Amsoil's supposed ATF+4

[G-MAN]

I just noticed in the items for sale forum that someone is selling Amsoil ATF+4, and that the bottles actually have "ATF+4" on them. I was aware that Amsoil claimed that its universal ATF met ATF+4 specs, but for them to actually bottle a fluid and call it ATF+4 is not kosher, IMO. ATF+4 is a registered trademark (as is ATF+3), and DC has not licensed it to anyone for use on any aftermarket service fill fluids. In addition, the exact formulation of Type 9602 fluid is tied to the ATF+4 trademark, which is one of the reasons that no company has produced an aftermarket service fill ATF+4. Chrysler has not released the formulation for use by anyone other than Equilon and PetroCanada, which are the two companies that make Mopar ATF+4 for DC.

Amsoil may make great products, but this is just another example, IMO, of their questionable business and marketing practices. What is in these bottles is NOT ATF+4, and to say it is borders on fraud.

 

[Pablo]

Just get off it man!!!!!!!!!!!

Amsoil quit selling that almost 2 years ago. I know you are after Amsoil at every turn but please spread it out to the other ethical advertisers, or at least do your homework.....Castrol, Pennsoil, Mobil and a few other names make some pretty non-scientific grandiose claims and I have yet to read your comments on them.

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pablo:
Just get off it man!!!!!!!!!!!

Amsoil quit selling that almost 2 years ago. I know you are after Amsoil at every turn but please spread it out to the other ethical advertisers, or at least do your homework.....Castrol, Pennsoil, Mobil and a few other names make some pretty non-scientific grandiose claims and I have yet to read your comments on them.

---

Sir, you are the one who needs to get off it. When someone posted the rumor yesterday that Amsoil was being investigated by the FTC, I was the first one to post in protest that this was grossly unfair to Amsoil, so I'm hardly "after Amsoil at every turn."

This has nothing to do with unscientific claims. I clearly stated what I see as a problem with Amsoil's use of a registered trademark and why what is in that bottle cannot possibly be ATF+4. Now if you want to present some facts to refute that, please do so. Otherwise, kindly keep your unfounded accusations about me being after Amsoil at every turn to yourself.

 

[Pablo]

I guess my main point is you posted this like it's a present thing and the guy selling the product is from Amsoil.

Indeed you are entitled to your opinion (I would fight pretty hard to protect that freedom), and you did type "IMO".....but I guess I missed your post the day before. I must say I have felt a tone of negativity more than once and will admit I thought you formally worked for Mobil (not that there is anything wrong with that) because of the photo on your profile page.

Now.

Nothing personal. I don't claim to be a lawyer, and I must ask: Are or were you in the legal profession?

Can you show me the correspondence from 2 years ago between Amsoil and DC? Was the product discontinued because of a cease and desist letter? Or was it simply because Amsoil came out with the Universal ATF?

How far does the TM thing go? Can't ATF +X be anywhere on any product except a DC licensed product?

 

[dkcase]

I will be interested when ATF+4 fluid arrives on the shelves, as I need it for my Jeep.
In the meantime, the research I've done says Chrysler dealers only....
If it were not so, why would the oil companies demand from Chrysler that they loosen their hold on it, and license more producers.
There was mention of a Pennzoil universal trans fluid too, but not much info has come through on it.
Some here don't genuflect at Amsoil's altar, and may not appreciate an attempt to stifle the discussion.

 

[Pablo]

No one asked anyone to bow to anything, nor was there an attempt to stifle the discussion. I do apologize to ALL here if that is how I came across.

I actually want to find out more about this whole thing.

I do know one fact: Chrysler has some serious AT issues.

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pablo:
Nothing personal. I don't claim to be a lawyer, and I must ask: Are or were you in the legal profession?

Can you show me the correspondence from 2 years ago between Amsoil and DC? Was the product discontinued because of a cease and desist letter? Or was it simply because Amsoil came out with the Universal ATF?

---

I had no way of knowing that Amsoil no longer sells this product, and I don't know why they stopped selling it. I saw it on the items for sale forum and the logical conclusion would be that Amsoil makes it (obviously) and sells it. It could be that Chrysler asked them to stop using the trademark without permission, but that would just be speculation on my part.

