Rexer
Member
What's the best power steering fluid for a 65 383?
Power Steering Fluid for 65 C Body
- Thread starter Rexer
- Start date
Chrysler had a specific power steering fluid for their cars, as did GM, back then. Clear and waxy looking, NOT auto transmission fluid. I kept it in the '66 Newport and never had any leaks and the hoses lasted forever. When I bought my '67 Newport, it had power steering fluid with a red tint, so I flushed that out until it got clear again with the added Chrysler fluid. Ended the seeps through the pressure hose rubber.
At this point in time, either the factory GM fluid or an aftermarket fluid rated for power steering fluid that is NOT automatic transmission fluid.
In prior times, it was known that you could put automatic transmission fluid in power steering units to "top them off", but if that was needed due to a leak, you soon had a system full of atf . . . and more issues over time. BTAIM
Just my experiences,
CBODY67
At this point in time, either the factory GM fluid or an aftermarket fluid rated for power steering fluid that is NOT automatic transmission fluid.
In prior times, it was known that you could put automatic transmission fluid in power steering units to "top them off", but if that was needed due to a leak, you soon had a system full of atf . . . and more issues over time. BTAIM
Just my experiences,
CBODY67
Yep, stay away from ATF.
There are guys that say it's fine, but every power steering pump and/or box that I've seen leak, dripped red fluid (ATF). ATF has other ingredients like friction enhancers. Power Steering fluid looks to me to be a standard hydraulic fluid for a high temperature use, but I'm no chemist.
I use the "power steering fluid" off the shelf at the local Advance O'Reiley Zone. No problems.
There are guys that say it's fine, but every power steering pump and/or box that I've seen leak, dripped red fluid (ATF). ATF has other ingredients like friction enhancers. Power Steering fluid looks to me to be a standard hydraulic fluid for a high temperature use, but I'm no chemist.
I use the "power steering fluid" off the shelf at the local Advance O'Reiley Zone. No problems.
Rexer
Member
Thank you for the information. This is very helpful
Rexer
Member
I appreciate your information. This helps a lot.
This past summer I replaced a lower seal in the steering gear of my RWD '01 Ram. So you're basically losing all the PS fluid when you do that, but that's ok, it's the original factory fluid, it will get all new fluid. Except that nobody makes a "power steering" fluid as far as I can tell. But that's ok, since Chrysler put out some TSB's back in 2001 saying you can completely replace the PS fluid with ATF +4.
This past september when I pulled my '67 Monaco out of storage for the first time in 20 years, one of the things I had to do to get it road-worthy for a short trip home was top up the PS fluid, which was down I think it was a full quart (the transmission was down 2 full quarts). So there was no power steering happening (and no forward / reverse motion either) with those fluids in that state. Knowing that I wasn't going to find any "power steering" fluid, I just poured in the ATF. Seemed to work fine, but I maybe put on 10 or 15 miles of city driving on the car so not really a good test, but this spring / summer I'm going to drive it more, hopefully to MoParFest, but I'm going to keep the ATF in there and not change it.
If anyone has any solid info on why ATF+4 shouldn't be used in these old PS units, let me know, and then tell me what should be in there and who sells it. In Canada.
This past september when I pulled my '67 Monaco out of storage for the first time in 20 years, one of the things I had to do to get it road-worthy for a short trip home was top up the PS fluid, which was down I think it was a full quart (the transmission was down 2 full quarts). So there was no power steering happening (and no forward / reverse motion either) with those fluids in that state. Knowing that I wasn't going to find any "power steering" fluid, I just poured in the ATF. Seemed to work fine, but I maybe put on 10 or 15 miles of city driving on the car so not really a good test, but this spring / summer I'm going to drive it more, hopefully to MoParFest, but I'm going to keep the ATF in there and not change it.
If anyone has any solid info on why ATF+4 shouldn't be used in these old PS units, let me know, and then tell me what should be in there and who sells it. In Canada.
I don't know as you are ever going to find any modern "solid info" on not using ATF in an OLD MOPAR. Note that I said "OLD MOPAR". All the info out there is based on newer cars and newer fluid. The TSB from 2001 is 30+ years newer than our cars.
Here's why Chrysler recommended it in 1970.
