Supertech ATF+4

[G-MAN]

I've explained why I think the licensing protocol for ATF+4 is better than that of DEX VI or Mercon LV. "Superior" in this case has to be evaluated on the basis of the goal, and Chrysler's goal was to ensure that licensed ATF+4 was all as chemically identical as possible. The only way to ensure that would be to specify the exact Lubrizol ad pack to be used as well as the base oils. With that goal in mind, any licensing protocol which would allow a maker to develop their own formula and self-validate it based on performance criteria alone would be "inferior" by definition because the goal of having all ATF+4 chemically the same could not possibly be met that way.

I would direct your attention to SAE paper #932674, which I referenced in a post I did several years ago on ATF+4. It deals with the development of ATF+4 and the performance goals Chrysler was trying to achieve with the new MS9602 spec. It sheds light on why Chrysler went so long without licensing this fluid as well as why they chose the protocol they did when the finally decided to license it.

 

[beadvised]

I was not aware I started WWIII

 

[dnewton3]

Quote:
I've explained why I think the licensing protocol for ATF+4 is better than ...

Yes, you have. But, as I've said before, I don't want to hear about what you think; I wasnt to see your proof of claims.

And yet you point me towards an SAE article that is likely wrong I think ...
Quote:
I would direct your attention to SAE paper #932674

Here is what I see using that number you quoted:
http://papers.sae.org/932674/
That paper is about evaporative emmissions, variable volume enclosures and temperature changes ...
Please check your reference. And post the correct link directly, if you would, please. We all make mistakes; myself included. Everyone deserves a second chance; everyone's allowed a Mulligan. Perhaps you typed it incorrectly?


You state this:
""Superior" in this case has to be evaluated on the basis of the goal, and Chrysler's goal was to ensure that licensed ATF+4 was all as chemically identical as possible"
I can understand where any ATF+4 licesned product is going to be assured complete compatibility; from your statements, that was the goal. IOW - Chrysler wanted uniformity of the add-pack, and so they tightly restricted the license criteria around that.

But that's not all that you've said. You also said this:
That's because the ATF+4 license requirement is vastly superior to everyone else's.

Part of my contention is that you clearly stated "everyone else's". I think that is WAY TOO BROAD of a blanket to throw over this.

In my mind, chemistry-specific licenses are a good place to start for the sake of unifomity, but they do not assure performance. I think you're in agreement. If the add-pack were mediocre, then the only assurance one gets is that of the same mediocrity ... I am not saying that ATF+4 is not any good; I'm just saying that the license (of which you still haven't provided a link specific to that product) really is only perhaps one means to an end.

As I've shown, the Allison spec's are very specific, and deal not only with performance specs, but also chemistry and even wear results. That's about as specific one can get.
I don't see commonality of chemistry as "superior".
Desirable? Yes.
Superior? No. Not inherrently, anyway.
And most certainly, it's not "superior" to "every else's". Allison has a similar approach, and probably goes to even greater lengths.

Additionally, do you have any evidence to support that this Chrysler approach has achieved some milestone above what DEX VI or Mercon LV has failed? Please be specific and again, I ask for proof, not continued rhetoric. You see, I've not heard of any compantibility issues of any DEX VI fluids resulting in ruinous effects by competing with other DEX VI products, after being mixed in the tranny. Nor have I heard of any Mercon LV products resulting in disasterous ramifictaions when being mixed with other LV products. So please explain how the "superior" approach of ATF+4 results in a better license spec than those of Dex VI or Merc-LV. Are we seeing significant failures of DEX VI or Mercon LV in their own unique applications, that would lead us to believe that competing brands using those specific licenses are resulting in failure, directly due to competing chemistry?

And, according to you, ATF+4 isn't just better (superior); no - it's "vastly superior". By what measure? Can you quantify the "vastness" of that superiority? How much better is better? By what measureable? You may be right; I might be wrong. But I've seen nothing from you inregard to real, tangible proof.


