ATF that meets many spec's: How can it?

[L_Sludger]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
I have a hard time trusting the universal stuff too.
That's why I spend the extra time and money to get the manufacturer specific stuff - I don't want to take that chance.


We have choices here and I have never seen a bottle of Valvoline MaxLife move off the shelves and twist anyone's arm.
I like Valvoline MaxLife, a lot. I am a fan of Valvoline products. But on some cars, however, I'm too chicken to stray from OEM for transmission fluid.
This is because, unlike the motor, the automatic transmission is a fluid coupling, and its operation depends on the very specific properties of that fluid. So an OEM is going to engineer a transmission's solenoids, torque converter, clutch packs, etc to work with a very specific fluid with very specific properties.

 

[Donald]

I would (and do) trust Amsoil to make a multi-vehicle ATF. But they have a few, it's not just one size fits all. If Redline or Valvoline sells a mult-vehicle ATF I would also probably trust them.

What you do not want is a generic ATF where the local shop adds an additive to make it perfect for your vehicle.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
The secret of Multi-Vehicle ATF's such as MaxLife or D4 or D6 or Amsoil ATF's is the mix of specialized friction modifier chemistry's which cover a spectrum of dynamic friction coefficients.

Broad Spectrum ATF

Originally Posted By: tig1
I have wondered if this spec thing is more of a scam than anything else. I have used M1 ATF for years in the Fusion and M1 ATF doesn't have the FNR-5 spec. that my Fusion calls for.


What do you think M1 ATF is?

It is mostly a higher viscosity version of Redline D6, MaxLife ATF, and Amsoil ATL.


https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4418097/1



A few things to note.

1) M1 had the FNR-5 spec when I started using M1 ATF in the Fusion.

2) A year or two after I started using M1 ATF they dropped the FNR-5 spec.

3) I called Mobil tech and they said the formulation had not changed from when I first used M1 in the Fusion.

4) After running 50K or so with M1 ATF, I continued to this day using it with great results.

5) Frankly, I trust M1 products.

6) I called Mobil tech(3 weeks ago) and they advised me against me using M1 ATF for the Mercon LV spec. in my 2017 Fusion. I respect Mobil tech for telling that.

7) Since I don't trust Valvoline and their multi-vehicle ATF, I decided on using MC Mercon LV.

 

[SilverFusion2010]

For multi vehicle fluids like maxlife atf I am always wondering what compromises were made. It's not licensed, I have a difficult time trusting marketing. I went with oem fluid because there is no question.

The dual licensed dex vi/ Mercon LV can probably be safely used in just about anything requiring LV ATF

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Valvoline MaxLife labeling indicates MerconV coverage except in California which took issue with the viscosity requirement but which PQIA earlier accepted a statement indicating Valvoline's line of reasoning.


I believe Vavoline Mercon V is $9.49 a quart at Walmart, but Walmart's Supertech Mercon V is $4.27 a quart and it meets Ford spec whereas Vavoline only says it's suitable for Mercon V specs. Just no reason to pay more. I did get some at the Autozone clearance for $2 a quart, I guess it wasn't selling well, used it for power steering. When I grabbed it, thought it was regular Mercon V but found out afterwards it wasn't. But for $2 and just for power steering it didn't matter.

 

[BrianF]

I love multi spectrum ATF. The Amsoil LV ATF in my Trailblazer has not caused any issues in the last 50,000km. Runs great. Oh [censored] it is not licenced Dex 6....

My old Ram 1500 was using a local brand, Co-op ATF SL. Group 4 base oil, 9$ a liter tax in. It worked like a charm for 25 or so thousand KM of hard use before I sold the thing. [censored] it was not a licenced ATF+4 product.....

While I am at it I will go back to 3,000km oil changes and avoid the OCOD, Pennzoil sludging and perhaps I will use some STP in the oil.

This is not 20 years ago. ATF has changed a lot, so have transmissions. There are many examples on this board of people using a multi spectrum ATF in all sorts of applications with little or no issues what so ever.

