I've just checked some of the BITOG sources of information, to see how popular "knowledge" would affect this decision.
University 101 (Chap 1) posits that engines are designed for a "thickness" of 10. The redline ATF shown has a "thickness" of 10 at 85C (185F)
So I guess it meets that criteria.
It's 62.5 at "room temperature", which still makes it 6 times too thick to lubricate at room temperature, but more than twice as good (only half as bad ??) as the quoted engine oil.
Chap 2 mentions VII, this has a VI of 198, which I'm pretty sure means VII added...but Chap 2 also says that they don't wear out, so that's probably OK.
Chap 2 mentions that oils don't wear out, they have to be discarded due to thickening. ATF, with a KV100 of 7.5 clearly has much more "thickening reserve" than a typical engine oil.
Chap 3, hmmm...it's synthetic, so it doesn't need VII, scrap second last point.
It survives up to Chap 4, where it's the engine ratings that are important.
But as others have stated in other threads, on other lubes without particular certifications, we don't "KNOW" that it wouldn't have passed those engine test if it were applied to them...it's the basis of a lot of recommendations on this site, particularly with oils that are SN/GF-5 only being recommended for Fords et al, because you simply can't prove that lack of approvals mean it wouldn't pass.
Guess t's back in the race, absence of approvals isn't proof that it wouldn't pass.
And finally, the oil pump relief closed at operating temperature...pretty sure that ATF would excel in that facet of lubrication.
So I'm starting to consider that ATF might be the ideal solution to engine lubrication.
Not sure what to make on all this TBN, Zn, P, HTHS, Noack, TEOST, SeqIV etc. that seem to obfuscate the real issues of lubrication.
University 101 (Chap 1) posits that engines are designed for a "thickness" of 10. The redline ATF shown has a "thickness" of 10 at 85C (185F)
So I guess it meets that criteria.
It's 62.5 at "room temperature", which still makes it 6 times too thick to lubricate at room temperature, but more than twice as good (only half as bad ??) as the quoted engine oil.
Chap 2 mentions VII, this has a VI of 198, which I'm pretty sure means VII added...but Chap 2 also says that they don't wear out, so that's probably OK.
Chap 2 mentions that oils don't wear out, they have to be discarded due to thickening. ATF, with a KV100 of 7.5 clearly has much more "thickening reserve" than a typical engine oil.
Chap 3, hmmm...it's synthetic, so it doesn't need VII, scrap second last point.
It survives up to Chap 4, where it's the engine ratings that are important.
But as others have stated in other threads, on other lubes without particular certifications, we don't "KNOW" that it wouldn't have passed those engine test if it were applied to them...it's the basis of a lot of recommendations on this site, particularly with oils that are SN/GF-5 only being recommended for Fords et al, because you simply can't prove that lack of approvals mean it wouldn't pass.
Guess t's back in the race, absence of approvals isn't proof that it wouldn't pass.
And finally, the oil pump relief closed at operating temperature...pretty sure that ATF would excel in that facet of lubrication.
So I'm starting to consider that ATF might be the ideal solution to engine lubrication.
Not sure what to make on all this TBN, Zn, P, HTHS, Noack, TEOST, SeqIV etc. that seem to obfuscate the real issues of lubrication.