I do know this.... ATF has detergents and friction modifiers in it for auto trans use. Both ATF and power steering fluid are basically a hydraulic fluid with different additives. Every service manual etc. along with the technician training from that era stipulated using power steering fluid (see the above video). I believe that power steering fluid also can operate at a higher temperature, but I have no proof of that to quote, although that is something that Chrysler does mention in their training video.
My anecdotal experience comes from owning a lot of Chrysler products over the years... A lot of them... I've owned approx. 100 cars give or take... Every single one that I had with a power steering leak was dripping ATF. That may have been since they started leaking, the replacement was ATF, but a lot of them sure did leak a lot. To give an example, my '70 300 leaked fluid from the pump and later the box. It had ATF in it when I got the car... and didn't leak and yep, it was put in by the PO. It wasn't long after I bought the car that it started leaking badly. So bad I had to put a drip pan under the car every time I parked it in my driveway... Compared to my '65 Barracuda that does not have ATF in it with what looks like original parts that never leaked a drop.
So, IMHO, power steering fluid isn't much more expensive than ATF... and it's not hard to find. Yea, maybe ATF might work, but it seems to me that buying the stuff you know will work is always the way to go.
IMHO, there's no benefit to ATF other than you might already have a can on the shelf. Buy the power steering fluid and now you have a can of that... LOL.
FWIW, my Ford Edge has electric power steering!
How on earth am I supposed to have any confidence that any PS oil I pull off the shelf today is EXACTLY what chrysler engineers had in mind and the same as what was in dealer service garages 50 years ago? That's why I think it's pointless to just say "well for your 1967 Dodge you just go to XYZ and buy something that says "Power Steering" on the label". That was probably ok advice in 1980. But today?
And unless you've completely rebuilt your steering gear and have all new seals, I don't see how anyone can nail down that it was this or that type of oil that's causing the leak you're seeing.
My '01 Ram with 45k original miles had a very slow PS leak for the past 5 years. Lower steering gear seal, right above the pitman arm. Was it the original factory PS oil that caused it? No. It's age and the fact that this particular seal takes all the beating of the arm moving the steering link.
They talk a lot about "foaming" and maybe 50 years ago the ATF would foam so they said don't use it in the PS, but today the modern ATF's don't foam, probably haven't for a few decades.
I stumbled across an article that said that Prestone was making PS fluid for classic / antique cars. I go to Prestone and fill in the info boxes (year, make, model, etc).
You know what the answer is?
Power Steering Fluid
No Power Steering Fluid available for this vehicle
Apparently not even brake fluid either.
See also: What type of Power Steering Fluid?
And unless you've completely rebuilt your steering gear and have all new seals, I don't see how anyone can nail down that it was this or that type of oil that's causing the leak you're seeing.
My '01 Ram with 45k original miles had a very slow PS leak for the past 5 years. Lower steering gear seal, right above the pitman arm. Was it the original factory PS oil that caused it? No. It's age and the fact that this particular seal takes all the beating of the arm moving the steering link.
They talk a lot about "foaming" and maybe 50 years ago the ATF would foam so they said don't use it in the PS, but today the modern ATF's don't foam, probably haven't for a few decades.
I stumbled across an article that said that Prestone was making PS fluid for classic / antique cars. I go to Prestone and fill in the info boxes (year, make, model, etc).
You know what the answer is?
Power Steering Fluid
No Power Steering Fluid available for this vehicle
Apparently not even brake fluid either.
See also: What type of Power Steering Fluid?
Last edited:
As I said, my reference to leaking is anecdotal. Definition: Definition of ANECDOTAL
I just looked in the link you've provided.... I saw I wrote "As I understand it, PSF is a non foaming SAE 20 hydraulic oil". Bet I got that info from my oldest son when he was selling oil and lubricants for a living... He sells replacement windows now.
Bottom line is to use what you feel is right. If you want to go on the info you've read, great... As long as your car doesn't leak in my driveway, I'm fine with it.... And I'm not going to argue... I said "some guys will say it's fine" in my first post here. I gave anecdotal evidence of leaking ATF and my reasoning is that you can use one or the other, but I know the PSF will work. That's pretty simple reasoning to me.
I'm out...
