ATF - SAE paper says you should use OEM specific

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
1,283
Location
NY
Found this interesting SAE paper that concludes you should not use universal ATF.

But it is interesting that in the abstract they do not say they tested any universal ATFs to compare them against the OEM ones.

http://papers.sae.org/2007-01-3987/

Originally Posted By: Abstract
As a result of raised awareness regarding the proliferation of individual OEM recommended ATFs, and discussion in various forums regarding the possibility of ‘universal’ service fill fluids, it was decided to study how divergent individual OEM requirements actually are by comparing the fluids performance in industry standard tests.

A bench-mark study was carried out to compare the performance of various OEM automatic transmission fluids in selected industry standard tests. All of the fluids evaluated in the study are used by certain OEMs for both factory and service fill. The areas evaluated included friction durability, oxidation resistance, viscosity stability, aeration and foam control. The results of this study are discussed in this paper. Based on the results, one can conclude that each ATF is uniquely formulated to specific OEM requirements. In addition, the results show that a customer should not deviate from the automatic transmission fluid specified in the vehicle's owners manual.
 
Of course they will say that. If the SAE comes out and says to use universal ATF and even one vehicle has a failure due to a universal ATF then they could be held liable.

I never recommend universal ATFs to any customer on the off chance they get some cheap store brand stuff and their trans takes a dump.
 
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
Of course they will say that. If the SAE comes out and says to use universal ATF and even one vehicle has a failure due to a universal ATF then they could be held liable.


Sorry but that doesn't really make sense. The SAE is a society / professional body, not some kind of organization that needs to have an official view on everything. And they couldn't be held liable if they published a research paper that presented positive results from using universal fluids. This is all about scientific research not opinion or manufacturer recommendations.

Also note that that is one research paper out of hundreds on ATF. And in that paper, it does not appear that they conducted the same tests on universal fluids. Meanwhile, the additive formulators are the ones providing the universal additive packages, presumably after performing some testing.

What we can take away from the paper though is that meaningful differences were found in test results across different OEM fluids. That may influence one's thinking on whether to use the specific / approved fluid vs a universal one.
 
My Tribute CD4E shifted noticeably poorer when a flush was done with a bulk universal fluid. Took two partial drain and fills with the proper, inexpensive 'Mercon' fluid for it to feel right.
 
Most transmissions will adapt with time. Changing the ATF without resetting its previous fluid's learned habits is a common DIY and inexperienced shop failure.

SAE papers are worth a read. But, are definitely not an all knowing fact for all fluids and transmission interactions. When you read and if you understand the paper, you might see the variables that are left out to make a point, conclusion, or summary statement.
 
Originally Posted By: Greasymechtech
When you read and if you understand the paper, you might see the variables that are left out to make a point, conclusion, or summary statement.


You mean critical thinking? Knowing what you know, what you don't know, what you've assumed, what is fact, what is opinion?

Yep, as pointed out, they don't appear to have tested universal fluids and compared the results against each OEM fluid.

But what we can say is that they tested OEM fluids and found meaningful differences between them in standard test results.
 
My reading is that they confirmed there were sufficient differences between various types of OEM ATF fluid that it would be unwise to use a universal ATF.

What we don't yet know, because we haven't read the paper, is if the various OE specs/fluids would ever be found in a universal ATF.
 
I note that it was written en 2007, and one of the authors was working for GM at the time and is credited with the success of the Dexron VI launch. The co-author was also working at GM.

Quote:
At General Motors he conceived and implemented DEXRON-VI® ATF and turned the DEXRON® trademark into a BRAND covering other new products that he was instrumental in developing (Gear oils, DCT fluids, Hydraulic fluids, DEXRON®-HP ATF,etc). It is well documented that these fluids constitute a multi-million dollar per annum revenue stream that continues at the time of writing.
 
^ great point!

As pointed out before, they didn't test universal fluids to compare results.

