Allison/Duramax 2500/3500 ATF

[userfriendly]

The 2011 Duramax owner's manual supplement states that when
operating in very cold climates use Allison KS295 approved synthetic ATF.
That got me looking for an Allison 295 ATF.
Mobil Delvac, (likely the FF) is approved for Allison's extended warranty.
Chevron (2008 product book) lists a "289" ATF and their HD synthetic
295 approved, but not for the extended warranty program.
Petro-Can has a 295 approved synthetic, but no mention of warranty.
As far as I can tell, the Allison is not fussy, but I think that the FF
of Dextron 6 is misguided, and will be the first thing to go on my next new truck.

I ended up using Petro-Can's Dura-Drive syn, because that is what I had in my stash.
Parking the truck up hill I managed to drain 9 liters out of the transmission
including the spin-on filter.
The torque converter holds 4 liters that will never drain out.
If I was to switch to the Mobil product, I would disconnect the cooler return line
and run a couple of liters through the system.
One question...Is 295 backward compatible to Allison 289 approved fluids?

 

[userfriendly]

The old Allison spec is 389, not 289 as above.
From everything I read since posting, it appears
that KS295 covers all in light truck applications.

 

[dnewton3]

There are two Allison 1000 series transmissions.

I've discussed this elsewhere on the site, but I'll give a quick synopsis.

When GM owned Allison, they started making their own "Allison 1000" trannies in Baltimore, MD. These go into all the 2500/3500 trucks we see on dealer lots. Before 2007, these were willed at the factory with Dex III. Since late 2006/early 2007, these have been FF with DEX VI.

Allison has a facility in Indianapolis, IN that also makes the 1000 series, as well as others. These go into commercial applications. These have always been filled with FF TES-295 fluids (typically Castrol Transynd for FF, but there are several qualified and licensed brands).

When GM sold off Allison, they kept the name and manufacturing rights (shared with Allison) to make the 1000 series for the light-duty trucks.

So any tranny you see in a typical pickup is going to have a GM built-in-MD "Allison".
Any tranny you see in a commercial box truck or med-duty application is going to be a "pure" or "true" Allison, still made by them today.

In no way am I implying that one is better than another; they are essentially twins separated by an ugly divorce.


Allison still has, to this day, several TES (transmission engineering specification) lube standards. Of them, two would apply to the 1000/2000 series trannies:
TES-295 (a PAO based fluid with very high performance standards); this spec has been around a long time.
TES-389 (essentially what was formerly DEX III(h) with the addition of assurance of chemical compatibility for older seals). This is not an "older" spec; it came about after GM stopped licensing DEX III in 2006.
TES-468 (not really sure what this is, but TES-295 fluids qualify for this application ...)
You can see the licensed on-road products at their site:
http://www.allisontransmission.com/parts-service/approved-fluids/on-highway-fluids


Your 2011 Dmax/Alli equipped truck most certainly came with an Allison (made by GM in Maryland) with DEX VI in it.

 

[dnewton3]

Allow me to add this info. This is copied over form a post I made on another forum. This doc is a bit outdated, but I stumbled across something that DIRECTLY supports my position ...



http://www.rvtechmag.com/docs/AllisonSvcSchedules.pdf

Read page two and look at the Fluid Type and Recommended Usage.

BOTH THE TES-295 AND THE TES-389 ARE RECOMMENDED FOR GENERAL OR SEVERE DUTY!

The "type" use is not distinguished between those fluid alternatives! You can still use a DEX III or VI for severe duty. The only difference? The OCI! You cannot use them as LONG as you can use a TES-295.

Also, note 4 clearly states that these are recommendations and that fluid analysis (UOAs) is acceptable for OCIs. And I quote:
"Fluid change intervals may be adjusted based on fluid analysis and fleet data."
And that applies to BOTH standard and extended intervals!
In other words, the "recommendations" for mileage limits is based upon a lack of UOA data, but if you use UOA data, you can ignore the miles and use REAL DATA rather than the odometer!

Completely vindicates my position that syns are not "better"; syns last "longer". And you can use even the old DEX III for severe use; just not as long.
Even Allison recognizes this fact.


And so, I conclude with the fact that any reasonable Dex/Merc product is OK to use in an Allison 1000, regardless of severity of use, and that UOAs are superior to miles in terms of OCI duration decisions, regardless of which product you use and severity you incur.



