BITOG ATF VOA project - whos in ?

[MonumentOiler]

I was thinking that this board really needs more VOAs on the newly released ATFs for comparisons. I am willing to pop for one but by itself it would not be that helpful. The real usefulness would come if we had a few to compare to each other. Anyone else willing to commit to spring for a VOA of either their favorite or a prospective candidate they are interested in?

I understand that the $20 VOA will not tell the whole story on these fluids but it will give us some information to use to compare and will be helpful in interpreting UOAs from the same fluids.

ATFs I am most interested in seeing a VOA for include ...

Reformulated Amsoil Universal ATF
Redline D6
GM / PetroCanada D6
Toyota WS
New 4+ Fluid

I'm in for Blackstone testing on one of the above. Does anyone else want to spring for one of the others ? youdontwannaknow and BobXRC have already paid their dues with their VOAs on the Z1 fluids.

Post up with which fluid you'll do so we don't end up with any duplications.

 

[The Critic]

This would be worthless and a complete waste of money. The composition of ATFs, at least their differences between each other, are largely contained within the friction modifiers that you CANNOT see in a $30 VOA. The only value of a $30 VOA would be to use it as a baseline for your used fluid, so that you may compare the starting viscosity, the limited number of additives (their levels) at the beginning, plus the TAN. Otherwise, you really can't make any judgments solely from the VOA...it's a waste of time and money.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

This would be worthless and a complete waste of money.

---

Can we take your word on that, Critic??

Quote:

---

The only value of a $30 VOA would be to use it as a baseline for your used fluid, so that you may compare the starting viscosity, the limited number of additives (their levels) at the beginning, plus the TAN.

---

..and this is...

Quote:

---

worthless and a complete waste of money.

---

..and...

Quote:

---

you really can't make any judgments solely from the VOA

---

Is there some assumption of some "all inclusive" aspect granted to VOA that I can't seem to find in the proposition to using that data ..however limited in content it may be???


Check your blood sugar (I'm serious).

 

[MonumentOiler]

I 'll assume "The Critic" is out but has successfully fulfilled his self-assigned function in the BITOG community.

 

[unDummy]

If we can get D, J, K- matics, MazdaMV/FordM5,...... then I'm in. The $upport for picking apart GC was a success. No reason why we can't pool resources and get a good new/recent ATF VOA collection.

VOA data helps with UOA interpretation.

If a couple hundred members toss in a $1....., a ton of info can be gathered on OEM ATF and various brands of equivalents.

 

[Tempest]

I have some of the new Amosil 6.8 ATF on hand. I was planning to get a VOA done anyway.

I think I also have a little Mopar ATF+4 and Castrol Domestic as well. Hmmm....

 

[benjamming]

I have some NEO ATF sitting around that a sample can be drawn from. I also have some T-IV.

 

[The Critic]

Quote:

---

Can we take your word on that, Critic??

---

I think TeeDub would concur.

Quote:

---

Is there some assumption of some "all inclusive" aspect granted to VOA that I can't seem to find in the proposition to using that data ..however limited in content it may be???

---

The point is that doing multiple $30 VOA in an attempt to compare different ATF fluids would not fulfill the intended purpose that I believe members are trying to achieve, that is, distinguishing the true differences between the various fluid types and understanding what makes them truly different and possibly not interchangeable. Most of these differences are contained within the friction modifier components that are not visible within the $30 VOAs, which is why I'm advising that you folks save your money as you won't be achieving your intended purpose.

Quote:

---

Check your blood sugar (I'm serious).

---

I'm fine, thank you.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

Quote:
Can we take your word on that, Critic??


I think TeeDub would concur.

---

Well, I'll let TeeDub say "worthless and a waste of time" ..and maybe I'll take his word for it. I'll call him to task as to what made him say this ..and how, without EVER looking at a VOA ..has this disposition about VOA of ATF evolved. If he has used VOA ..then I don't see why others can't join the club in getting as enlightened.

You don't mind if I challenge your view via proxy, do you?

Quote:

---

Quote:
Is there some assumption of some "all inclusive" aspect granted to VOA that I can't seem to find in the proposition to using that data ..however limited in content it may be???


The point is that doing multiple $30 VOA in an attempt to compare different ATF fluids would not fulfill the intended purpose that I believe members are trying to achieve, that is, distinguishing the true differences between the various fluid types and understanding what makes them truly different and possibly not interchangeable. Most of these differences are contained within the friction modifier components that are not visible within the $30 VOAs, which is why I'm advising that you folks save your money as you won't be achieving your intended purpose.

---

Note the bold type. I didn't see you ask ONCE what was others belief in what would be gleaned from this. Suppose (for the moment - in a hypothetical situation) you're a total moron ..and Einstein started wanting to do some research in heavy water. You, because of some convincing sounding argument and assumption of superior view, presented in an authoritative and assertive manner, detoured him merely with noting more than either the height of your enthusiasm (for self) or your depth of conviction???

They're $22.50 ..and for an ultra-extreme-anal-tightwad like yourself .. iinflating costs is a crime against humanity. It's the ultimate act of being disingenuous. You of all time lowball penny squeezers.

Shame on you, Michael.

Quote:

---

Quote:
Check your blood sugar (I'm serious).


I'm fine, thank you.

---

"Of course I'm (all) right ..just ask me!"

