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.
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.
Quote:
*Please note that legislation in California prohibits Valvoline from recommending MaxLife™ ATF in certain applications where the viscometrics of MaxLife™ ATF do not match those of the official OEM specification. Valvoline therefore does not recommend the use of MaxLife™ ATF in these applications in California.
Of course we are aware of California's pendent for Overregulation.
Quote:
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.
Nothing deceptive about it as long as they don't state the respective fluids are licensed by the OEM's.
Don't know why there are two separate threads on the same subject????
I guess people are only interested in their own worlds.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4389454/'Broad_Spectrum'_ATF,_how_does#Post4389454