That's really something.
This is why it is important: Valvoline will not be lawfully held accountable for "recommended for." Meaning the person of the failure would not be able to pursue Valvoline as the culprit. [Valvoline might choose to compensate people for tangential reasons, such as public opinion.] If Valvoline (were able to) get/got a license of approval for the fluid and list such on the bottle, then they would be liable for the ensuing failure(s), and the person would be able to sue or open a suit against them.Again, it's just wordplay of the legal world and bean counters... I'm a simple man and here is how I see it:
If a T-IV spec'd automatic transmission fails, and failure is somehow undeniably proven to be due to the use of Valvoline MaxLife, then Valvoline is going to be held accountable, regardless of the wordplay on the bottle. Because Valvoline openly claims that MaxLife is a suitable replacement for T-IV. (Per earlier referenced PDF, and every back of the MaxLife ATF bottle.) But, as you/me/and all other users found out - MaxLife does great in all applications it is recommended for. Must be able to meet the specs, right?
And when it is unable to meet the specs - Valvoline openly admits it:
- "Valvoline does not recommend MaxLife Multi-Vehicle ATF for use in most continuously variable transmissions (CVTs) and in dual clutch transmissions (DCTs) unless specifically noted, nor in automatic transmissions where Ford Type F fluids are recommended."
- Don't know if it is still the case (maybe a reformulation took place since then), but some time ago Valvoline advised against using MaxLife ATF in Aisin Warner TF-80SC automatic transmissions.
Back to T-IV. Logic tells me that MaxLife meets the specs, and Valvoline's recommendation of being suitable/compatible is just as good as a claim to meet those specs.
You can make a Multi-Vehicle ATF, if that is your question.Thanks molakule.
Since I don't have the specs in front of me, could you give me some understanding here--a lot of times with coolant and ATF, people argue that you can't make a multi vehicle product because to meet Spec A means you have to compromise and not meet Spec B.
Are those specs difficult for a multi-ATF to meet? I suppose they would be impossible if others had a significantly different viscosity (either higher or lower)...
You won't see it there because Afton does not make the DI package for the Valvoline MaxLife ATF.Well that certainly answers my question. I expected to see it in the afton spec book but didn't.
The recommendation comes about as explained above. The DI manf. has it tested in-house and in third-party labs and in fleets. I am sure Valvoline financed all of part of the testing.Valvoline does say that their recommendations come from in-house testing, independent lab testing (third party?), and field testing.
"...Valvoline has conducted extensive bench testing and chassis dynamometer trials to support MaxLife Multi-Vehicle ATF performance in the broadest range of transmissions; however, it should be noted that MaxLife Multi-Vehicle ATF is not an OEM licensed product. The respective vehicle manufacturers have neither evaluated nor endorsed MaxLife Multi-Vehicle ATF in these applications. If an OEM licensed product is preferred, we recommend Valvoline DEXRON® VI, Valvoline ATF+4® and Valvoline MERCON®V for the corresponding applications..."Or is their recommendation not considered a claim?
The ATF they suggest covers: viscosity "stay-in-grade," minimum wear over the life of the ATF, and stability of Mu(v), the dynamic friction coefficient.
Oh, post #3 was responding to a comment by paulri in the context of Toyota T-IV ATF. "Stay-in-Grade" means the viscosity will stay within a certain range of viscosity over its life. "Grade" relates to the viscosity range of the fluid over a temperature range; such as for the specs of a 0W30 engine oil. The Dynamic Friction Coefficient (Mu(v)) will remain stable over the fluid's life as well.The ATF they suggest covers: viscosity "stay-in-grade," minimum wear over the life of the ATF, and stability of Mu(v), the dynamic friction coefficient.
Thanks for the detailed reply MolaKule. As we know T-IV follows JWS3309 specifications.Oh, post #3 was responding to a comment by paulri in the context of Toyota T-IV ATF. "Stay-in-Grade" means the viscosity will stay within a certain range of viscosity over its life. "Grade" relates to the viscosity range of the fluid over a temperature range; such as for the specs of a 0W30 engine oil. The Dynamic Friction Coefficient (Mu(v)) will remain stable over the fluid's life as well.
Thanks for the detailed reply MolaKule. As we know T-IV follows JWS3309 specifications.
Do you know the details of specs of JWS3309? The actual values of different parameters in the specification I mean.
Most of the fluids I have seen purporting to meet JWS3309 are all hovering around 7.0 cSt@100C.Also , we see different viscosities in different brands supplying ATFs with JWS3309 specs: Eg, Mobil ATF 3309, Mannol 8218 etc. How does ATF viscosity affect milage and shifting smoothness/shudder?
Please read post #23 again.Sorry, I'm not too interested in the whole wordplay argument of "meet & exceed" vs "recommended for" vs "approved/specified" vs etc... So I'll keep it short - Valvoline recommends it in Toyota T-IV applications, updated 6/19/22. See Valvoline document here. Something that official does tend to stand out like a claim to meet the specs, at least to me...
View attachment 112621
By specifications I meant performance specifications in which the fluid is required to: resist shear and oxidation for a minimum period, and to provide and retain dynamic friction coefficient for a number of hours or miles.To which parameters are you referring?
Great. Can you share some JWS 3309 specs as defined above?My information comes from a detailed analysis on an NDA contract.
By specifications I meant performance specifications in which the fluid is required to: resist shear and oxidation for a minimum period, and to provide and retain dynamic friction coefficient for a number of hours or miles.
No. An NDA means a Non-Disclosure Agreement between two parties.Great. Can you share some JWS 3309 specs as defined above?
Do a public domain search (Google or whathaveyou) for "DEXRON®Test File Upload Manual" by the GM Test Data Center. It has about 60 tests for the various Dexron Types.The requirements for those performance items are similar to those in the public domain for GM's later Dexron series, Ford's ATF series, and Chrysler's series of ATFs.