A word of caution regarding Valvoline Maxlife ATF

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Thread starter
I want to express that I'm not trying to start a war of words, nor am I looking for legal advice. This thread is being started because I believe there is fair value in having the BITOG community aware of a recent conversation I've had with Valvoline product support regarding the Maxlife Multi-Vehicle ATF. Here is the PI sheet straight from their site: https://sharena21.springcm.com/Publ...bd3/3fa3136a-09bd-e711-9c12-ac162d889bd1 I quote: "Valvoline stands behind all its products, including Maxlife Multi-Vehicle ATF." I wrote to them via their contact tool on their website because I wanted to know about their warranty statement. Here is specifically what I asked: (taken from their email reply dated 12-19-19) (quoting Newton) - "I am wanting to know your specific warranty coverage for your ATF products; specfically the Maxlife ATF. I do not see any written warranty statement anywhere on your website. Can you please direct me to the specific page, or send me an email copy of the warranty." (quoting Valvoline product support) - "David, thank you for your reply. We do not offer a written or implied warranty for MaxLife ATF." Sooooooo ..... no warranty whatsoever; not written nor implied. (note that there are two kinds of warranty; implied or express. I believe they mean to state that neither implied or express warranty is offered, because written warranty is indicative of an express warranty). Seems odd to me that a company which claims it "Stands behind all its products" is saying they will not warrant the product nor the product effects on your vehicle. And the grand irony is that they are using the very FTC site information to induce you into buying their product (see their inclusive note about tie-in sales on the PI sheet), and yet that very same FTC site clearly states that they have a responsibility to tell us in a conspicuous manner that they offer no warranty. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law "If you do not offer a written warranty, the law in most states allows you to disclaim implied warranties. However, selling without implied warranties may well indicate to potential customers that the product is risky—low quality, damaged, or discontinued—and therefore, should be available at a lower price. In order to disclaim implied warranties, you must inform consumers in a conspicuous manner, and generally in writing, that you will not be responsible if the product malfunctions or is defective. It must be clear to consumers that the entire product risk falls on them. You must specifically indicate that you do not warrant "merchantability," or you must use a phrase such as "with all faults," or "as is." A few states have special laws on how you must phrase an "as is" disclosure. (For specific information on how your state treats "as is" disclosures, consult your attorney.)" I see no such claim of a conspicuous nature that they don't offer warranty coverage. The ONLY way I found out was to reach out to them. But they are required by law to tell the consumer in a notable and prominent fashion (hence "conspicuous"); presumably at the point of sale or in their product literature. This lack of any warranty coverage is neither on their product bottle, website, nor the PI sheet. In fact, I would say they are directly misleading in that they claim the product is suitable for use in a vast range of applications, and they say they will "stand behind" the product, but the reality is that they offer zero warranty. Now, to be clear, there is no claim of Maxlife MV ATF to be licensed by any of the various applications. That's not unique, as many aftermarket lube makers also don't seek out licenses by the OEMs. But to claim they stand behind the product, and yet hide the fact that they will not warrant the product, is to me, totally disingenuous and possibly illegal. I am not saying that Maxlife MV ATF is unsuitable or a bad product. I am reiterating what they told me; Maxlife Multi-Vehicle ATF has no product warranty; implied or written (express). Again - I am not seeking any legal advice, nor advocating for any legal actions. I am only informing the BITOG community that should they chose to use Maxlife Multi-Vehicle ATF, they will have no warranty coverage whatsoever. If you so decide, you might reach out to Valvoline and seek to validate my claims/statements as being true. Ask them yourself; don't take my word for it. I believe I've bought my last bottle of any Valvoline product. Dave.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,637
Location
San Rafael, CA
I think you're overthinking this. You can read here on this forum many people are running this ATF in a variety of applications for hundreds of thousands of miles. And think of how many shops and VIOC locations use this in various cars all day every day. If Maxlife ATF killed their transmission we'd hear about it! If they offered a warranty on their website people would take advantage of it. Put Maxlife in a failing tranny then boom $$$$. But I suspect if you had a healthy transmission fail due to Maxlife ATF Valvoline would want to hear about it and work with you on a resolution.
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,080
Location
Upper Midwest
Valvoline's entire statement is:
Quote
Valvoline stands behind all of its products, including MaxLife Multi-Vehicle ATF. Use of MaxLifeMulti-Vehicle ATF in transmissions where recommended by Valvoline WILL NOT void the vehicle's warranty. In the unlikely event that you or your customer experiences any transmission issues while using MaxLife Multi-Vehicle ATF in a Valvoline recommended application, please contact Valvoline at 1-800-Team-VAL for assistance.
Therefore they would assert the vehicle warranty is not rendered invalid and a separate warranty by them is unnecessary. From that statement it appears as though Valvoline will assist with this assertion. I'd guess Valvoline knows the fluid will not be the root cause of some failure. http://www.flagshiphawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/US_Val_ML_ATF_EN.pdf
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Thread starter
I am not "overthink" anything. I made statement based upon my query, and their response. It seems evident to me that they are in violation of the M/M Act in that they do not conspicuously note their lack of warranty coverage. Would the help with costs in the event of a failure? Maybe or maybe not. There are other products which do not leave me twisting in the wind to find that our after the fact. Caveat Emptor.
 

pbm

Messages
8,710
Location
New York
Originally Posted by dogememe
I think you're overthinking this. You can read here on this forum many people are running this ATF in a variety of applications for hundreds of thousands of miles. And think of how many shops and VIOC locations use this in various cars all day every day. If Maxlife ATF killed their transmission we'd hear about it! If they offered a warranty on their website people would take advantage of it. Put Maxlife in a failing tranny then boom $$$$. But I suspect if you had a healthy transmission fail due to Maxlife ATF Valvoline would want to hear about it and work with you on a resolution.
I agree. I've used Maxlife in Hyundais, Toyota's and Honda's without issue. I would think that if it could be proven that using Maxlife was the reason for the transmission failure...Valvoline would "do the right thing". Of course, proving it is the hard part....
 
