Conversation with Valvoline tech support.

[exranger06]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: stchman
No mention of using licensed Dexron VI, just Dexron VI.

There is no such thing as un "unlicensed Dexron-VI." It either is, or it isn't. If something says Dexron-VI on it and it isn't licensed, that's infringing upon a trademark.

That's not true. Valvoline or any other company can make an unlicensed fluid and say it's "suitable for Dexron VI applications" or "Recommended for Dexron VI applications." They're not saying it's officially licensed or approved by GM, they're simply saying that THEY (Valvoline) recommend it. Valvoline is basically saying, "Yeah, GM hasn't officially apporved of this fluid, but WE'RE telling you it'll work fine."

Proof: That's EXACTLY what Valvoline did with their Mercon V fluid. It's clearly labeled "Mercon V" but it's NOT officially licensed by Ford.
http://www.valvoline.com/products/consum...ission-fluid/35

Right from the webpage:
Quote:
Ford and MERCON V are registered trademarks of Ford Motor Company. This is not a licensed Ford product.

 

[stchman]

Originally Posted By: Garak


To Amsoil's credit, they don't claim every application under the sun. They specifically recommend in the case of my G to use the dealer's fluid. Yet, Valvoline claims every specification you toss at MaxLife, including the ability to be used in the G.

As I asked already, what can't MaxLife ATF do?


Here is Amsoil's recommended fluids for my truck:

http://www.amsoil.com/mygarage/VehicleLo...1500%20PICKUP+0


Now they recommend using one of their non dexos licensed engine oils and non-Dexron VI licensed transmission fluids.

The Amsoil rep I talked to stated that Amsoil's fluids greatly exceed any of the fluids GM puts in. He then said I should change over to all Amsoil ASAP if I want to get the most out of my vehicle. He boasted 2-3MPG gain, blah, blah, blah.

Since Amsoil seems to be so highly coveted by many of the forum members, the licensing appears to not matter to them.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: exranger06
That's not true. Valvoline or any other company can make an unlicensed fluid and say it's "suitable for Dexron VI applications" or "Recommended for Dexron VI applications."

Of course they can, and I'm well aware that's done. They cannot, however, call it Dexron-VI ATF, like the bona fide products do. Valvoline's Dexron-VI ATF is licensed. If I make some goop and call it "Garak's Dexron-VI ATF," I had better have a license.

And your Mercon V example is basically what I've been saying. It's not called Mercon V ATF. It's called "Valvoline ATF for Mercon V Applications." I'm assuming the Motorcraft product (and other real Mercon V fluids) don't have such convoluted naming.

@stchman: I have no problem with people preferring the actual licensed product. I would, too. Heck, I use genuine Dexron-VI ATF as PSF in my Infiniti; that's what it specifies.

All I'm saying is that Amsoil makes some good products and they don't go overboard with their claims. The MaxLife claims every certification under the sun. Heck, I should be able to use it in my G, my F-150, the Audi I used to have, every taxi in the city, and all my PSF reservoirs.

With respect to non-licensed engine oils, let's be a little cautious in our treatment of the subject. A dexos1 5w30 isn't some fancy, grandiose specification. It's something to which most of the big 5w30 synthetics are licensed and the rest of which claim to meet. It's "lesser" than the old Vette spec. Engine oil is decidedly not like ATF where there are very huge differences in driveability and performance based upon viscosity and friction modifier changes.

MaxLife might be within the specifications for a few of the things claimed on the bottle. Heck, not "might." It's almost certain. However, they claim virtually everything. The only things they aren't claiming are CVTs, Chrysler, BMW, and Type F.

Amsoil's 5w30 doesn't claim to be within SN/GF-5, CJ-4, dexos1, ACEA A3/B3 A3/B4 A1/B1 A5/B5 E7/E9, plus a laundry list of German specs. If they did, I'd call shenanigans on them, too. They don't exactly make impossible claims.

 

[Oldasco]

I'm confused. I put Valvoline Dex VI is my '98 Cavalier replacing the original Dex III in it. I would have been better off using MaxLife Dex/Merc instead of the Valvoline Dex VI?

 

[stchman]

Originally Posted By: Oldasco
I'm confused. I put Valvoline Dex VI is my '98 Cavalier replacing the original Dex III in it. I would have been better off using MaxLife Dex/Merc instead of the Valvoline Dex VI?


Valvoline states that its Dexron VI is 100% backwards compatible with Dexron II and III. You are safe.

With that being said, you could have also used Valvoline MaxLife Full Synthetic ATF as well, IIRC it is a little less money too.

