Getting ready for a drain and fill for my 14 Ram 2500 Cummins with the 68RFE tranny. Has anyone used a HPL product in ATF +4 applications? In the winter months we tow a 4 place sled trailer a 100 miles or so. I have a mild "towing" tune. No crazy towing weights or stage 5 tunes.
HPL tranny fluid for ATF +4 applications
- Thread starter Pokoki79
- Start date
I don't but its worth saying Mopar has a list of approved vendors of ATF4. so check here and save yourself some money.
ATF4 is a ynthetic product with a specific additive that makes it a ATF 4...
hence the list below from Mopa.
https://www.centerforqa.com/fca-atf4-licensing-program/
ATF4 is a ynthetic product with a specific additive that makes it a ATF 4...
hence the list below from Mopa.
https://www.centerforqa.com/fca-atf4-licensing-program/
I have a similar truck, 3500 w/68 rfe.
my buddy just got out of the car hauling business.
in fact were were yakking on Facebook yesterday
and I asked him how many miles were on his 2014 Ram 3500.
his reply was QUOTE" My 2014 3500 crew DRW has over 572,000 miles. Replace the transmission in it at 364,000 Mi, weight loss at 183,000 Mi LOL" QUOTE along with 2 photo's.
FWIW I know the truck had the 68 rfe and all he did with the truck was pull this trailer with several cars in it all the time , and he swears by T4 Rotella every 15000 miles.
Last edited:
Use Redline C+ when ATF+4 is called for and you're out-of-warranty. It uses the same add pack as licensed ATF+4 but with better a base oil
I've never understood the human nature involved in the fact that 20 or more fluids satisfy a given spec and licensing criteria,
but at least one person out there will proclaim the use of something unlicensed and unapproved yet somehow better..
usually at a higher cost.
I'm all for alternatives, especially if they are cheaper but not the other way around.
HPL list the blue MV for the application would I run it yes and not second guess it. I’d run the cold climate.
https://www.hplubricants.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/ATF-PDS.pdf
https://www.hplubricants.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/ATF-PDS.pdf
of course they do, but they aren't listed on Mopar's listing of approved products for ATF+4,
Amsoil probably offers something they say will work also.
and there are always multivehicle ATF's..
but why do it when there are 20 or more licensed brands available and at a lower price?
Simple because I know it will be a better built fluid overall.
I've used Mopar, Valvoline or Super Tech ATF+4 in all my Chrysler vehicles. I've been driving nothing but since 2001.
Just my $0.02
Just my $0.02
wow... I guess everyone out there should take your word for it..
never mind what Mopar has to say.
Me, I tend to think if a company offers something that is supposed to meet a certification,
that company should actually validate the product thru the certification process and then compete in the marketplace.
I have seen it over and over again with people taking Dodge/Chrysler ATF +4 transmissions to quick lubes and they end up using multi-vehicle fluids and not too long after they end up with blown transmissions.
The better built fluid is the fluid that actually is designed for it, nothing else.
Excuse me if I consider that complete nonsense.
JHZR2
Staff member
So what objective evidence do you have to validate this? What are your credentials?
You can consider anything how you want, doesn't change it.
dnewton3
Staff member
This conversation is no different than those regarding licensed motor oils, gear lubes, etc.
It would be of benefit for most people to understand they fall into one of two camps:
When you buy a licensed fluid, it meets a known spec. That spec might be chemistry based, or performance based, or both. While it does assure a minimum standard will be met, it does not mean that unlicensed products cannot outperform that standard. Or not. Some lube companies choose not to attain license status because of the substantial costs involved; they cannot make the ROI work, typically because the volume of sales would not justify the expenses. Other companies don't attempt to get the licensed status because they know their product(s) won't qualify.
If you choose a product that is not licensed, then there exists some amount of risk. That risk factor is either heightened or mitigated based upon the comfort level of the purchaser's belief in the lube maker's knowledge and quality commitments. It is disingenuous to imply that simply because a fluid does not carry a license, that fluid is automatically unfit for the application. That is a massive over-generalization of the topic; it is a blanket statement that is true at times, and false at times. Just because some unlicensed fluids fail in some applications, does not mean all unlicensed fluids will fail in all applications. Anyone who says that all unlicensed fluids are always bound to fail is grossly uneducated about the choices out there.
