Schaeffer's trans fluids

Status
Not open for further replies.

dnewton3

Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
11,405
Location
Indianapolis, IN
I was checking the Schaeffer's web technical data and looking at the differences between 204SAT and 205.

In the technical data for #204SAT it states that this product is recommended for "Allison transmissions that specify the use of a TES-295 type fluid" and right below that "Allison TES-389". That to me means it's qualified for TranSynd (TES-295) use, AND DEX-VI (TES-389) use, correct? But right under that and few lines down, it reads " ... is not recommended for ... GM Dex-VI ..."

So which is right?
dunno.gif


I know they make #205 which is specific to the GM Dex-VI spec.

I'm really interested in a TES-295 fluid for the long term benefits. Any input would be appreciated.
 
I considered the 204SAT as well for my 2000 Tundra (DEXII/III). I also looked at LE 1150 and AMS ADT. They all looked like much higher quality ATF's than my Tundra has ever seen, and are DEXIII compatible. I went with the AMS ADT after consulting with Pablo. But if you're concerned about DEX VI compatibility, I would go with the one that is clearly marked on the product.
 
I have a Duramax/Allison in my truck. I'm currently running DEX VI while under warranty, because that's what GM specifies. After warranty runs out, I want to upgrade to a TES-295 fluid, which is the spec for the Castrol/Allison TranSynd product. I was just confused about the Schaeffer's tech data that contradicts itself regarding the #204SAT. I am considering the Schaeffers 204 vs. Amsoil Torque-Drive; the Torque-Drive is reverse engineered to the TranSynd.
 
I've noticed the same thing. I have a 2007 Duramax/Allison LBZ Classic and I am still debating which ATF to put in mine when it comes time to change. I have heard a lot of great things about the #204SAT and it meets Allison TES-295 specs so it should work great in our tranny. I guess for warranty purposes I might run the #205 Dexron VI.
 
Since you have an '07, you've got a 100k mile warranty. I've read numerous threads on The Diesel Place about whether or not to run a DEX VI during warranty. For me, I only got 36k miles of warranty with my '06, so I'll be out of warranty in another year or so. For you, that's a lot longer time to run DEX VI. I belive that DEX VI is a much improved product over the previous generations, but probably still not as robust as TranSynd or Torque-Drive or the 204SAT.

After talking with a couple of guys that actually work at different Allison dealer/service centers, they agree that they are not allowed to work on a GM truck up to model size 3500 (commonly called a 1-ton) until the GM warranty is expired because they do not get reimbursed for it. That's GM's way of protecting the GM dealers that sell the trucks. After warranty, Allison will work on your 1000 series transmission, but it will cost out of pocket because it's out of warranty.

The great dicotomy is that GM owns Allison (for now), and they use the Allison 1000 in our trucks, but GM spec's a different fluid (Allison TES-389 DEX VI) for the GM trucks, while Allison recommends the TES 295 TranSynd. To me it's kind of a "good, better, best" mentality. The TranSynd (and equivilants) are the premium choice. Unfortunately, during warranty, you're not going to be covered for running them; with the '06 and later models, we must run DEX VI licensed products to stay within warranty. My warranty drops off early, but yours goes on for quite some time, meaning you'll pretty much bound to use DEX VI for a long time if you want the GM warranty coverage.

Amsoil and others provide warranty coverage if the lube is at fault for a failure. Unfortunately, we (the consumers) get to sit by, possibly for weeks, while GM and Amsoil or Schaeffers argue about who's product is a fault, and who's going to repair the trans, and who's willing to pay. If you don't think this kind of coporate politics happens, I can direct you to a couple of guys right now that are embattled with GM over warranty claims issues. Not that it's just GM; I had a Ford Mustang in 1989 that was wicked fast when it ran, but it didn't run right 1/2 the time. After trying arbitration, and the State Atty General, I finally gave in and traded it for a different car. I lost quite a bit of $$$equity, but even more the sanity lost from the fight just eventually overwhelmed me; I was without my car for weeks, but I still had to pay the loan note while it sat waiting on people to decide my fate! Anyway, I'm rambling.

