Originally Posted by doitmyself
Before all the dust settles, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this is all about semantics. From the OP -
"Valvoline stands behind all its products, including Maxlife Multi-Vehicle ATF.".... meets the legalize of.... : https://media.napaonline.com/is/content/GenuinePartsCompany/1661827pdf?$PDF$
The email correspondence is correct in that Valvoline does not have a separate product warranty for Maxlife Multi-Vehicle ATF. But, they do have a blanket warranty that their products are fit for intended use, which is similar to the Mobil warranty listed above. They will warranty the effects of defective lubricant the same way a filter mfg. will warranty the effects of a faulty filter. No more, no less.
This!
I believe this is a good summary in a nutshell.
Now, a side topic has been brought forth regarding proof of product failure. I am not trying to enter into any legaleeze discussion here but I have been on both sides of the issue as an expert witness.
In one case there were multiple differential failures attributed to a particular gear lube at a specific shop so the blender brought me in to do some analysis as there were multiple claims to be decided. I had the lubes analyzed according to ASTM tests and the failed components sent to a metallurgical lab for SAE tests. In this case the lube was formulated as expected and passed the ASTM tests. However, the metallurgical lab found many of the differential components to have insufficient heat treating. Apparently a run of bearings, thrust washers, and gearing had not been heat treated properly, so no lube would have prevented a future failure. The blender was exonerated and the shop filed claims against the component supplier using my analysis report.
In another case an automatic transmission failed rather early and this time a customer asked for some help with the dealer (a dealer that I had purchased autos from for the past 20 years, but evidence is evidence). A warranty claim was denied because the dealer said the OEM fluid had been replaced with a fluid not suited for the transmission and that's what caused the failure. The dealer had sampled the fluid from the failed transmission and had some parts for analysis so we had some evidence to work with. The ATF used by the customer was also analyzed. So while the analysis was being done on both the fluids and the metal parts and clutches, I went to various transmission shops and discussed this particular transmission and their rebuilds and pulled TSB 's and shop tech tips.
From the evidence gathered here were the results: 1) customer ATF fluid had no problems and was of the proper formulation, 2) Sampled fluid from the transmission showed high levels of particulates and high aluminum wear, 3) TSB's warned of excessive pump gearing rub against pump body. Conclusion: A. Pump rub shed a lot of aluminum (4300+ ppm) which in turn degraded and wore clutches, blocked valving, hydraulic system, cooling, etc., B. Fluid was not at fault.
I and the customer went to the manager with the data and asked if they would like to quietly replace the transmission under warranty or risk a court case. Transmission replacement was scheduled for the next day with an upgraded transmission.
In only one instance have I found the fluid or lube to be at fault and that was due to a computer malfunction at a blender's facility. The customer's driveline component (the customer hired me to investigate) was replaced by the fluid manf. and the blender hired me for a short stint to rewrite the computer code and to develop better QC procedures.
I have bored you with all of this to show that warranty claims are not as simple as some people would like them to be. Bottom line is, each side of a warranty claim needs to have their ducks and evidence in a row to make any valid claims or counter-claims.
Hearsay evidence and Internet babble just doesn't cut it against hard evidence.
One more thing: Some time ago there was a thread in the ATF section discussing Mercon V ATF verses a certain manufacturer's Mercon V and the thread drifted toward some outright and incorrect allegations re: licensing. I hope this thread stays on course and doesn't drift in some other direction.