Now, for a 2011, you're still under warranty most likely, and therefore I'd stick to DEX VI because GM warrants their tranny you have, not Allison. You can use TES-295 if you want, but those are stupid-expensive fluids and you're not likely to ever see any practical difference in wear control over the use of your DEX VI.

 

[Greasymechtech]

Originally Posted By: used_0il
Is 295 backward compatible to Allison 389 approved fluids?


Yes.

 

[dnewton3]

It's not so much "backward" compatible, because TES-295 came out before TES-389.

TES-295 is a license spec that has very high performance criteria and PAOs are the predominant lube base stock to meet this spec.

TES-389 is essentially a spec that came about after GM dropped the licensing of DEX III(h); TES-389 duplicates that GM spec with the added concern for seal compatibility with respect to the chemistry pack. This came about because the DEX VI has chemistry that does not play nice with the older seals used prior to 2007 in Allison 1000/2000 series trans. In 2007, both GM and Allison updated the seals so they would be compatible with DEX VI. But the TES-389 spec is NOT for DEX VI; TES-389 is a mimic of the old DEX III(h) with a notation for seal compatibility chemistry.


These two specs are "current"; one is not really "backwards compatible" to the other.

The TES-389 is basically for "normal" ATF (conventional base stocks) and the TES-295 is for PAO-based products. They both apply to a DEX/Merc application. And they are both currently licensed. Don't think of the spec's as different applications; they are two choices for the same application - one a dino and one a syn.

 

[pocketchange]

Allison Spec ATF (295) & Kz33 is in everything (I drive.)

4000 Series Allison (MH), A8-D2 Audi, Ford F150 & S2-V6 Buick (hot rod).

Samples taken on schedule and NO failures, even with the HR.

ONLY Problem is the expen$e but well worth the peace of mind.

 

[Whitewolf]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
It's not so much "backward" compatible, because TES-295 came out before TES-389.

TES-295 is a license spec that has very high performance criteria and PAOs are the predominant lube base stock to meet this spec.

TES-389 is essentially a spec that came about after GM dropped the licensing of DEX III(h); TES-389 duplicates that GM spec with the added concern for seal compatibility with respect to the chemistry pack. This came about because the DEX VI has chemistry that does not play nice with the older seals used prior to 2007 in Allison 1000/2000 series trans. In 2007, both GM and Allison updated the seals so they would be compatible with DEX VI. But the TES-389 spec is NOT for DEX VI; TES-389 is a mimic of the old DEX III(h) with a notation for seal compatibility chemistry.


These two specs are "current"; one is not really "backwards compatible" to the other.

The TES-389 is basically for "normal" ATF (conventional base stocks) and the TES-295 is for PAO-based products. They both apply to a DEX/Merc application. And they are both currently licensed. Don't think of the spec's as different applications; they are two choices for the same application - one a dino and one a syn.


Basically what happened with the seal in question was that it was discovered to leak when DEXRON-VI was being evaluated. No one had really looked for that before but the leakage was blamed on the ATF. In fact subsequent tests showed that the problem lay with the selection of that seal material which tended to degrade and leak with other approved fluids too. Rather than admit that it was a poor material selection Allison persisted in blaming the fluid but changed the material anyway using the fluid as an excuse.

 

[dnewton3]

Thank you for the information; always good to hear from someone DIRECTLY involved. I stand corrected in that regard! I have always taken my info from the public sourcing on this topic, but I do realize that "behind the scenes" people often have better data.

That just makes it even more interesting, as I have an early 2006 model, and now must take a different approach to the issue.

Also means there's really no reason whatsoever to not use DEX VI, right?

 

[Whitewolf]

According to the opinion and conclusions of those that were involved with the additional testing there is no greater risk of seal failure with DEXRON-VI than with any other approved fluid.
The decision as to whether or not to use DEXRON-VI is though obviously up to the individual.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Well, one can use Allison TES-295, TES-389, and TES-468. And some of the best value places to buy any of these is the commercial heavy truck dealerships. Will most likely be under their proprietary label, but approved nonetheless. Specifically Mack and International branded ATF meets the Allison specs and is fully approved by Allison.

 

[Ken2]

Try telephoning the heavy truck outfits TireTrucker mentions and ask for the price from their bulk tank or drum into your empty gallon jugs.