I actually have zero hate for amsoil’s products, used in the correct application and not based on marketing misconception.
So tell us Pablo, the “100% synthetic” signature atf is a full group 4/5 product?
Amsoil Multi-Vehicle ATF? ATF+4? Debate settled?!
- Thread starter BouncinBrandon
- Start date
So tell us Pablo, the “100% synthetic” signature atf is a full group 4/5 product?
Now you know if he told you he'd have to kill you
.... its proprietary. 
I actually followed your arguments and I feel similar but I dont fight it out here anymore because its pointless.
if it blows up after 10k miles it was dodge jeep ram Chrysler quality.. if it lasts until sold it was great. etc.
I am very particular about transmission fluids I still dont understand why subaru would need 5 and stock 5..
when one aftermarket covers 4 of those 5 and replaces 30 other specs too.
(not talking about amsoil in particular just multi vehicle/universal type atf replacement options)
Wouldnt a manufacturer want to spec and stock 1 or 2 vs 5?
Full? If you mean the base oils, yes. But carrier oils for the additives could be something other than PAOs and esters.
If Maxlife was sufficient for both Toyota T-IV and WS, Toyota would just switch to Maxlife…Now you know if he told you he'd have to kill you
I actually followed your arguments and I feel similar but I dont fight it out here anymore because its pointless.
if it blows up after 10k miles it was dodge jeep ram Chrysler quality.. if it lasts until sold it was great. etc.
I am very particular about transmission fluids I still dont understand why subaru would need 5 and stock 5..
when one aftermarket covers 4 of those 5 and replaces 30 other specs too.
(not talking about amsoil in particular just multi vehicle/universal type atf replacement options)
Wouldnt a manufacturer want to spec and stock 1 or 2 vs 5?
What? All automakers recommend their branded fluids. But that does not make them special.
Figuratively. Toyota would just switch to a common fluid that covers both...or rebottle maxlife. For older vehicles even OEMs like to condense coverage where possible vs stock multiple parts.
It's not preposterous. GM backspec'd dex vi rather than continuing to carry dex iii. Mopar specs unicorn BW fluid for simpleton BW transfer cases (BW 44-46) that would be fine on Dex III, because they already have to stock it for more complex t cases. ATF+4 was back spec'd for multiple prior mopar fluids.
But sometimes manufacturers don't combine coverage, suggesting the differences are significant enough to warrant otherwise.
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
The ATF +4 fluid that was to become the MS-9604 (and the MS-9602 through MS-9224) specification began about 1989. Improved oxidation, shear stability, anti-wear, FM stability, and torque converter shudder were the main goals.
Chrysler partnered with the Texaco Oil Company and The Lubrizol Corporation during the development.
Texaco had developed a Group III XHVI Base Oil having excellent oxidative resistance and good low-temperature fluidity. Texaco developed Group III base oil approached the performance of a synthetic fluid but at a lower cost.
Lubrizol was able to tailor an additive system that was synergistic with the base oil. During the course of the project, Lubrizol also developed a new viscosity index improver to provide the needed viscosity stability.
The original ATF +4 formulation recipe requires only a Group III base oil with specific characteristics and the Lubrizol additive package. No PAOs or esters were specified.
Blenders who wanted to replicate the ATF +4 for sale had to use a specific Group III base oil of specified properties with the Lubrizol additive package as outlined in the Lubrizol recipe.
The Chrysler internal part number for ATF+ 4 in quarts is 68218057AC.
This ATF is backward compatible with previous ATF+ fluids.
The licensing program is found here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120301220320/http://www.centerforqa.com/licensingprogram.html
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2025
- Messages
- 12
Appreciate everyone for the info! Anyway, my friend made the switch to Amsoil Multi-Vehicle ATF yesterday, new transmission pan with a drain plug as well. His car is running just fine according to him. I don't expect him to feel a difference, but I know what it felt like the last time I was in his car so I'll compare that once I'm in his car next.
What vehicle is this?
why did you write "transmission pan" on the transmission pan?
nice job either way
I'm guessing so no one drains that thinking it's engine oil. Possibly even quickie lube or even dealer LOF techs (Subaru horror stories here of dealers draining and then overfilling the wrong thing)
But just a guess
I used the Amsoil ATF in a rebuilt 1992 Dodge Caravan with the same trans. I broke it in with the fluid in maybe 2000. Shifted perfect. I also ran it in a 2000 Grand Caravan. Same great shifting. I also ran it in Ford mercon V applications as well, after they said it was approved for it.
My brother even used it in a 1980 ish Lincoln Versailles back about 1999. He drove it for years with the Amsoil ATF, even though it was speced for Type F. I advised against it. He never complained about any issues.
I left the Amsoil ATF in the 92 Caravan for 80,000 miles before changing it out. I also ran the Amsoil ATF in my 1998 Taurus AX4N trans for 80,000 miles. The fluid still had a very cherry red color with minimal debris. They each had a Magnifine inline filter with minimal debris as well.
Just posting for perspective.
My brother even used it in a 1980 ish Lincoln Versailles back about 1999. He drove it for years with the Amsoil ATF, even though it was speced for Type F. I advised against it. He never complained about any issues.
I left the Amsoil ATF in the 92 Caravan for 80,000 miles before changing it out. I also ran the Amsoil ATF in my 1998 Taurus AX4N trans for 80,000 miles. The fluid still had a very cherry red color with minimal debris. They each had a Magnifine inline filter with minimal debris as well.
Just posting for perspective.
Similar threads