Messages
15,080
Location
Upper Midwest
Originally Posted by dnewton3
It seems evident to me that they are in violation of the M/M Act in that they do not conspicuously note their lack of warranty coverage.
[Linked Image]
 
Messages
14,455
Location
...
Has there ever been a case where the transmission fluid caused a failure? In this respect include all fluid manufacturers and this should not include the wrong fluid being used.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Thread starter
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by dnewton3
It seems evident to me that they are in violation of the M/M Act in that they do not conspicuously note their lack of warranty coverage.
[Linked Image]
What's your point? That is "tie in sales" related. Tie-in sales is about OEMs trying to induce OEM branded products for warranty coverage. My thread (this thread) is about Valvoline product warranty, not the OEM vehilce warranty. That is an important and distinct difference. Valvoline has the right to not offer any warranty; they choose not to offer any. But ... Valvoline is required by the M/M Act to conspicuously notify the consumer of that fact PRIOR to sale. Most any state or federal Atty General is going to deduce that means it must be information readily available at the point of sale or easily discerned prior to purchase. There is ZERO statement by Valvoline that they won't warranty THEIR product on their website, in their PI sheet, or on their product bottle.
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,080
Location
Upper Midwest
The tie-in part doesn't mean much to me but what about the rest? It says that the use of Valvoline MaxLife ATF will not void the manufacturer warranty (which by the way, is similar to what Castrol says for their multi-vehicle ATF).
 
Messages
4,461
Location
Los Gatos, CA
Interesting... Question for you: Do other ATF manufacturers warrant their fluid? I honestly don't know; just curious as a comparison. It seems it would be difficult to do, as one might service a worn transmission and blame the fluid for failure. I understand you are not commenting on Maxlife quality here, only their warranty or lack of. Thanks for that.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Thread starter
Originally Posted by PimTac
Has there ever been a case where the transmission fluid caused a failure? In this respect include all fluid manufacturers and this should not include the wrong fluid being used.
Ever? Probably so. But it's admittedly rare indeed. But the same could be said of filters; we don't see them causing mass failures. And yet the major filter makers have written warranties (typically limited). What is the extension of logic here, that warranty really isn't necessary? So you'd buy a refrigerator, car or hot tub with no warranty because there's no massive failure rate?
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,080
Location
Upper Midwest
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Interesting... Question for you: Do other ATF manufacturers warrant their fluid? I honestly don't know; just curious as a comparison. It seems it would be difficult to do, as one might service a worn transmission and blame the fluid for failure. I understand you are not commenting on Maxlife quality here, only their warranty or lack of. Thanks for that.
ExxonMobil has a warranty, as does Amsoil. Others might but I didn't check. Of course, the failure always has to be due to the fluid which is never going to happen.
 
Messages
15,080
Location
Upper Midwest
Originally Posted by dnewton3
What is the extension of logic here, that warranty really isn't necessary? So you'd buy a refrigerator, car or hot tub with no warranty because there's no massive failure rate?
There is no extension of any logic. Valvoline says (as Castrol does) that the new-vehicle warranty is not voided by the use of this fluid. After that there is no additional warranty, just as there isn't for your refrigerator, car or hot tub. Some manufacturers may chose to give you an extended warranty past that time period, but not all do. Does Toyota or Honda or Ford or GM extend your transmission warranty past the new-vehicle warranty if you use their branded ATF?
 
Messages
14,455
Location
...
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Originally Posted by PimTac
Has there ever been a case where the transmission fluid caused a failure? In this respect include all fluid manufacturers and this should not include the wrong fluid being used.
Ever? Probably so. But it's admittedly rare indeed. But the same could be said of filters; we don't see them causing mass failures. And yet the major filter makers have written warranties (typically limited). What is the extension of logic here, that warranty really isn't necessary? So you'd buy a refrigerator, car or hot tub with no warranty because there's no massive failure rate?
The onus is not on me, you have started this thread. Drtyler included a link from a old thread which I will check out but at 15 pages that will take some time. My guess here is that Valvoline would consider each case individually rather than making a blanket guarantee. This reminds me of the oil warranties the companies boast about. Yet we haven't heard of a engine failure caused by oil.
 

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Thread starter
Again - for those not paying attention, or wanting to think I'm product bashing ... I AM NOT SAYING THIS PRODUCT IS BAD OR UNSUITABLE FOR USE. What I'm saying is that if your vehicle is under OEM warranty, Valvoline is going to push you to deal with the OEM and not warrant their product. If your vehicle is no longer under OEM warranty, Valvoline will "stand behind" their product by offering no warranty, implied or written. Those are the facts we can glean from their PI sheet and their reply to my question about warranty. I offer nothing more or less than facts. I do believe Valvoline is on the cusp of a violation of the M/M Act because they do not make it conspicuously known that the Maxlife ATF product has no warranty. I find it perplexing that many people here would argue about filter warranties, and then ignore this topic as if it has no consequences. What an odd bunch of hypocrites some BITOGers are ...
 
Top