 

[shanneba]

I was looking at the Castrol Import multi vehicle ATF.
My BMW requires LT71141. I might pick up a quart and send in a VOA.
Castrol Multi Vehicle Import ATF


Premium Synthetic Blend formula
Recommended for use in vehicles that require:


Honda, Acura — ATF–Z1 (except in CVTs)
Toyota, Lexus — Type T, T–III, T–IV
Nissan, Infiniti — Matic–D, Matic–J
BMW — LA2634, LT71141
Mitsubishi — Diamond SP–II, SP–III
Hyundai — SP–II, SP–III
Volvo (except 5 speed)


Also meets requirements of


ATF+3®, ATF+2®, ATF+®
Ford MERCON®, MERCON® V (Not for use where MERCON® SP is required).
General Motors DEXRON®–III H and prior (Not for use where DEXRON®–VI is required).
Allison C–4

 

[va3ux]

I see your point. I'm ATF+4 oriented and I know the "magic" in ATF+4 is in the base oils and the additive package. And a typical analysis won't reveal a single thing about either of those. There will just be the usual metals, TBN, viscosity etc and it will probably end up looking similar to other totally different transmission fluids, based on the standard recipe for oil analysis. These VOA really won't reveal much about the true quality or capability of the various transmission fluids.

However for someone who wants baseline data to compare against future UOA on transmission fluids, I suppose there is some value there.

Phil

N

Quote:

---

This would be worthless and a complete waste of money. The composition of ATFs, at least their differences between each other, are largely contained within the friction modifiers that you CANNOT see in a $30 VOA. The only value of a $30 VOA would be to use it as a baseline for your used fluid, so that you may compare the starting viscosity, the limited number of additives (their levels) at the beginning, plus the TAN. Otherwise, you really can't make any judgments solely from the VOA...it's a waste of time and money.

---

 

[Whitewolf]

I'll be able to provide some information along these lines later in the year. It's good for comparison but you do have to be careful because some of the fluids are not the same formulation in different geographic areas.

 

[gtx510]

Quote:

---

I was looking at the Castrol Import multi vehicle ATF.
My BMW requires LT71141. I might pick up a quart and send in a VOA.
Castrol Multi Vehicle Import ATF


Premium Synthetic Blend formula
Recommended for use in vehicles that require:


Honda, Acura — ATF–Z1 (except in CVTs)
Toyota, Lexus — Type T, T–III, T–IV
Nissan, Infiniti — Matic–D, Matic–J
BMW — LA2634, LT71141
Mitsubishi — Diamond SP–II, SP–III
Hyundai — SP–II, SP–III
Volvo (except 5 speed)


Also meets requirements of


ATF+3®, ATF+2®, ATF+®
Ford MERCON®, MERCON® V (Not for use where MERCON® SP is required).
General Motors DEXRON®–III H and prior (Not for use where DEXRON®–VI is required).
Allison C–4

---

Where are they selling this stuff? Is it new?

I'd love to see a ATF VOA report. I'd be more interested in stuff that replaces BMW's last 2 ATF's (I can't remember the numbers). Maybe include MTL and Synchomesh so the guys that use ATF in their MTX's will have something to compare?

 

[Cutehumor]

Quote:

---

They're $22.50 ..and for an ultra-extreme-anal-tightwad like yourself .. iinflating costs is a crime against humanity. It's the ultimate act of being disingenuous. You of all time lowball penny squeezers.
Shame on you, Michael.

Quote:

---

I don't get it either. He posts about new vehicles like the camry hybrid but he'll never buy one.

 

[The Critic]

Quote:

---

I don't get it either. He posts about new vehicles like the camry hybrid but he'll never buy one.

---

So if I do buy one within the next year or two, do I win a prize from Cutehumor?

 

[Cutehumor]

[quoteSo if I do buy one within the next year or two, do I win a prize from Cutehumor?

---

Sure I see one of those nice minty scratch and sniff car freshners in your future

 

[ahoier]

Something I'd find interesting would be to see/compare the differences in the various "ATF+4" fluids, that appear to be trademarked/copyprotected......while both Royal Purple Max-ATF and Amsoil's equivalent "Multi-Vehicle ATF" claim to "meet" ATF+4, they are not "listed" per the center of quality assurance - which appears to be some company that Mopar/Chrysler has in charge of their brand infringements.....basically, nobody can put the "ATF+4" mark on their bottles, unless it's passed through this supposed "Center of Quality Assurance"....

You can find the list of "Registered brands" at The Center for QA

Here's the Amsoil Multi-Vehicle ATF that claims to be ATF+4 compliant.

And it's list of applications:
Click to reveal..


And then there's Royal Purple MaxATF that claims to meet the standards:

Click to reveal..


And finally Redline C+ ATF - they keep it short though:
"Satisfies Chrysler ATF+, +2, +3 (Type 7176) and ATF+4 (Type 9602) requirements
Provides 30% greater operating viscosity and 1/3 the evaporation of Chrysler-style petroleum ATFs"

hehe - and in fact, of all of them, the Redline appears to be the only one that isn't a "multi vehicle" fluid, it's built for "Chrysler's" ATF+4 - but they aren't branding or wording it as such

As per their data sheet


Basically, what I'm getting at is, if all 9+ of these "ATF+4 compatible fluids" were VOA'ed, they should ALL come back the same, right?

 

[Whitewolf]

There already published documents that you might consult. I have given this information before.

 

[MonumentOiler]

Most of the applications and standards you see on a a Multi-vehicle fluid bottle are corporate standards built around the a Dex II type-fluid. Most of the standards were created for the same reason Amsoil, Redline and others don't get licenses. They don't want to pay GM a fee to make or use a common product.

That there are a large number of "standards" isn't necessarily because there are large variations in the fluids.

They aren't that subtle either. T-III anyone.

 

[Whitewolf]

You may not be aware that a number of OEMs do not impose licence fees any longer.
The reason why certain people do not attempt to obtain a licence might be that their product falls short!