 

[stchman]

To Garak:

Here is the list of vehicles that Amsoil ATF claims it is good in:

Quote:

Ford MERCON®, MERCON® V, ESP-M2C166-H; GM DEXRON® III; Chrysler ATF+4®, MOPAR®
AS68RC; Allison C-4, TES-389; Audi G 052 162, G 052 990, G 055 025; BMW 7045E, LA
2634, LT 71141; Honda ATF-Z1 (not CVT); Hyundai SP-II and SP-III; Idemitsu K17; JWS
3309, 3314, 3317; Kia SP-II and SP-III, ATF Red-1; MAN 339F, 339 V1, 339 V2, 339 Z1, Z2& Z3; Mazda ATF-M III, ATF-MV; Mercedes Benz 236.1, 236.2, 236.3, 236.5, 236.6, 236.7,
236.9, 236.10, 236.11, 236.81; Mitsubishi SP-II and SP-III; Nissan Matic-D, Matic-J, Matic-K;
Shell 3403, LA 2634; Subaru ATF, ATF-HP; Suzuki 3314 & 3317; Texaco ETL-7045E, ETL-
8072B, N402; Toyota Type T-III and T-IV; Voith 55.6335.XX (G607), 55.6336.XX (G1363);
Volvo 97340, 97341; Volkswagen G 052 162, G 052 990, G 055 025; ZF TE-ML 03D, 04D,
05L, 09, 11B, 14A, 14B, 14C, 16L, 17C.


That's some list.

http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/tr.../?code=ATLQT-EA

Now here is the recommendations list for Amsoil Signature Series synthetic oil:

Quote:

0W-20 (ASM): API SN (Resource Conserving), SM…; ILSAC GF-5, GF-4…;
ACEA A1/B1; GM 6094M; Chrysler MS-6395
5W-20 (ALM): API SN (Resource Conserving), SM…; ILSAC GF-5, GF-4…;
ACEA A1/B1; Ford WSS-M2C945-A, WSS-M2C930-A; Chrysler MS-6395
0W-30 (AZO): API SN (Resource Conserving), SM…; ILSAC GF-5, GF-4…;
ACEA A5/B5, A1/B1; Chrysler MS-6395; Suitable as a replacement for
GM dexos1TM (supersedes LL-A-025, 6094M and 4718M)
5w30 (ASL): API SN (Resource Conserving), SM…; ILSAC GF-5, GF-4…;
ACEA A5/B5, A1/B1; Ford WSS-M2C946-A, WSS-M2C929-A; Chrysler MS-6395;
GM dexos1TM (supersedes LL-A-025, 6094M and 4718M) Fortified with detergents
that exceed dexos1TM sulfated ash specifications.
10W-30 (ATM): API SN (Resource Conserving), SM…; ILSAC GF-5, GF-4…;
ACEA A5/B5, A1/B1; GM LL-A-025, 6094M, 4718M; Ford WSS-M2C205-A;
Chrysler MS-6395


You do see the dexos1 thing? I thought so.

http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/mo.../?code=ASLQT-EA

After reading Amsoil's list, I thought the stuff might be safe to drink.

 

[Oldasco]

I'm a little leery of using the multi-vehicle 'one bottle fits most cars' ATF. I could have put the MaxLife Dex/Merc in my '05 Kia too, but I stuck with factory specifically recommended SP-III ATF when I replaced ATF in Kia.

 

[stchman]

Originally Posted By: Oldasco
I'm a little leery of using the multi-vehicle 'one bottle fits most cars' ATF. I could have put the MaxLife Dex/Merc in my '05 Kia too, but I stuck with factory specifically recommended SP-III ATF when I replaced ATF in Kia.


Amsoil has the Kia SP-III covered as well.

 

[901Memphis]

Maxlife is just plain awesome. You can't refuse it!

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Maxlife is just plain awesome. You can't refuse it!


If your vehicle is under a factory warranty you'd be better of to refuse it, at least until your warranty period is ended. LOL

In applications that call for a genuine licensed product by the manufacturer when the vehicle is under warranty .....
FOLLOW THE VEHICLE MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS.

 

[dnewton3]

You know, it's been about a month or so since we've had a good argument about licensed ATF, so I suppose this was overdue in some manner ...


Here's what it boils down to, regardless of what each individual opinion is:

This is about warranty claims that are directly related to the M/M ACT. You can google it and come up with the official FTC site, but it's down right now due to the gov shutdown (and yes, you are going to keep your opinions to yourself about the shutdown, or be forewarned that you'll enjoy some time away from BITOG).

In a nutshell, here is how it works:

Option A - use a licensed product.
The burden of proof, should any warranty claim happen, is upon the OEM. They set forth specifications that define what they find acceptable for service in their products. If you use a licensed product, you can lay the issue at their doorstep. They have a right to inspect and investigate, but if you followed their procedures, used licensed products, etc, they have practically no wiggle room to evade coverage.

Option B - use a non-licensed product that the aftermarket recommends. Here, the burden of proof shifts from the OEM to the aftermarket supplier, because they very likely have their own warranty statement. Should an issue happen, they probably would try to make the OEM cover and issue, and vice versa, but the burden belongs on the aftermarket supplier if they cannot prove the OEM was at fault. Again, they have a right to inspect and investigate, but if you followed their recommendations and procedures, they will essentially have little choice to but cover the issue.

