quality of Valvoline ATF-4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:

I just dumped the Mopar ATF+4 today and put the Valvoline FS in, and I gotta say I am impressed. Smoother shifting in both my wife's AT and my MT which calls for it. I am a believer, and this is all these two autos will see from now on.

Click to expand...


A believer in what? Valvoline and Mopar ATF+4 are chemically identical because no blender of ATF+4 is permitted by Chrysler to deviate from their approved formula. All ATF+4 uses the same Lubrizol additive package and one of three approved Group III base oils, none of which are produced by Ashland/Valvoline.

BTW, Ashland is one of the OEM suppliers of Mopar ATF+4 so the fluid you dumped could very well have been made by Ashland/Valvoline.
 
More than likely the effect is due to a higher % of "fresh fill" since the two fluids should be transparent in terms of material and performance.

I wonder if they'll have a +4a-e (9602a-e)
 
They are chemically similar. There are not chemical identical. There is enough of a difference in similarly spec'd fluids to make a difference in feel and performance.

Its a longlife fill. Why would a new fluid make any difference?

IMO, the new fluid feel occurs even when OEM fluid is used. That just supports the anti-owners manual intervals. You need to change your ATF/MTF's sooner then recommended always.

BTW, I also prefer the Valvoline ATF+4.
 
I am not so sure they are the same. I have driven with both in the power steering and MTX on my Neon. Never had much problems with the gearshift being very sluggish with Mopar down near zero and never heard my power steering whine so much as with Valvoline.

I say if you have to have ATF+4 Mopar approved fluid get Mopar. I am not impressed with Valvoline and won't use it again. The one time down to single digits with Amsoil and it shifted freely. Power steering still whined till it warmed up some as it still has Valvoline in it.

They may be similar but not the same.

Never notices any shifting difference other than cold weather between Valvoline and Mopar ATF+4 oils.
 
"Valvoline and Mopar ATF+4 are chemically identical because no blender of ATF+4 is permitted by Chrysler to deviate from their approved formula"

I dunno about that.

I put Mopar ATF+4 in wife's '97 Caravan. I was about a half-quart shy on the refill, so I ran to Wally World and bought a quart of SuperTech ATF+4. They were noticeably different in color. As I was pouring it in, my wife (who wouldn't know tranny fluid from axle grease) even commented: "Are you sure that's the right stuff? It looks different."

The specs may be the same, but there is NO WAY those fluids were "chemically identical."
 
I'm constantly amazed at how people, when faced with cold hard FACTS, will still stick to an erroneous position.
smirk.gif


You can believe your particular brand of ATF+4 is made from sperm oil if you like, but it doesn't change the facts nor does it change Chrysler's rigid blending/licensing requirements.
 
G-MAN is correct about the formulation. Any slight difference in appearance will be almost certainly attributable to a variation in the amount or type of red dye that is used. Red dye does nothing apart from make the fluid red! It typically is added at about 200 or so ppm so even a slight variation in treat can sometimes be noticed.
 
"You can believe your particular brand of ATF+4 is made from sperm oil if you like, but it doesn't change the facts nor does it change Chrysler's rigid blending/licensing requirements."

I never suggested otherwise. I am quite certain that, in terms of performance specs, SuperTech and Mopar ATF+4 are identical. My point was that ANY variation in formulation (even something as innocuous as red dye concentration) would still mean NOT CHEMICALLY IDENTICAL.
 
Quote:

My point was that ANY variation in formulation (even something as innocuous as red dye concentration) would still mean NOT CHEMICALLY IDENTICAL.

Click to expand...


You must be a lawyer.
theyareontome.gif
 
Compare ATF+4 from Pennzoil, Valvoline, and Castrol:
Visc at 100: Pzl=7.71 Valv=7.55 ValvMSDS~7.3-7.8 Castrol=7.5
Visc index: 198 for PZL/Valv, VI for Castrol is 206
Flash point: Pzl=410 Valv=385 Castrol>374
-40 cst: Pzl=9300 Valv=9000 ValvMSDS~ Pour point: -48 for Pzl/Valv, NA for Castrol
Visc @ +40: Pzl=35.13 Valv=34.13 Castrol=33

Valvoline additives: 460=phos, 690=Calcium, Z=0, Boron=140
SAE ATF+4 test fluid: 460=phos, 690=calcium, Boron=130, 100visc=7.43, -40visc=9490, Flashpoint 417,

Valvoline MSDS ingredients:
Basestock 75-85%
VII 8-18%
Transmission fluid additive: 2.7-13%
POLYALKYLMETHACRYLATE 4.4-14

Castrol MSDS ingredients: 30-60% highly refined mineral oil but bottle label, like Valvo, is full synthetic!

