, which was the case for the NV3550 when it was intro'd. I was
googling for a pertinent link about this issue and the Magnusson Moss act
but can't find it yet.

"Greg Johnson" <Islander2000@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13962-44A6EE86-177@storefull-3317.bay.webtv.net...
> "if there is no aftermarket equivalent they are supposed to provide it
> for free."
>
> Why in the world would you say something like that? Don't beleve
> everything you read on the internet.
>

Matt Macchiarolo

Thing is, I do remember reading somwhere (not on the net) that for
maintenince issues like oil and fluids, the manufacturer (not dealer) is not
supposed to charge for it if the manufacturer specifies only their own fluid
and no other, which was the case for the NV3550 when it was intro'd. I was
googling for a pertinent link about this issue and the Magnusson Moss act
but can't find it yet.

"Greg Johnson" <Islander2000@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13962-44A6EE86-177@storefull-3317.bay.webtv.net...
> "if there is no aftermarket equivalent they are supposed to provide it
> for free."
>
> Why in the world would you say something like that? Don't beleve
> everything you read on the internet.
>

Coasty

How the auto companies get away with it is to say a product must meet
(blank) specifications. They are not saying a particular product is the
only authorized fluid or you will void your warranty, that would be the
Magnusson Moss act.

It is just like ATF+4, DC has said the transmission fluid must meet ATF+4 to
be used and the only place you could get ATF+4 was at the Dealer. However
it is now sold at every parts place as ATF+4 under the Valvoline label.

Pennzoil® says their Synchromesh fluid is suitable for use in Chrysler
transaxles and transmissions requiring Part No. 4874464. However the key
word is missing in which is (Meets OEM) Chrysler Part No. 4874464. Just like
the Mercron ATF which said it was suitable for use in DC transmissions and
when you used it your transmission failed. People were either too cheap or
did not understand the difference between suitable and meets OEM
requirements their is a big difference their and they ended up paying for it
with failed transmissions.

The difference is the Chrysler Part No. 4874464 is a full synthetic
designed to last the life of the transmission unless it requires rebuilding
or goes under water and Pennzoil® Synchromesh is not synthetic it is a
paraffin based lubricant that must be change.

What I have said was confirmed by a writer for Motor Week Pat Goss who I
talked to on his weekly radio show and he is the most knowledgably auto
mechanic there is.

The old adage Pay ME Now or Pay Me later came to mind.

Coasty


"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:X4OdnTWdWq1ejTrZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Thing is, I do remember reading somwhere (not on the net) that for
> maintenince issues like oil and fluids, the manufacturer (not dealer) is
> not supposed to charge for it if the manufacturer specifies only their own
> fluid and no other, which was the case for the NV3550 when it was intro'd.
> I was googling for a pertinent link about this issue and the Magnusson
> Moss act but can't find it yet.
>
> "Greg Johnson" <Islander2000@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:13962-44A6EE86-177@storefull-3317.bay.webtv.net...
>> "if there is no aftermarket equivalent they are supposed to provide it
>> for free."
>>
>> Why in the world would you say something like that? Don't beleve
>> everything you read on the internet.
>>
>
>

Coasty

How the auto companies get away with it is to say a product must meet
(blank) specifications. They are not saying a particular product is the
only authorized fluid or you will void your warranty, that would be the
Magnusson Moss act.

It is just like ATF+4, DC has said the transmission fluid must meet ATF+4 to
be used and the only place you could get ATF+4 was at the Dealer. However
it is now sold at every parts place as ATF+4 under the Valvoline label.

Pennzoil® says their Synchromesh fluid is suitable for use in Chrysler
transaxles and transmissions requiring Part No. 4874464. However the key
word is missing in which is (Meets OEM) Chrysler Part No. 4874464. Just like
the Mercron ATF which said it was suitable for use in DC transmissions and
when you used it your transmission failed. People were either too cheap or
did not understand the difference between suitable and meets OEM
requirements their is a big difference their and they ended up paying for it
with failed transmissions.

The difference is the Chrysler Part No. 4874464 is a full synthetic
designed to last the life of the transmission unless it requires rebuilding
or goes under water and Pennzoil® Synchromesh is not synthetic it is a
paraffin based lubricant that must be change.

What I have said was confirmed by a writer for Motor Week Pat Goss who I
talked to on his weekly radio show and he is the most knowledgably auto
mechanic there is.

The old adage Pay ME Now or Pay Me later came to mind.