MY ADVICE IS STICK WITH WARRANTY SPEC'D PRODUCTS DURING A WARRANTY PERIOD. BECAUSE GM SOLD YOU THE TRUCK WITH A WARRANTY, YOU'RE BOUND TO USE THE SPECIFIED FLUIDS/PARTS DURING THAT PERIOD IF YOU EXPECT WARRANTY COVERAGE.
 
Our 204sat is a GREAT cross for the Transyn Tes 295
It will outperform it. This is one of our best fluids of a stable of very good fluids.
 
Confusion?
TES389 is a DexronIII-H mineral fluid, and not DexronVI.
TES295 is the full PAO DexronIII.
In some Allison units, the DexronVI recieves the same change intervals as III-H, when TES295 gets the extended change interval. What does GM owned Allison know that GM doesn't?

If TES295 is an option, by all means use it. I wouldn't even bother with the DexronVI or TES389, warranty or not.
 
"If TES295 is an option, by all means use it. I wouldn't even bother with the DexronVI or TES389, warranty or not."
Ditto.
 
OK, I've got to confess I'm still a little confused here.

A few weeks ago I read a post on a different website that liked directly to an Allison service statement. It described in detail the fluid change intervals (based upon milage and/or hour equivilants) for TES-295 and non-TES-295 (which would be anthing that doesn't meet TES-295).

The way I read it, TES-295 is their "TranSynd" Castrol product, made for Allison, correct? I also thought I read that the TES-389 was for the new DEX VI, however unDummy is stating otherwise. I wish I had bookmarked the page, but I didn't. I did print a hard copy at the time, but it's at home and I'm ususally online at work (slow dial-up at home).

If TES-389 is not the new DEX VI, then what it the new Allison spec for the DEX VI? Is DEX VI a dino, semi, or full synthetic? What group is the new DEX VI? I do know from reading several posts and info sites that DEX VI is a much improved product, but how much better?

As far as my warranty issue, I'll stick with the DEX VI. I realize that there are other products available, but if they're not licensed, I am not willing to risk the financial burden, and massive arguments, and waiting, and finger pointing. I've been burned a couple of times and I'm not going down that road again.

Thanks for your input; I'm always up for an education. The more you teach me, the less ignorant I am.
 
what kindof warranty argument is it if Allison reccomends the transynd product in all of their applications and post-warranty services? They were de designers of the transmission.

Sure, they may hold the company line, and say that dex VI is mandatory for the first number of years, but one could then ask why not in >1 ton vehicles?

Seems to me that if it came to court, any reasonable judge would see the discrepancy of fluid options. lost time is another issue.

Id use what is the best fluid for the application, given form, fit and function, particularly if there is a discrepancy... but that is just me.

JMH
 
Any DexronVI listed here:
https://fdlrd.swri.org/Allison/ApprovedFluidsList.aspx?Id=2
http://www.allisontransmission.com/service/autoapp/172/viewpage.jsp?ThisPage=3

Allison doesn't have a spec for DexronVI. They just simply updated their transmissions for compatibility and gave the DexronVI the same maintenance intervals as 389/III-h. Dexron-VI is simply considered a NON-295 ATF.
Allison has a serial number range for DexronVI compatibility.

When compared to DexronVI, TES295 has longer recommended severe service OCI's. TES295 is fully compatible with the full range of SN's. TES295 is known to have a heavy PAO % and not group II/II+/III like DexronVI.
Cost comparison between DexronVI and TES295 is worth looking into. I'm irked at the overpriced VI in the local stores.

I won't bother arguing with the warranty fear-mongers
grin.gif
 
Well, my assumption that DEX VI was TES-389 is clearly wrong, and that is my mistake. However, my original question still stands.