Here's where I see you made three mistakes:
1) you painted with WAY TOO BIG of a brush including "everyone else" versus Chrysler
2) you have defined "superior" in a manner that befits your narrow application of ATF+4
3) you have claimed a "vast" difference, but shown no methodology of measurables or quantifiable results thus far

I wholly agree that ATF+4 is a good spec that results in very compatible fluids. But that does not make it a "vastly superior" license spec, contrasted to those of other high quality organizations. Additionally, you've not shown any proof of that "superior" claim. To convince me of superiority, not only do you have to show how one product excels, but you have to show the relative failures of other competing products whereas as similar approach would have averted those failures.

You have done nothing so far but espouse rhetoric and make an incorrect reference to an SAE article.

I would agree that the ATF+4 spec is different, but you've done nothing to convince me it's "vastly superior" than "everyone else".

 

[G-MAN]

Typo on the SAE paper. Here is a link to it.

I don't believe there is anything I could say or any evidence I could present that would convince you of my supposition that a licensing scheme that is based on a specific chemical formula is "superior" to one that allows a maker to come up with their own formula and self-validate it against a set of performance specs.

I doubt if there is any evidence like what you are demanding that would or even could objectively validate my supposition. What I'm contending is based on reason, and the realities of blending a lubricant to meet certain performance criteria. Do you think Chrysler chose their method because they thought it was an inferior way to license the fluid and achieve those goals?

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: beadvised
I was not aware I started WWIII

WOO! The party is on!

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Typo on the SAE paper. Here is a link to it.

I don't believe there is anything I could say or any evidence I could present that would convince you of my supposition that a licensing scheme that is based on a specific chemical formula is "superior" to one that allows a maker to come up with their own formula and self-validate it against a set of performance specs.

And there is it; your "supposition". You suppose that it's "vastly superior".


Originally Posted By: G-MAN
I doubt if there is any evidence like what you are demanding that would or even could objectively validate my supposition. What I'm contending is based on reason, and the realities of blending a lubricant to meet certain performance criteria. Do you think Chrysler chose their method because they thought it was an inferior way to license the fluid and achieve those goals?

I don't doubt you have some reason to believe what you believe; that is normal for all of us. And I'm sure that any company will typically choose what it sees as a best fit for their set of circumstances, whether it is a full "best" or a compromise of some sort. If you could have linked examples of licensing forms, data and such (like I did to show you how excellent Allison's spec's are), then perhaps you could have convinced me. I completely agree that Chrysler did what it thought was most beneficial at the time; that does not make it vastly superior over all others. That is their own "self validation" of their own spec. How is that any better or worse than other companies self-assurance of their products? Your logic is one-sided here ...

Generally, I don't see anything in that (15 year old) SAE paper that assures anyone that the ATF+4 license spec is "vastly superior" to any other product, especially given today's group of excellent products. I completely agree that the SAE paper shows their data was reasonably collected and their conclusions seem sound, but I'd remind you that (based upon the timeline) that neither DEX VI nor Mercon LV were even tested in that study. How can you profess now that fluids not even in the market at the time of that test are somehow inferior to the ATF+4? That paper was filed in 1998! DEX VI came out in 2006, and LV shortly thereafter. That's your "proof"? A paper that precedes those products by nearly a decade? Further, because you haven't shown the actual form for the application process for the ATF+4, I really cannot ascertain if your "chemistry" claim is well founded; I have no idea what the real world ATF+4 spec is! The SAE paper talks of the study of the fluids, but that is not the same as showing the license application and specs. Again - for contrast, I specifically linked Allison's specs and application form; my proof is direct, tangible and specific. Your proof is absent when it comes to the actual ATF+4 license. I contend that the Allison spec is "better" (my choice of words) because:
1) it speaks to very tough, robust performance criteria
2) uses independent validation
3) talks about chemical composition
4) includes component wear criteria

I can agree that the Chrysler ATF+4 criteria they chose probably assures a very good product in their applications. But that does NOT make it somehow better than other products in their specific application. I would even contend that it's nearly improbable to directly compare those types of fluids, because it would not be advisable to introduce them into each others direct environment. It would not be fair to condemn a DEX VI in an ATF+4 application, any more than the reverse; they are targeted to specific license criteria. The ONLY thing (presuming you are correct) I see is that the ATF+4 might assure no competing chemistry, but then I'd also counter with the fact that I've not seen any evidence of DEX VI or LV failures based upon their allowance of chemistry!