My experiences are very similar to @Big_John's experiences. When I was buying Chrysler PSF in the earlier 1970s, it came in a metal quart bottle (we had several vehicles which might need it, over time) with a rolled lip so it would not drip. When I went to work at the Chevy dealer in late 1976, the GM PSF looked just like the Chrysler PSF (GM PN 1050017) and I used it in our Chevrolets and Chryslers. At that time, my jobber source for the Chrysler PSF went out of business. So I bought the GM PSF and put in the Chrysler can, so I would not drip any fluid during installation. At that time, the GM PSF was in a quart can like motor oil was back then.
Back then, too, it was common to use normal ATF to top-off any PSF system, if needed. The ATF viscosity is probably a bit less than the GM and Chry PSF, so it was pretty compatible in that respect. Now, as to other differences? ONE main issue is the rubber and other seals in the Chrysler and GM PS systems back then. The FLUID and the seal materials MUST be compatible for best longevity and results. Which I proved when I flushed the system in my '67 Newport with GM PSF, back then, and the seeps through the rubber hoses stopped. No leaks, per se, just little drops of red fluid on the outside of the rubber hose.
In more recent times, Ford advises that their Mercon atf can be used in their PS systems. Which sounds similar to the current Chrysler recommendations. No problem with that. BUT unless Chrysler claims their current ATF+ fluid is BACKWARD COMPATIBLE for older models, then using that ATF+ fluid in any older model (for which it was not recommended) should ONLY be a short-term situation, it seems to me. Consider, too, that ANY online "What To Use" database usually does not list anything prior to 1990 or so, by observation. Additionally, just because ONE brand might not claim to have any PSF for older Chryslers (or equivalent to the old GM PSF 1050017), does NOT mean that all brands are that way!
GOOGLE can be your friend! A quick search for "GM 1050017" resulted in a couple of eBay listings in the old metal/paper quart cans and also the current ACDelco 19329448 quart bottle. The GM part numbers in Canada might not match what they are in the U.S.A., sometimes.
That same search also found an Amazon listing for the 19329448 and 19329450 ACDe Julco/GM part numbers (different capacity bottles), PLUS the current "Mopar PSF +4" (not ATF+4) And other equivalent brands' PSF. FWIW
That same Google search, which led to Amazon, found Valvoline 6022412 PSF (Amber color).
Considering that the Chrysler ATF+4 is either a semi-syn or full-syn fluid, it might also be that the PSF+4 is also that way? Just s curiosity.
In the earlier 2000s, Valvoline also made a syn PSF, which GM recommended be used in R&P PSF units which made noise. But that fluid was apparently discontinued not long after that. BTAIM.
Respectfully,
CBODY67
Back then, too, it was common to use normal ATF to top-off any PSF system, if needed. The ATF viscosity is probably a bit less than the GM and Chry PSF, so it was pretty compatible in that respect. Now, as to other differences? ONE main issue is the rubber and other seals in the Chrysler and GM PS systems back then. The FLUID and the seal materials MUST be compatible for best longevity and results. Which I proved when I flushed the system in my '67 Newport with GM PSF, back then, and the seeps through the rubber hoses stopped. No leaks, per se, just little drops of red fluid on the outside of the rubber hose.
In more recent times, Ford advises that their Mercon atf can be used in their PS systems. Which sounds similar to the current Chrysler recommendations. No problem with that. BUT unless Chrysler claims their current ATF+ fluid is BACKWARD COMPATIBLE for older models, then using that ATF+ fluid in any older model (for which it was not recommended) should ONLY be a short-term situation, it seems to me. Consider, too, that ANY online "What To Use" database usually does not list anything prior to 1990 or so, by observation. Additionally, just because ONE brand might not claim to have any PSF for older Chryslers (or equivalent to the old GM PSF 1050017), does NOT mean that all brands are that way!
GOOGLE can be your friend! A quick search for "GM 1050017" resulted in a couple of eBay listings in the old metal/paper quart cans and also the current ACDelco 19329448 quart bottle. The GM part numbers in Canada might not match what they are in the U.S.A., sometimes.
That same search also found an Amazon listing for the 19329448 and 19329450 ACDe Julco/GM part numbers (different capacity bottles), PLUS the current "Mopar PSF +4" (not ATF+4) And other equivalent brands' PSF. FWIW
That same Google search, which led to Amazon, found Valvoline 6022412 PSF (Amber color).
