atf+4 synthetic or reg

Status
Not open for further replies.
All ATF+4 are group III synthetic even if they aren't labeled as such. Chrysler's license is pretty strict on the formulation of ATF+4. Buy the less expensive ATF+4 you can find.
 
You can easily make the ATF+4 with a Group II/III mix so I would say it's a 'semi-synth' at best. Myself I would only use ATF+4 as a last resort. Valvoline MaxLife would be my first choice.
 
FWIW I have used Valvoline synthetic ATF+4 and it works well. Improved shifting over what was in there before. I did a pan drop and refill on a 3.9 Dakota.
 
Originally Posted By: Silverado12
FWIW I have used Valvoline synthetic ATF+4 and it works well. Improved shifting over what was in there before. I did a pan drop and refill on a 3.9 Dakota.

+1
Any fluid change is a good change!
 
Originally Posted By: martinq
You can easily make the ATF+4 with a Group II/III mix so I would say it's a 'semi-synth' at best. Myself I would only use ATF+4 as a last resort. Valvoline MaxLife would be my first choice.


You cannot "easily" make ATF+4 with Group II/III mix. Unlike typical OEM licensing requirements for an ATF, which are normally performance parameters where the oil manufacturer is left to create their own "formula" so long as it meets the performance spec, Chrysler's ATF+4 license stipulates the exact formula that must be used right down to the base oils. There is a list of approved base oils and they are all Group III. Any clandestine blend using Group II would be violating the license requirements and could not carry the ATF+4 logo.
 
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
You cannot "easily" make ATF+4 with Group II/III mix. Unlike typical OEM licensing requirements for an ATF, which are normally performance parameters where the oil manufacturer is left to create their own "formula" so long as it meets the performance spec, Chrysler's ATF+4 license stipulates the exact formula that must be used right down to the base oils.

I believe you are right about the base-oil requirement but I also think that the performance requirements of the (1998 spec) ATF+4 could easilly be met by a mix of currently available GroupII/III base (semi-synth). I don't doubt that every licensed ATF+4 being sold is currently using the required base-oil and add-pack.

When I look at this chart I'm reminded of how far behind the ATF+4 is compared to everyone else, but yes it looks like they require GroupIII in their licensed formula. I don't know if Chrysler is in any position to develop a new spec these days, they might just adopt one and put their stamp on it.
u0qz2f8.gif
 
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Martinq - do you sleep with a case of Maxlife?

Sometimes I think so, or is it only a dream?!
 
Just got word from Ashland about ATF+4.

"The license agreement with Chrysler prohibits us from making suitable for use claims on any other ATF products in our product line."

This is because they already produce a licensed product and has nothing to do with other products being suitable for use in ATF+4 applications. So while they 'could' say that something like MaxLife ATF is suitable for that application they can't do it without jeopardizing their ATF+4 license.

That's good ole lawyers working in your best interest.
 
Originally Posted By: martinq
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
You cannot "easily" make ATF+4 with Group II/III mix. Unlike typical OEM licensing requirements for an ATF, which are normally performance parameters where the oil manufacturer is left to create their own "formula" so long as it meets the performance spec, Chrysler's ATF+4 license stipulates the exact formula that must be used right down to the base oils.

I believe you are right about the base-oil requirement but I also think that the performance requirements of the (1998 spec) ATF+4 could easilly be met by a mix of currently available GroupII/III base (semi-synth). I don't doubt that every licensed ATF+4 being sold is currently using the required base-oil and add-pack.

When I look at this chart I'm reminded of how far behind the ATF+4 is compared to everyone else, but yes it looks like they require GroupIII in their licensed formula. I don't know if Chrysler is in any position to develop a new spec these days, they might just adopt one and put their stamp on it.
u0qz2f8.gif



The whole notion that ATF+4 is an antiquated transmission fluid simply because it's a higher viscosity than these newer fluids is totally bogus. From a formulation standpoint, ATF+4 was light years ahead of its time when it came out and today remains one of the most advanced and shear-stable ATFs made. IMHO, other fluids, while going the LV route, are just now catching up to ATF+4 in terms of formulation.
 
thats the way i always thought of it it. dex6, dw-1, ws, mercon lv, sp4 etc... are just catching up to atf+4 and some of those don't even match the durability of atf+4
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top