Why does Schaeffers make a TES-295 fluid (204SAT), but specifically make sure to note that it is "not recommended ... (for) DEX VI ..."? Further, they make a DEX VI (#205) fluid specifically for the DEX VI.

If the Allison TES-295 spec describes the premium fluid, then why would it not cover the DEX VI spec?

Language is a big player here, IMHO. To be certified means that your company paid-to-play and earn the license. To recommend your product means that you didn't pay up, but you're very sure of your product (hint: Amsoil). But to say "not recommended" means for some reason that company is warning against a particular behavior, and if you venture out of bounds you risk the consequences.

I believe that I perceive the stench of corporate politices. Again, I point towards GM and their subsidiary, Allison. If TES-295 is the bomb, why not post it in the GM truck owner's manual as an alternative to DEX VI. And if DEX VI is such an improvement, why doesn't Allison recognize big-brother GM's little pet project (DEX VI) with a TES number? I belive GM wanted a better fluid, one better than DEX III(h), but knew we'd all be freaked out if the factory fill was TES-295 and it cost an arm/leg just to top off with a quart or two.

Once again, I happily muddy the waters.
 
TES-295 is Transynd. Transynd didn't make it past the DEXRON-III G to H upgrade and it won't meet the DEXRON-VI requirements for a number of reasons.
TES-389 fluids are essentially DEXRON-III(H) products (or at least they say they are but since there are no longer any licenses or controls we can't actually be sure of that).
Therefore neither the 295 or the 389 fluids will reach the DEXRON-VI perfomance level.Remember though that the applications are not the same. For instance generally speaking the 295 fluid applications have very large sumps and no TCC to worry about.
 
Dexron VI is the new low viscosity "MPG" fluid.
Dexron III was a thicker fluid. That is the simple reason why.
The 2nd reason why is that there is money to be made in licensing.
License a "performance requirement" and let the ATF blenders produce their formulas to that performance requirement with any additive/basestock that they want to use. When you have a performance requirement, you can also choose to blend to levels beyond the requirements(boutique companies). Sounds easy but performance licensing is disappearing and being replaced by formula licensing.
License a formula and profit stays with the license holder(GM), and their selected additive and basestock companies. Kickbacks anyone? How is that good for the consumer? Whatever happened to competition? or blending to exceed the requirement?

I also don't see Dexron-VI reaching the Transynd performance level for extended drains. I guess that Allison agrees. I also hear that GM might be trying to unload them. Maybe their is a little behind the curtain conflict going on?
 
Allison gave Dex VI a TES-389 certification. Dex VI was created for Hydromatic transmissions not the Allison which is a planetary transmission. Undummy is correct about the big three filling with thinner "MPG" fluids which includes Dex VI.
 
There are thread(s) on this board which would seem to say that Dex VI starts at a lower viscosity, but holds its viscosity MUCH better than Dex IIIH. If that is true (and given the posters I believe it is), then Dex VI is not only a fuel economy fluid, and is NOT made from lower quality bases. Rather, it is an update which goes to a much more shear stable spec that starts out at about the viscosity Dex IIIH shears to shortly. Dex VI is also superior in terms of oxidation resistance according to what I'm reading.
 
I wholey agree. DEX VI is a much better fluid. However, it's not up to the TES-295 standard, per Allison. My whole issue was about DEX VI vs. TES-295.

I've resigned myself to run the DEX VI until my warranty runs out, then I'm going with a TES-295 clone.
 
All I really meant was that "up to the TES-295 standard" may simply mean it starts at too low a viscosity. I don't have a clue, but it could be that simple. If it is, and if the Dex VI won't shear and the Dex III does, then what you may have after a few thousand miles in a TES-295 fluid is Dex VI with far worse oxidation control and lower overall fluid quality. I really have no idea, but that certainly seems feasible to me. How about to you?
 
^^^ What I meant to type was "...in a TES-295 fluid is a Dex VI-viscosity fluid with far worse oxidation control..."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top