To the topic at hand in this thread ...
I have personally toured the HPL facility a few times. I have had lengthy conversations with Ward and others at HPL about various fluids. I have met and respect many of the contributing chemists/tribologists who consult to HPL. I have absolute faith that any HPL offering will "meet/exceed" the expectations for the applications they offer. In this case, the HPL "Blue" offering would be a product I would find more than acceptable for an "ATF+4" application. Some people may not have that same comfort level.
To each his own.
It would be of benefit for most people to understand they fall into one of two camps:
- if you have no intention of learning about the specific application nuances or understanding the pros/cons of the specific license parameters, and won't put effort into researching potential alternatives on a detailed level, then buying only licensed products is a reasonable approach to servicing your equipment. There is nothing wrong with taking this approach.
- if you are willing to learn about your application past the shiny OEM marketing highlights, and you are willing to investigate the conditions which surround the license parameters, and are adept enough to discern good information from bad, then choosing an unlicensed fluid can present you with either potential savings or superior performance expectations. There is nothing wrong with this approach.
When you buy a licensed fluid, it meets a known spec. That spec might be chemistry based, or performance based, or both. While it does assure a minimum standard will be met, it does not mean that unlicensed products cannot outperform that standard. Or not. Some lube companies choose not to attain license status because of the substantial costs involved; they cannot make the ROI work, typically because the volume of sales would not justify the expenses. Other companies don't attempt to get the licensed status because they know their product(s) won't qualify.
If you choose a product that is not licensed, then there exists some amount of risk. That risk factor is either heightened or mitigated based upon the comfort level of the purchaser's belief in the lube maker's knowledge and quality commitments. It is disingenuous to imply that simply because a fluid does not carry a license, that fluid is automatically unfit for the application. That is a massive over-generalization of the topic; it is a blanket statement that is true at times, and false at times. Just because some unlicensed fluids fail in some applications, does not mean all unlicensed fluids will fail in all applications. Anyone who says that all unlicensed fluids are always bound to fail is grossly uneducated about the choices out there.
To the topic at hand in this thread ...
I have personally toured the HPL facility a few times. I have had lengthy conversations with Ward and others at HPL about various fluids. I have met and respect many of the contributing chemists/tribologists who consult to HPL. I have absolute faith that any HPL offering will "meet/exceed" the expectations for the applications they offer. In this case, the HPL "Blue" offering would be a product I would find more than acceptable for an "ATF+4" application. Some people may not have that same comfort level.
To each his own.
dnewton3
Staff member
Is that because of an inferior fluid, or poorly designed/built transmissions that are too sensitive to fluids, or just weak transmission design all the way around? I'm not saying any of the above is true, but you make a bold statement here that is very wide sweeping. You've personally "seen it over and over again"? Wow! That's more than a bit incredulous to me. What was the outcome of these "over and over" failures? Were the transmissions replaced by the "quick lube" facility? Was there fluid analysis done? What were the contributing use/abuse circumstances, such as "tuned" engines? Can you please share the detailed data so we can understand your position better?
OK - I would agree with you here. But a fluid can be "designed" for the application, and yet still not be licensed. (see my comments in the post above)
ATF+4 isn't just a spec certification. Chrysler is much more insecure and childish than that.
In order to get the license, they require not just specific ingredients, but specific suppliers of those ingredients. A group III base stock from SK, Shell, or Petro-Canada. The only approved additive package is a specific one from Lubrizol.
Therefore, all licensed ATF+4 is the same. That means even the cheapest Walmart brand ATF+4 is just as good as the dealer. IIRC, OEM Mopar ATF+4 is supplied by Valvoline.
However, there is something better that's not officially approved. Redline C+ uses the same Lubrizol add pack as licensed ATF+4 but with a group V base oil. But Chrysler won't license it because it's not the exact same base oil from one of their suppliers.
Similar threads