I am researching PetroCan Duradrive ATF (7.4 Cst @ 100C) for my new truck as it says its suitable for use SFU with ASRC fluid. Which as far as I can tell is not a unicorn p!ss based fluid. It is Mobil 3309, which is nothing fancy and it appears that any WS or T4 compatible fluid will work. I have a pan drop worth of my Co-op fluid left to use (WS and T4 compatible) to try on the Aisin. Oh and Duradrive states it is SFU on many LV ATF transmissions. Their fine print states: Suitable for Use (SFU) = Determined to be suitable based on engineering judgement supported by test data such as laboratory or field testing.

 

[BrianF]

Oh and Duradrive also states this: DuraDrive MV Synthetic ATF is a high viscosity formulation and does not meet the viscosity profiles of these low viscosity specifications. Field testing results have demonstrated proof of no harm but product will not provide the potential fuel
economy benefits of the low viscosity genuine oils.

 

[CKN]

Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
But if you have the option, I'd use the one that meets the spec. Valvoline is actually the worse, they claim that their fluid is suitable for applications that call for a specific spec, but they're not actually certified for that spec...


Don't know what you mean by actually worse.

Projected coverage and Labeling have been discussed many times before here on BITOG.

No where does Valvoline or any of the other Multi-Vehicle ATF manufacturers claim licensing numbers by the OEM's.

Most ATF manufacturers such as Valvoline also carry Certified fluids that carry OEM licensing numbers, but at a higher per quart price, because licensing adds to the cost.









I feel they're the worse because they're basically mass market fluids which you can find on the shelf at the local Walmart. There are other fluids that do the same thing, but they're more boutique fluids so the owners probably know what they're getting into when buying them. I think they're basically somewhat deceptive because their wording usually says "suitable for applications that call for xxx" but it doesn't actually say that it meets that spec so if you don't read it carefully you'd think it met the spec. And I'm not sure Valvoline actually has a fluid that can be easily found on the shelf that meets Mercon V spec or even MB 236.14 (ATF 134).

Originally Posted By: Hootbro
If people are in warranty, I get the need to stay with something licensed, but outside warranty, there is plenty of reliable multi-fluids to fill ones maintenance needs.


My question is why would you pay more to buy a fluid that doesn't meet manufacturer spec when there are cheaper fluids out there that meet spec? Doesn't make any sense. Plus when your transmission blows up, do you blame the transmission or the fluid? You've got a tough case to prove there, why take the risk by using something that doesn't meet spec? Again, the whole thing doesn't make sense. Pointless risk, don't really see the potential gain.



That's a good statement. They must be junk because Walmart sells them! LOL!

 

[Ducman]

Originally Posted By: tig1
I am at the point where I don't really trust an ATF that meets many differenty spec's, for several different makes.


It's not like we are living in a world where Type F and Dexron II are current specs.

The world is a different place and as it currently stands I think the current crop of the common ATF specs are very close in performance.
As stated previously they are typically a Synthetic fluid in order to meet the high specs.

Further to this, the new Auto transmissions coming out from Ford and GM(for example) are a result of a collaboration between the two manufacturers. I should imagine the listed spec for the relevant fluid for this transmission will at least be cross compatible if not exactly the same. it will be interesting to see how they handle it.

It's not inconceivable that the new fliud spec will be something like Dexron HP and the transmissions will be designed around that, and the performance parameters for both the fluid and transmission design and materials will be validated accordingly.

 

[Ducman]

Originally Posted By: SilverFusion2010
The dual licensed dex vi/ Mercon LV can probably be safely used in just about anything requiring LV ATF


Agreed.

 

[Ducman]

Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
I have a hard time trusting the universal stuff too.
That's why I spend the extra time and money to get the manufacturer specific stuff - I don't want to take that chance.


We have choices here and I have never seen a bottle of Valvoline MaxLife move off the shelves and twist anyone's arm.
I like Valvoline MaxLife, a lot. I am a fan of Valvoline products. But on some cars, however, I'm too chicken to stray from OEM for transmission fluid.
This is because, unlike the motor, the automatic transmission is a fluid coupling, and its operation depends on the very specific properties of that fluid. So an OEM is going to engineer a transmission's solenoids, torque converter, clutch packs, etc to work with a very specific fluid with very specific properties.