Option C - use a non-licensed, non-recommended product. Here, you're completely off the reservation and own your own. If you were to use a lube in this arena, you'll not be covered by either the OEM or aftermarket. A great example of this is where you might try to out-think the OEM and lube makers, and put engine oil in your 4x4 transfer case that calls for ATF. Should a failure happen, the burden of proof that the lube choice did not cause a failure is upon YOU and YOU ALONE. They can deny coverage (both the OEM and lube maker) because neither of them spec'd that lube for that application. Could you win? Perhaps, but only after a LONG, drawn out battle, and you'll be expected to prove how your hunch and gut instinct about lube useage was superior to their combined thousands of hours of research and testing. Good luck with that ....


Licensed products are a matter of warranty provision compliance, and those are governed by the M/M ACT and subsequent case law decisions. Period. Either the OEM will cover it (licensed), the aftermarket will cover it (recommended), or you're going to cover it (swagged oil-de-jur). That is the distinction of lube choices.


And now I return you to your regularlly scheduled rhetoric and mythology ...

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Option B - use a non-licensed product that the aftermarket recommends. Here, the burden of proof shifts from the OEM to the aftermarket supplier, because they very likely have their own warranty statement.


Even in this situation, the OEM still has to demonstrate that the *fluid* was the cause of the problem, right? In other words, they couldn't blame a grenaded planetary because of a manufacturing defect on the fluid SIMPLY because the fluid was a non-licensed fluid, right?

I imagine the waters get very murky in this situation...

 

[stchman]

Has there ever been a case where someone used Amsoil or MaxLife ATF and the OEM refused warranty work?

When I was discussing items with an Amsoil rep, he stated that "all of Amsoil fluids greatly exceed the manufacturer's fluids". Would Amsoil pay to fix your engine or transmission since none of their fluids are licensed by GM.

It seems to me that people on the forum have ZERO problem using un-licensed Amsoil, but will scold you badly if you use un-licensed MaxLife.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
MaxLife ATF will exceed Dexron VI in order to cover more specifications.


This makes sense to me. I think many responders are making too much of this statement and making unwarranted satements.

I take this to mean that Valvoline's MaxLife additive package has been tested to cover more applications than the DexronVI specific additive package.

For warranty coverage in GM trannies still under warranty AND built after 2005, people will probably want to use their DexronVI specific ATF since it is on the list of approved DexronVI ATFs:

http://www.gmpowertrain.com/VehicleEngines/DEXRON-VI.aspx

The Valvoline DexronVI is simply a licensed alternative to purchasing GM's DexronVI OTC.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: stchman
To Garak:

Here is the list of vehicles that Amsoil ATF claims it is good in:

That's some list.

Yep, I'll admit, that's some list! It's actually quite surprising to me, since for my G, Amsoil recommends the dealer fluid (as they did with the old Audi), yet there clearly are VW and Nissan Matic J references there. I can't say I much like that.

With respect to the Amsoil Signature Series claims, I don't see anything terribly odd or alarming there. Quality synthetic PCMOs of an HTHS that would qualify for GF-5 and having a reasonable TBN (that Amsoil SS has) would likely also qualify for A1/B1 A5/B5, and have no problem meeting any of the other specifications, weren't aren't as stringent.

There is no shortage of synthetics that meet A1/B1 A5/B5 out there. They're not that demanding, at least as far as European specifications go. And, if an oil meets those (and I'd bet money that Amsoil SS would), everything else on the least is a breeze.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Option B - use a non-licensed product that the aftermarket recommends. Here, the burden of proof shifts from the OEM to the aftermarket supplier, because they very likely have their own warranty statement.


Even in this situation, the OEM still has to demonstrate that the *fluid* was the cause of the problem, right? In other words, they couldn't blame a grenaded planetary because of a manufacturing defect on the fluid SIMPLY because the fluid was a non-licensed fluid, right?

I imagine the waters get very murky in this situation...


No, that is not correct. When using a non-licensed product, the burden of proof is upon the lube maker. Now, a grenaded planetary is likely a manufacturing defect or material defect, and it would be reasonably easy for the lube maker prove that chemistry played no part in that and push the burden back. And probably both would try to blame the incident on the user, as some sort of abuse. Large companies like Ashland (Valvoline) and Amsoil have the data and resources to take on OEMs. They certainly are not going to pick a fight that they cannot win, but they also know that all parties are due the opportunity to view the evidence and investigate the claim. All that in mind, it rarely is a case where it's "iffy". Most often it is clear where the fault lays. What is unfortunately most common is that both parties stall, and the user ends up getting impatient or runs out of effort/time/funds to continue the good fight.

I personally have been involved with the IN Atty General in a lemon-law case many years ago. This is about burden of proof, limited warranty statements, and case law decisions. It takes months and months, lots of patience, and such.

But in short - the initial burden with unlicensed products lays with the aftermarket.