Considering that the Chrysler ATF+4 is either a semi-syn or full-syn fluid, it might also be that the PSF+4 is also that way? Just s curiosity.
In the earlier 2000s, Valvoline also made a syn PSF, which GM recommended be used in R&P PSF units which made noise. But that fluid was apparently discontinued not long after that. BTAIM.
Respectfully,
CBODY67
3C's & a D?
Senior Member
You should be able to find "power steering fluid" at any gas station or parts store, in various applications from different manufacturers. Old Mopars need any generic or name brand "plain", "clear" power steering fluid.
Traditional ATF, and ATF+4 are two very different things, ATF+4 is twice the price for a reason. Possibly ATF+4 would work in our old cars, but why try? Regular PS fluid is cheaper, and easier to get, at least where I am.
I have an "06 Magnum which calls for ATF+4 as PS fluid. The old stuff was burnt, so I drained it, and filled with plain clear. After a couple high spot feels, and some strange sounds within the first 1000 miles, I drained it again and filled with the right, specified fluid. No problems since. Also in Canada
Harley
New Member
When these cars were new, I was turning wrenches at a Chrysler dealership. I found that a suitable replacement for the power steering fluid is #10 NON-DETERGENT engine oil. It worked fine and did not cause any leaks. I am still using it in my 1967 New Yorker. Hope this will help someone.
Probably harder to find than power steering fluid..
I'm not a chemist, and didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn recently, so this is from things I've read over the years.
The big difference with motor oil versus the hydraulic oil they use in power steering are the additives. Motor oil has emulsifiers in the mix to absorb water, where hydraulic oil doesn't. Generally speaking, you want water to collect in the bottom of your hydraulic reservoir and not mix into the oil itself. With motor oil, the emulsifiers allow the water to mix with the oil and be removed when changed. Most hydraulic oil never gets changed often, if at all.
As I understand it, non-detergent oils do not have any additives in it. So that means no emulsifiers.
Also as I understand it, PSF is 20wt hydraulic oil with an additive for high temperature use. How much that high temp additive comes into effect for our cars? I dunno... They did add coolers to cop cars and some other high perf applications though...
So, yea, it's probably going to work just fine, although I wonder about the viscosity. It won't have the friction modifiers in it that ATF has.
I'm reminded of a story a friend told me. The shop he worked in had the contract for one of the quick oil change chains to repair their screw ups. (think about that for a minute). One time they had a high end foreign car come in that the clowns at the oil change shop had added ATF to the brake fluid. The car would drive, but touch the brakes and they would lock up and not release. The ATF had swollen the seals due to some additive in the ATF. It was an expensive repair from what he said... Everything, including the anti-lock brake module, had to be changed.
Hello;
Ex Mopar Parts Div. product manager here, I used to manage this stuff.
Power Steering fluid in our era of recirculating ball boxes was formulated for heat and noise resistance properties, that are not present in ATF. Current parts store PS product is the same thing.
ATF +4 is backwards compatible for our transmissions, but is is a waste of $$ for older cars. Keep in mind the referenced Mopar TSB was intended for rack and pinion steering, which was not around for our cars.
I'm not sure on the classic GM fluid is compatible per se, but since Chrylser used a lot of GM Saginaw pumps in our cars I have to think it is compartible.
Mark
Ex Mopar Parts Div. product manager here, I used to manage this stuff.
Power Steering fluid in our era of recirculating ball boxes was formulated for heat and noise resistance properties, that are not present in ATF. Current parts store PS product is the same thing.
ATF +4 is backwards compatible for our transmissions, but is is a waste of $$ for older cars. Keep in mind the referenced Mopar TSB was intended for rack and pinion steering, which was not around for our cars.
I'm not sure on the classic GM fluid is compatible per se, but since Chrylser used a lot of GM Saginaw pumps in our cars I have to think it is compartible.
Mark
Excellent! I knew about the heat, but never heard of the "noise resistance" properties. Very interesting!!
pomonamissel
Senior Member
i used clear 10 w jack oil in my 65 880 with a 383 auto . do not use any red fluid it will screw up your seals .
Ok, some random thoughts on this.