Coasty


"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:X4OdnTWdWq1ejTrZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Thing is, I do remember reading somwhere (not on the net) that for
> maintenince issues like oil and fluids, the manufacturer (not dealer) is
> not supposed to charge for it if the manufacturer specifies only their own
> fluid and no other, which was the case for the NV3550 when it was intro'd.
> I was googling for a pertinent link about this issue and the Magnusson
> Moss act but can't find it yet.
>
> "Greg Johnson" <Islander2000@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:13962-44A6EE86-177@storefull-3317.bay.webtv.net...
>> "if there is no aftermarket equivalent they are supposed to provide it
>> for free."
>>
>> Why in the world would you say something like that? Don't beleve
>> everything you read on the internet.
>>
>
>

Coasty

How the auto companies get away with it is to say a product must meet
(blank) specifications. They are not saying a particular product is the
only authorized fluid or you will void your warranty, that would be the
Magnusson Moss act.

It is just like ATF+4, DC has said the transmission fluid must meet ATF+4 to
be used and the only place you could get ATF+4 was at the Dealer. However
it is now sold at every parts place as ATF+4 under the Valvoline label.

Pennzoil® says their Synchromesh fluid is suitable for use in Chrysler
transaxles and transmissions requiring Part No. 4874464. However the key
word is missing in which is (Meets OEM) Chrysler Part No. 4874464. Just like
the Mercron ATF which said it was suitable for use in DC transmissions and
when you used it your transmission failed. People were either too cheap or
did not understand the difference between suitable and meets OEM
requirements their is a big difference their and they ended up paying for it
with failed transmissions.

The difference is the Chrysler Part No. 4874464 is a full synthetic
designed to last the life of the transmission unless it requires rebuilding
or goes under water and Pennzoil® Synchromesh is not synthetic it is a
paraffin based lubricant that must be change.

What I have said was confirmed by a writer for Motor Week Pat Goss who I
talked to on his weekly radio show and he is the most knowledgably auto
mechanic there is.

The old adage Pay ME Now or Pay Me later came to mind.

Coasty


"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:X4OdnTWdWq1ejTrZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Thing is, I do remember reading somwhere (not on the net) that for
> maintenince issues like oil and fluids, the manufacturer (not dealer) is
> not supposed to charge for it if the manufacturer specifies only their own
> fluid and no other, which was the case for the NV3550 when it was intro'd.
> I was googling for a pertinent link about this issue and the Magnusson
> Moss act but can't find it yet.
>
> "Greg Johnson" <Islander2000@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:13962-44A6EE86-177@storefull-3317.bay.webtv.net...
>> "if there is no aftermarket equivalent they are supposed to provide it
>> for free."
>>
>> Why in the world would you say something like that? Don't beleve
>> everything you read on the internet.
>>
>
>

Coasty

Magnusson Moss Warranty Act

http://www.granatellimotorsports.com/magnusonmoss.htm

Coasty


"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:X4OdnTWdWq1ejTrZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Thing is, I do remember reading somwhere (not on the net) that for
> maintenince issues like oil and fluids, the manufacturer (not dealer) is
> not supposed to charge for it if the manufacturer specifies only their own
> fluid and no other, which was the case for the NV3550 when it was intro'd.
> I was googling for a pertinent link about this issue and the Magnusson
> Moss act but can't find it yet.
>
> "Greg Johnson" <Islander2000@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:13962-44A6EE86-177@storefull-3317.bay.webtv.net...
>> "if there is no aftermarket equivalent they are supposed to provide it
>> for free."
>>
>> Why in the world would you say something like that? Don't beleve
>> everything you read on the internet.
>>
>
>

Coasty

Magnusson Moss Warranty Act

http://www.granatellimotorsports.com/magnusonmoss.htm

Coasty


"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:X4OdnTWdWq1ejTrZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Thing is, I do remember reading somwhere (not on the net) that for
> maintenince issues like oil and fluids, the manufacturer (not dealer) is
> not supposed to charge for it if the manufacturer specifies only their own
> fluid and no other, which was the case for the NV3550 when it was intro'd.
> I was googling for a pertinent link about this issue and the Magnusson
> Moss act but can't find it yet.
>
> "Greg Johnson" <Islander2000@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:13962-44A6EE86-177@storefull-3317.bay.webtv.net...
>> "if there is no aftermarket equivalent they are supposed to provide it
>> for free."
>>
>> Why in the world would you say something like that? Don't beleve
>> everything you read on the internet.
>>
>
>

Coasty

Magnusson Moss Warranty Act

http://www.granatellimotorsports.com/magnusonmoss.htm

Coasty


"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:X4OdnTWdWq1ejTrZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Thing is, I do remember reading somwhere (not on the net) that for
> maintenince issues like oil and fluids, the manufacturer (not dealer) is
> not supposed to charge for it if the manufacturer specifies only their own
> fluid and no other, which was the case for the NV3550 when it was intro'd.
> I was googling for a pertinent link about this issue and the Magnusson
> Moss act but can't find it yet.
>
> "Greg Johnson" <Islander2000@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:13962-44A6EE86-177@storefull-3317.bay.webtv.net...
>> "if there is no aftermarket equivalent they are supposed to provide it
>> for free."
>>
>> Why in the world would you say something like that? Don't beleve
>> everything you read on the internet.
>>
>
>