Overall, what I take issue with is your bold yet baseless statement that Chrysler is somehow able to have a "vastly superior" spec as contrasted to "everyone else", with no proof. You are apparently presuming that a license based upon chemistry is better than any other approach from other entities. Further, you claim this ATF+4 fluid is better than DEX VI and Mercon LV, but cannot show examples of failures of those licensed fluids, perhaps of competing brands, resulting in damage simply due to chemical aversion between those brands. Fluids that came WELL AFTER the ATF+4 paper you're clinging to ...

You've answered my questions as best you can, I presume. I see no proof that you have provided to back up your specific claims of superiority over all other options, or failures in other fluids simply based upon chemistry within those licensed products you mention.

We can agree to disagree.

Have a good day.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: beadvised
I was not aware I started WWIII



You didn't.

Since you're reasonably new here (you may have lurked for a while ...) you should know that there are generally two kinds of folks here.

1) people that look to facts and data and make objective conclusions
2) people that espouse rhetoric and mythology and make subjective decisions

I have no objection to folks talking of their opinions and thoughts; this is an open forum as long as one follows the board rules.

But when you claim something to be superior, better, above, etc, all I ask is that you be able to PROVE your logic is sound, and back it up with evidence. If you cannot, I file you into category #2 ....

But that's probably no worse than what some folks think of me; I've been called rude, bold, brash, argumentative, a "bully", and even told that I "type to much". All because I ask for people to back up their claims with proof.

You can decided which type person you want to be here.

 

[G-MAN]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Overall, what I take issue with is your bold yet baseless statement that Chrysler is somehow able to have a "vastly superior" spec as contrasted to "everyone else", with no proof. You are apparently presuming that a license based upon chemistry is better than any other approach from other entities. Further, you claim this ATF+4 fluid is better than DEX VI and Mercon LV, but cannot show examples of failures of those licensed fluids


My claim is not baseless; I've stated over and over the basis for it. You just think that basis is invalid because I can't provide you the "evidence" that would convince you of my position.

And I never said the "spec" is superior; I said the licensing methodology is superior. And I NEVER claimed that ATF+4 is superior to the fluids you mentioned. (It's very easy to run a sustained dispute with someone when you continually misrepresent their position and then argue against it.)

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: G-MAN
That's because the ATF+4 license requirement is vastly superior to everyone else's.


Originally Posted By: G-MAN
I've explained why I think the licensing protocol for ATF+4 is better than that of DEX VI or Mercon LV.


Originally Posted By: G-Man
And I never said the "spec" is superior; I said the licensing methodology is superior.


First it was the "requirement". Then the "protocol". Now you're stating it's the methodology of the license?

Silly me; I thought this was about the fluids, and/or the specs of the fluids.

Now it's the "methodology" of the license? What, pray tell, could that be? That the application is filled out in black ink from a Cross ball-point pen? How about you put together a short glossary for me so I know what terms you're going to use, and how, please? Perhaps an abridged dictionary with your detailed definitions?

Using your current words, what "methodology" is "vastly superior" from "everyone else's"? That they require some specific chemistry package? That is NOT unique, as I've already proven. You've not shown it to be unique, nor vastly superior.

To you, superior must be synonymous with "different".


Never mind.
Have a nice weekend.

 

[G-MAN]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Silly me


Ah, at last we agree on something.

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: G-MAN
That's because the ATF+4 license requirement is vastly superior to everyone else's.

Yes this does seem like a very silly thing to say. Perhaps even ... vastly silly?!