Detergents: detergents in oil are supposed to suspend "stuff" so they get caught by filters. Which means the oil is being moved around by a pump. Small engines that don't have oil pumped around (ie lawn mowers) is not supposed to have detergent, the dirt and particles are supposed to settle on the bottom of the crank case and stay out of the way. Transmissions and car engines have oil filters, does that mean ATF has detergent? I don't know. Do old tractors have hydraulic oil filters? Not that I've seen, but old combines do. Car PS systems don't have filters (not the ones I own at least). Should 50-year-old MoPar PS units have detergent in the oil? I would guess not. Does ATF+4 have detergent? I don't know.
TSB's for using ATF+4: Chrysler has put out TSB's saying it's ok, or even recommended, to use ATF+4 as PS fluid (when doing a complete flush and fill). They did that around 1999 - 2001. They did that for cars with rack and pinion (ie my '300m) and for trucks with (I think?) recirculating ball (my '01 Ram).
Mineral oil: From what I've gathered, the old PS fluid was based on mineral oil. That could be the reason why some people recall that fluid as being clear (back in the day). The mineral-oil angle isn't mentioned much. Is it important? Is it a factor here? I don't know. Will you find mineral-oil-based PS fluid on shelves today? I doubt it.
Synthetic PS fluid: You won't find mineral oil, but you will find a lot of synthetic-based PS oil. I remember reading that when you put synthetic oil in an engine (and especially the differential, my '300m has a differential sump that takes 70W90 gear oil) that synthetic oils will cause seal leaks where you weren't getting them before. The way I see it, you're introducing MORE UNKNOWNS by putting synthetic PS fluid in a 50-year-old PS system vs using modern ATF+4. If Chrysler says it's ok to use ATF+4 in an '01 Ram with circulating ball steering gear then that to me is more equivalent to what our 50-year-old cars have.
Detergents: detergents in oil are supposed to suspend "stuff" so they get caught by filters. Which means the oil is being moved around by a pump. Small engines that don't have oil pumped around (ie lawn mowers) is not supposed to have detergent, the dirt and particles are supposed to settle on the bottom of the crank case and stay out of the way. Transmissions and car engines have oil filters, does that mean ATF has detergent? I don't know. Do old tractors have hydraulic oil filters? Not that I've seen, but old combines do. Car PS systems don't have filters (not the ones I own at least). Should 50-year-old MoPar PS units have detergent in the oil? I would guess not. Does ATF+4 have detergent? I don't know.
TSB's for using ATF+4: Chrysler has put out TSB's saying it's ok, or even recommended, to use ATF+4 as PS fluid (when doing a complete flush and fill). They did that around 1999 - 2001. They did that for cars with rack and pinion (ie my '300m) and for trucks with (I think?) recirculating ball (my '01 Ram).
Mineral oil: From what I've gathered, the old PS fluid was based on mineral oil. That could be the reason why some people recall that fluid as being clear (back in the day). The mineral-oil angle isn't mentioned much. Is it important? Is it a factor here? I don't know. Will you find mineral-oil-based PS fluid on shelves today? I doubt it.
Synthetic PS fluid: You won't find mineral oil, but you will find a lot of synthetic-based PS oil. I remember reading that when you put synthetic oil in an engine (and especially the differential, my '300m has a differential sump that takes 70W90 gear oil) that synthetic oils will cause seal leaks where you weren't getting them before. The way I see it, you're introducing MORE UNKNOWNS by putting synthetic PS fluid in a 50-year-old PS system vs using modern ATF+4. If Chrysler says it's ok to use ATF+4 in an '01 Ram with circulating ball steering gear then that to me is more equivalent to what our 50-year-old cars have.
AC Delco is mineral oil based. That's just one.
Yes, yes it is.
ACDELCO 105074 GM Original Equipment; 16 oz
ACDELCO 105073 GM Original Equipment; Hydraulic; Amber; 32 oz
Which rock auto is selling for the ridiculous low price of $4.80 and $8.27. CanBux!
I'm going to see if this stuff is available on my retail shelf...
volksworld
Active Member
MoPar Man my 53 ford tractor had no filter on the hydraulics...when i rebuilt the pump and lift i plumbed in a Peterson inline filter
Similar threads