In the Mobil/Mopar ATF+4 MSDS, no ingredients are given except ACRYLATE POLYMER 10-20%. Thats a pretty big range!
Mobil products numbers: 520270-00, 97W904 and 522813-00, 97Z556. Maybe you can match that to something on the Mopar bottle? Break out the UV or black lightbulbs!

If the blending specs are so broad, we would have to believe that any fluid blended within the range should pass the minimum Chrysler requirements. License is a joke.

Now all we need is datasheets for Supertech, Mobil, Coastal, and Advancedauto ATF+4.
 
unDummy I could not find a +4 trans fluid on Pennzoil`s web site. Where did you get those specs? I might want to know who makes the highest viscosity +4 esp if my fluid Analysis shows my +4 fluid is good but has thinned.I plan on using an oil extractor and fill with the highest viscosity fluid available.Pennzoil appears to be thickest @ 100 degrees C. Might make a difference as a drain and fill on my 5-45rfe trans is 50%(7+ quarts).

Thanks
 
Well all the figures that you quote (excluding MSDS) show that, exactly as G-MAN stated, they are the same!
What you have to consider is that not only is there some blend variation (however small) but added to that there is test variation.
Therefore it's not possible to 'nitpick' into these numbers an try to differentiate one fluid from another. Take a look at the analyticals, they are the same!
pat2.gif

Oh, and don't try to compare MSDS information with specs. They are not written for the same purpose and because of that the MSDS information will just add to the confusion.
pat2.gif
 
I don't know why the link isn't at the PZL website.
http://www.pzlqs.com/Tech/Pdsheet/DomesticMarketing/Gear&Transmission/pdf/ATF4.pdf

Blending to a spec is meaningless and so is having a license. A spec is only as good as the policing of it. And, from what I've seen, OEMs are horrible at being Policeman. But, they love thier license kickbacks. Companies do whatever possible to cut corners to make money. I'll stick with name brand reputation and hope that they blend 'more accurately'.
Also, there seems to be plenty of 'play' in any requirement. You can blend to a spec or you can blend to beat the spec.
 
Originally Posted By: JohnBrowning
First of all the only real difference between the old 7176 ATF+3 and ATF+4 is the base stock and viscosity improvers.


Wrong on a couple of counts: First, ATF+3, in its original Chrysler formulation, is ATF+2 with the shear stable VI improver that was developed for ATF+4. This is stated clearly in SAE paper #982674. Second, because Chrysler's licensing requirements for ATF+3 were performance specs only, each blender could come up with its own formulation and so long as it met the performance specs it could be labeled ATF+3. This means that ATF+3 could be radically different from blender to blender. This isn't the case with ATF+4 because the licensing requirements entail not only performance parameters, but also dictate that only the approved additive package from Lubrizol and an approved Group III base oil can be used.
 
Originally Posted By: zrxkawboy
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
but also dictate that only the approved additive package from Lubrizol and an approved Group III base oil can be used.


See, that's what I thought, too, but others said that Grp III was not a requirement. Any thoughts?


Chrysler specifies Group III. Period.

As for the erroneous info in that thread, the CAS# for Group II, II+ and III is the same. The only exception is a Group III wax isomerate (like Shell's XHVI) which has a different CAS#. Bottom line: Unless it's a wax isomerate, you can't tell from the MSDS if the base oil being used is Group II, II+, or III.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
Valvoline Maxlife ATF(RED) VS. Valvoline Full Synthetic(BLUE)
Replies
5
Views
597
GSCJR
bbhero
Valvoline ATF pretty good sale at Napa
Replies
2
Views
505
ctechbob
Graham Piccinini
RedLine D4 VS HPL Blue
Replies
2
Views
1K
Astro14
redhat
Valvoline SynGard ES - DEX III/TES-295/Mercon V HD fluid
Replies
1
Views
231
nascarnation
Creekside
Fluid recommendation for Allison HT740
Replies
6
Views
374
Creekside
Back
Top