Good points.

It also depends upon whether the vehicle is in warranty or not.

Unless there are known exotic materials or a specific requirement of the design then there shouldn't be too much of a problem with the operational capability or durability of the transmission.
Type F comes to mind.

To add another perspective.
In recent years I have personally seen a greater incidence of operational problems with a few vehicles Auto's simply through the use of low octane fuel. This is despite the owners manual stating clearly that the vehicle is deemed "suitable" for use with the low octane fuel.
Two of the vehicles were Mercedes Benz which are renowned as being economical party due to the fact that one can run them on low octane fuel.
Another and to a lesser degree was a simple 2016 Toyota 1 ton 2wd Ute.
A simple switch to higher octane fuel fixed any and all perceived ills with shift quality/driveability.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: CKN
That's a good statement. They must be junk because Walmart sells them! LOL!

I don't follow your logic. Never said either was junk. Walmart sells both Valvoline and Supertech. Supertech has Mercon V certification from Ford. Vavoline doesn't. My point is why buy something that doesn't have manufacturer certification when you can buy a fluid that does just a couple shelves over for a lower price.

I think the reason it's there is to suit the convenience of the store/vendor so they don't have to stock so many items. But for the consumer, why try what might be a jack of all trades, master of none when you can have the one that's certified by the manufacturer for the same or less money?

 

[Mainia]

Originally Posted By: tig1
I am at the point where I don't really trust an ATF that meets many differenty spec's, for several different makes.


Why not, and you trust manufactures selling you cheap, just barley adequate ATF in SOME cases. Toyota WS comes to mind and also Honda DW-1. NOTHING special there..... but a low end group3 and in Toyota WS case I would be willing to bet they have more group 2 carrier then most. You need to realizes, a lot of these so called factory ATFs are nothing more but group 3 ATFs with nothing special other then the manufactures "Dogma" that it is special, and many people replay the manufactures "Dogma" on car and oil forums.

There is one exception Hyundai, that I know of as far as common man cars that use a group 5 Ester based ATF after 2013 1/2. SP-M ATF fluid.
I feel only group 4 (Amsoil) and group 5 Ester (Redline) oils are the way to go. I will only run Redline in my newer cars, beause you can't beat and Ester based ATF for high heat and the closest thing to"non-varnishing oil" you can get. Plus group 4s can PAOs varnish... I have some rotary screws to attest to that. Run a Ester, no varnish and a clean machine since Ester is a great cleaner too. These far exceed OEM oil. And as far as these multi ATFs you take about WHY, because OEM ATFs in most cases "is nothing special" other then manufactures "Dogma"

You also have the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act here in the USA. I can drive a car/truck off the lot as I would with a Toyota and I can dump the [censored] WS out and add my Redline and they can't deny a transmission warranty claim. Most never check the fluid anyway. You will hear people at the dealers who preach the dealer line on having to use their oils for warranty, you come back with the Magnuson -Warranty Act and many say yea your right and they know about it. But 40% don't have a clue , and keep preaching manufacture oils are a must for warranty EVEN some service managers believe it or not. They don't know what they don't know.

.

 

[Mainia]

Hyundai SP4-M that is.

 

[BrianF]

Even viscosity does not seem to be as much of an issue either. Look at Dex 6 being backward compatible with older transmissions designed around the thicker Dex 3 or less. The Allison 1000 that backs the Duramax diesel can use the higher viscosity fluid spec'd for TES 295/389 or even Dex 6 (where seal compatibility is not an issue).

We make such a big issue out of this. Rather we follow like lemmings when the manufactures try to Criss Angel mind freak us into believing their fluids are magical, unique and worthy of the several hundred percent mark up.

 

[Ducman]

Originally Posted By: BrianF
Even viscosity does not seem to be as much of an issue either. Look at Dex 6 being backward compatible with older transmissions designed around the thicker Dex 3 or less. The Allison 1000 that backs the Duramax diesel can use the higher viscosity fluid spec'd for TES 295/389 or even Dex 6 (where seal compatibility is not an issue).