It is interesting that they offered their strong conclusions despite not having done that.

Should such papers be peer reviewed to avoid such strong conclusions?
 
The SAE recommendation would certainly be the correct and proper answer. That is what I would recommend. That doesn't mean that a QUALITY universal would be fine though.
 
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
My reading is that they confirmed there were sufficient differences between various types of OEM ATF fluid that it would be unwise to use a universal ATF.


This is exactly the premise of this paper. The conclusion is that based on the wide variation of performance shown in the test data, it would be difficult for an universal fluid be truly be universal.

"As an example, friction performance of the OEM fluids on one friction material is so varied. However, we know each individual OEM fluid suits the friction materials and duty cycle of the OEM transmissions they accommodate. In addition, the pure aspect that the additive chemistries are much different amongst the OEM fluids, based on ICP elemental analysis, illustrates that these fluids are designed for a specific set of requirements making it difficult for one fluid formulation to be properly balanced to accommodate all of the differing OEM needs."

The key metrics they looked at were Viscosity (Kinematic & Brookfield), CCS, TAN, Flashpoint, Elemental Analysis, Corrosion, Shear Stability, Oxidation, Anti-wear performance, Friction Performance, Foam & Aeration.

A quick overview of OEM fluids shows that it is impossible to create Universal fluids - Just compare the viscometrics of Dexron VI to Mercon V. If universal fluids were possible you would at least need 1 for Low Visc requirements (Dexron VI/Mercon LV), 1 for High Visc requirements (Mercon V and Legacy specifications) as well as 1 for heavy duty (ie Allison specs). So is it really that big of a deal to pay a little extra for a fluid that is matched to the friction material in the transmission. Especially when you may only change it once, maybe twice over the lifetime of your vehicle.
 
"If universal fluids were possible you would at least need 1 for Low Visc requirements (Dexron VI/Mercon LV), 1 for High Visc requirements (Mercon V and Legacy specifications) as well as 1 for heavy duty (ie Allison specs)"

Isn't this what has happened though?
 
In some cases yes. But I've seen plenty of universal fluids claiming both Dexron VI and a whole host of legacy specifications where the visc profile doesn't match up.
 
Benito may have been referring to the use of Dextron VI
in Allison transmissions found in GM Diesel pickups.

The same application in the Allison literature specifies
an ATF 295 TS which is quite a bit heavier than Dex 6.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it depends on the "universal fluid" being used. I had a transmission fluid change with Mercon V at a local dealership, and 20K miles later, had a pan drop and filter change with Amsoil ATF. There is no doubt that the Amsoil and filter change made a noticeable improvement. The Mercon V fluid exchange actually made my Ford shifting feel more "sloppy".

The actual fluid used does make a difference. Cheap universal ATFs may be a problem, but my experiences with Amsoil ATF have been very postive.
 
When DexVI came onto the scene, I was scared into Maxlife multi vehicle, as the DexVI seemed so different to a "traditional" III. Maxlife seemed closer to what GM tested my tranny on when they made and installed them.

But that's a multi of the traditional ATFs.

Article here from AFTON is suggesting (correctly) that some of the newer specs are mutually exclusive, and you can't escape from having a minimum of 6 ATFs if they are grouped properly.

https://www.aftonchemical.com/Insight/KnowledgeCtr/Research_Trends/Documents/ATFspreads.pdf
 
This has been discussed a number of times in the ATF transmission fluid forum.

I have had a copy a copy of SAE 2007-01-2987 "Comparison of OEM Automatic Transmission Fluids in Industry Standard Tests" for many years, written in 2007, and it does not identify any of the fluids with respect to Manufacturer or brand name, so take the paper with a "grain-of-salt."

The paper lists seven (7) fluids, their general properties, and a series of tests.

What is interesting is the same manufacturer (Afton) that produced the original Dexron VI additive group also produces universal additive packages, as does Lubrizol and Infineum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top