The only avenue open to the likes of us re. autoboxes is to ensure the ATF is good. If it smells burnt, or if you know positively it is very old, new fluid is indicated, but needs a cash outlay of course with no guarantee of success.
However I seem to remember a poster on here finding chafed databus wiring causing an autobox fault. Might be worth trying to find it so you could at least examine your own wiring.

Leedsman.

 

Re the code you mention


Start by inspecting the transmission fluid level and condition, and change fluid if necessary.





You really need Richard (tfb) to sort this out. If you think about it, it's likely to be a sensor providing inaccurate information to the ECM, or dirty fluid or bad 3rd Solenoid. If you are sure the fluid is OK (does it smell burned? How many miles on it?) then it is more likely to be electrical than mechanical - unless the fluid is really bad blocking some galaries.


Sorry I cant be much help

 

Hi again Leedsman/QinteQ/vrc883

Sorry for the excessive delay in posting my reply to your posts. Car has been forced to take a back seat just now (sadly funds are lacking and finding someone to work outside at this time of year is proving impossible just now ).

I did however wish to update with what progress (lack of) made thus far and to share my further research for the benefit of other forum members working with the same issue.

As indicated in my last post, I did return with the car to the transmission specialist on the Monday sadly to be informed that their equipment WOULD NOT after all hook up to the TCM of a 2000 and that the P0733 code would simply be a PCM code!

Their recommended course of action? Fit a reconditioned (fully guaranteed) box at a price of £2,000! On hearing that that was beyond my budget, repair was then discussed but with prices starting from the £600.00 + mark.....also beyond my budget!! I was referred on to the local (former) Chrysler main dealer who still have the Chrysler diagnostic kit for a code read before they would proceed as I was informed that this would be what they would do before commencing any repair. He did tell me they were very helpful and that the diagnostics would only take around 10 minutes to complete and did not charge me for the earlier code read.

I was a previous customer of this dealer when they were under the Chrysler flag and as it is located just 2 miles away it seemed sensible to pay them a visit whilst the vehicle was in the city so as to minimise any unnecessary mileage in limp mode. Regrettably on hearing the age of the vehicle they became singularly unhelpful to my predicament and despite technicians clearly available insisted that the vehicle must be booked in for an entire day with a minimum labour charge of 1.5 hours. Not wishing to put further wear on the transaxle for so little gain I declined their offer to book it in.

Brief research into the 'Scrappy' option followed finding suitable units available at around £700 - £800.... which I find hard to believe given no significant guarantee to their condition......

Returning to the 41TE fitted in the 98 I thought it prudent (whilst not able to do anything else on either vehicle) to expand my research. So in a spirit of helping others seeking to accomplish this task I will share my research and of course invite comments from the experts here in respect of its accuracy.

Interchangability:

My attention has been drawn to the differences between the autotransaxle units installed through the model years most notably revisions to the Transmission Range Sensor and the final drive ratio's.

TCM:

Issues relating to the Pinion Factor (the 'LX' GS was equipped with 16" Tyres whilst the 'LE''s were 15") are apparently addressed by reprogramming the TCM with a suitable diagnostic tool using a menu selection for the correct Tyre size. Failure to do this will result in incorrect speedometer and odometer readings. This is therefore only necessary if the TCM (and/or smaller/larger wheels) are exchanged from another vehicle. To maintain electrical compatibility however a 2000 vehicle MUST have a 2000 TCM with the same primary OEM Part Number (in this case 04686952) subsequent part revisions 04686952AA through 04686952AF or later? are all fully compatible as I understand.....thoughts anyone?

Transaxle Units:

Many transaxle unit variants were installed to Gen 3 & Gen 4 Voyagers/Grand Voyagers between 1996 and 2005 interchangability is seemingly governed by several major factors:

1. Physical design of the Bell Housing (to mate with the crankcase) - This is specific to the engine size (i.e. a 3.0L Bell Housing WILL NOT fit a 3.3L engine).
2. Attachment holes/bolts - However I understand that Gen 4 housings whilst having extra attachment points will still mate suitably with these unused).
3. Flex Plate - 96 & 97's have one "D" shaped hole which requires 'rounding' to accommodate more recent transaxles.
4. Modules/Sensors - The Transmission Range Sensor has undergone 3 revisions and both their physical dimensions and connectors have changed.
5. Transmission Oil Tube/Dipstick - These differ between the Gen 3 and Gen 4 units but can be swapped over.
6. Final Drive Ratio - I understand this differs for each engine size but the 3.3L is always at 2.49. Given 1. above this should not be an issue ....again thoughts anyone?

In drawing these conclusions I found the following information/articles of immense value and draw all credit to the expert authors concerned.

Differences between transaxle unit part numbers and production years - the ATSG 41TE Update Handbook (available to download from here: http://usavans.ru/forum/download/file.php?id=24344) shows and explains all changes and revisions for each production year and all OEM Part Nos.

Differences between the revisions of the TRS "the Chrysler 41TE Transmission Range Sensor" in depth Sonnax article by Mike Steen here: Chrysler 41TE & 42LE Range Sensors - Sonnax NB. Article comprehensively discusses the revisions and their differences and shows how to circumvent the issue of interchangability with OEM Adapter Harnesses and Adapter Seal with images and part numbers.

General practical information on interchangability from a Chrysler Minivan Club Forum post by 'Working Plymouth' found here: Transmission Interchange Information For 3rd Generation

Useful OEM 41TE Part Numbers from the 'Transmission Rebuilders Network' here: TRNW - Transmission Rebuilders Network Worldwide: Membership Tour

History of the TRS changes during the '99 Model Year and the adapter harness developed - TSB 21-04-99 "Service And Parts Information On 1999 Running Changes To Transmission Range Sensor (TRS)" found here: http://robskorner.info/faqs/TSB/21-04-39.pdf

So to summarise, in regard to my issues the '98 donor should provide a straight swap provided that I can source an adapter harness to circumvent the revised TRS connector which is of the 'blade ' type on the 2000 and 'pin' type on the '98. The options are: 1. the OEM part 4868295AA (very expensive!) 2. An 'after market ' equivalent (eg. A604 Adapter Harness - MLPS) or 3. Lucky Scrap Yard find on an 'early' '99 with a old style TRS.

In investigating the harness I have also come across a number of examples of the 'Miller' Transmission Simulator Harness (Part No 8333-12 Miller Tools Trans Range Sensor Harness 8333 12A | eBay) which appears to be identical and available at a lower cost. Can anybody comment as to whether these are simple "connector to connector" convertor harnesses and therefore suitable or else have some internal component to facilitate connection with the test equipment?

Alternately, if anyone has a good example available and would like to PM me I will happily sort via PayPal......

Hope the above info is of help to other board members!!

Voyager Pilot