We make such a big issue out of this. Rather we follow like lemmings when the manufactures try to Criss Angel mind freak us into believing their fluids are magical, unique and worthy of the several hundred percent mark up.


Don't forget that GM don't have to cover a warranty on the older transmissions like they would if they were new.
Wear rates may also be considered a non-liability even on remanufactured units for older cars.

The other factor is that GM have superceeded the old Dexron III spec and as a consequence it has been made redundant and not supported by GM as a spec in every respect except for use in Tremec manual transmissions.
This still doesn't necessarily make it universally obsolete in Auto transmissions.
It's largely a commercial decision.

Certainly Dexron VI is probably best in their new designs but there's every indication that they will move to Dexron HP in the future.

 

[bbhero]

I agree Tig1. Ashland claims that their CVT fluid meets both NS-2 and NS-3... Funny thing is that Nissan clearly and unequivocally states that these fluids are not interchangable, or back specd. My CVT in my car MUST use the NS-2 fluid. A 2014 Nissan MUST use the NS-3 fluid. So, Ashland is in error suggesting that their CVT fluid meets both of these specifications. It clearly cannot.

 

[MaximaGuy]

In the case of CVTs its a newer technology designed with specific lubrication requirements better to stick with OEM fluids.

In the case of automatics which have been for long time there is room for trying out speced fluids but the bigger question to ask is why not stick with OEM fluids. The unsubstantiead claims that OEM fluid is low grade is a mute point, it is rightfully speced and priced. Unless the manufacturer specifically has provided an alternative, its best to stick with OEM fluid,

In short sticking with OEM fluids is the most appropirate route to preserve the investment be it in warranty or otherwise.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: Hootbro
..So where is the data showing transmissions exploded because they used a consumer manufactured "recommend" ATF vs. actual licensed ATF product? Examples of people doing their first ATF change at 150K miles do not count, I am talking about normal service interval changes.

I think these multi-vehicle ATF makers like Valvoline, Mobil, AMSOIL and a host of others have done their homework. In my opinion, most of these vehicle makers that spec low viscosity fluids Mercon LV, Dexron VI, Toyota WS, Matic S and others, are all basically calling for the same fluid but pride does not allow them to call out an already made fluid used in other makes and they then spec their own fluid and call it something proprietary.

If people are in warranty, I get the need to stay with something licensed, but outside warranty, there is plenty of reliable multi-fluids to fill ones maintenance needs.

Agreed and well said.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
...Projected coverage and Labeling have been discussed many times before here on BITOG.

No where does Valvoline or any of the other Multi-Vehicle ATF manufacturers claim licensing numbers by the OEM's.

Most ATF manufacturers such as Valvoline also carry Certified fluids that carry OEM licensing numbers, but at a higher per quart price, because licensing adds to the cost.

Thanks for bringing those facts to this discussion. Using the second point, the title of this thread is a misconception. In the case of MaxLife they use the term "suitable for".

And since CVT fluid now mentioned, the same goes for both Valvoline CVT and Castrol Transmax CVT, both synthetic. Neither make a claim using the term "meet" on their product data sheet. They say "recommended for" and "suitable for" respectively. Out of vehicle warranty and 'possibly' depending on cost difference to OEM, I'd have no issue using either for a CVT application listed on their respective PDS.

 

[doitmyself]

To those mentioning warranty concerns, in my similar thread this past May I noted that I contacted 8 local dealers about a SP4-M fluid change and ALL of them used either BG or Valvolene fluids for vehicles still under warranty. My daughter had her Sorento transmission fluid changed at 4 years, 50,000 miles and they used BG (KIA 10yr./100K Warranty).

The dealers are not concerned about warranty concerns using universal fluids. I did investigate BG products (not an advocate for any brand) and their label states "meets or exceeds performance requirements" vs. what Sayjac stated about Valvolene. I wonder what Amsoil, Redline, and that purple stuff states?

The BG fluid viscosity is somewhat higher than SP4-M, which bothers me.