ATF that meets many spec's: How can it?
- Thread starter tig1
- Start date
- Status
Because many makers fluid are not that much different. Most of the issues were the viscosity and how it holds up to heat. You notice all the ATFs that meet a lot of specs is a synthetic base like Valvoline Maxlife for example. So since the fluid can hold its viscosity much better now it can work on more vehicles.
MolaKule
Staff member
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
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
Last edited:
I think if you're in a jam and that's the only fluid available use it. 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. I think they have to pay some license fee to do it and they don't pay it. Their Mercon V and other fluids are like that. There are actually alternatives that meet spec and are cheaper than Valvoline (like supertech) so why bother with a fluid that isn't approved by the manufacturer?
MolaKule
Staff member
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.
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.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
I think if you're in a jam and that's the only fluid available use it. 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. I think they have to pay some license fee to do it and they don't pay it. Their Mercon V and other fluids are like that. There are actually alternatives that meet spec and are cheaper than Valvoline (like supertech) so why bother with a fluid that isn't approved by the manufacturer?
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.
I think if you're in a jam and that's the only fluid available use it. 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. I think they have to pay some license fee to do it and they don't pay it. Their Mercon V and other fluids are like that. There are actually alternatives that meet spec and are cheaper than Valvoline (like supertech) so why bother with a fluid that isn't approved by the manufacturer?
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.
MolaKule
Staff member
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.
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.
MolaKule
Staff member
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
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????
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4389454/'Broad_Spectrum'_ATF,_how_does#Post4389454
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
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 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 went with motorcraft Mercon LV for my drain and fill. Before that it had the maxlife multi LV fluid and it ran fine, but now the little voice is quiet because I know the ford specified fluid is in there
Originally Posted By: user52165
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.
Based on what evidence?
Or just "feelings"?
What hard evidence has Valvoline presented that shows that it's MaxLife ATF causes no additional wear/degradation in a Mercon V required transmission during that time it takes the Merc V to shear down from 7.4 to 5.8-6.0 to match MaxLife's starting viscosity? That should take approx 20K-30K miles. It's probably just simpler to change the Mercon V in the 20K-30K range. Ford is pretty easy about back-speccing fluids. This is one back spec they've not done yet.
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.
Based on what evidence?
Or just "feelings"?
What hard evidence has Valvoline presented that shows that it's MaxLife ATF causes no additional wear/degradation in a Mercon V required transmission during that time it takes the Merc V to shear down from 7.4 to 5.8-6.0 to match MaxLife's starting viscosity? That should take approx 20K-30K miles. It's probably just simpler to change the Mercon V in the 20K-30K range. Ford is pretty easy about back-speccing fluids. This is one back spec they've not done yet.
Our 2017 Explorer has a 7 year 125,000 mile Ford extended warranty, so I don't want to be jeopardizing the warranty. This auto tranny "requires" the Mercon LV fluid. I have no problem spending $60/12 quarts for Mercon LV delivered to my door from Rock Auto. I think that's a decent price for the Mercon LV, $5/qt. I think I might have a hard time spending less on a multi vehicle LV ATF.
Whimsey
Whimsey
When I did my Civic flush, the jug of MaxLife twisted my arm as a took it off the shelf. Nothing that a little ice and rest didn't take care of though...
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.
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.
haha ^^
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
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
Thank you Mola for cutting through the FUD
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
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
Thank you Mola for cutting through the FUD
Originally Posted By: Gebo
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.
I feel exactly the same as you.
I'm with you, I stay clear of the "one size fits all" products.
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.
I feel exactly the same as you.
I'm with you, I stay clear of the "one size fits all" products.
- Status
Similar threads