In addition to having advanced degrees in philosophy and religion, I also hold a law degree, so things like intellectual property rights (which is what a trademark is) jump out at me. Knowing the situation with ATF+4, and how covetous Chrysler is with that trademark and the Type 9602 formula, this was the main issue that came to my mind when I saw the photo of that Amsoil bottle.

From a legal standpoint, Amsoil obviously recognized they were using a trademark, because they put the little "TM" beside the ATF+4. Someone in their legal department and/or marketing department made a big blunder here. You simply do not use another company's trademark to label your product unless you've secured the appropriate license. Fair use provisions for competitive comparisons allow for the limited use, and this is why Amsoil (or anyone else) could put "suitable for applications requiring ATF+4" on the back of the label. The fair use provision is what allows makers of generic products to use trademark names on their labels. For example, a generic acetaminophen bottle can legally use the word "Tylenol" on the label for comparative purposes. But the maker of this OTC medication would cross the fair use line if the word "Tylenol" became the prominent word on the label.

 

[Dick in Falls Church]

Apparently Chrysler (Daimler) took some notice when AMSOIL started marketing their version of the ATF+4----they dropped their price in half within 60 days.

 

[Pablo]

G-man - thanks and sorry. (no excuses...too much caffeine!)

I honestly think Amsoil HQ is either naive or play stupid an awful lot.

[ February 21, 2003, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Pablo ]

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pablo:
G-man - thanks and sorry. (no excuses...too much caffeine!)

---

No problem.

 

[Bio-T]

G-ManII was the only person who sent 3 Moderator alerts when some mis-information was being posted on Amsoil. Each time it was posted we got an alert from him and it was dealt with by us.

 

[red2rebel]

Maybe I am not adding to the right thread, but I did a search for Amsoil ATF and this came up so I am posting here.

How many folks with the 4.7 and the 45RFE or the 4.7 and 545RFE are using the new AMsoil Universal ATF.

I have 00 Durango with the 5.9 and use the older Amsoil ATF+4 they sold a few years back. I bought a Grand Cherokee and have the 4.7 with the 545RFE and want to use the new fluid, however I am getting conflicting opinions/results. Some on the GC board say they have had some problems.

Do you know of anyone who has converted, how long have they used it. Did they just chnage the filter or did they flush the whole system including the cooler.

I plan to drop the pan, change both filters, put in a drain plug. Then refill and disconnect the return line from the cooler and do the dump
and pump. I did this on my Durango and changed all the fluid with this method.

Sorry for taking up your time, just looking for some good info.

 

[keith]

1999 Grand Caravan.

I did the "pump and dump" total fluid change to Amsoil "Universal" ATF. Tranmission slipped like a SOB. Amsoil corporate told me to add a friction modifier to their "universal" fluid - LOL. Lubehard HFM or somesuch. I did, and it soon started to slip again. Retrained the AT computer along the way, no improvement. It got so bad the transmission would not engage 1st gear. Total refill with ATF+3, transmission fine again. That was about 30K miles ago.

You may hear other ancdotes of success with universal ATF. Good luck. I wouldn't risk a $2000 repair. Now I am a better educated consumer, the very idea of "universal" ATF is FRAUD.

Keith.

 

[Pablo]

Rebel how did your 00 Durango with the 5.9 and use the older Amsoil ATF+4 perform?

Also, Please read this thread:

Earlier discussion on Amsoil ATF

Fraud is a strong word. I still contend there are borderline design defects in these transmissions that allows them to slip with fluid that meets the required specifications. I think there have been more cases of defective transmissions using factory fluid than anything else with Chrysler Jeep trannies, early life failures I might add.

 

[Ken2]

I would not do a solvent transmission flush.

I've used both Auto-Rx and Schaeffer's Neutra in automatic transmission with very good results. I recommend either highly for high mileage automatics 1000 miles prior to a flush. I also like to add an in-line magnetic ATF filter in the cooler line. I've opened one and seen the steel particles on the magnet and other particles on the filter element.


Ken

 

[red2rebel]

Another question:
How effective is the polyo stock and detergent additives in the Universal Amsoil ATF? A friend might be buying a high millage family sedan and is worried about varnish in tranny. The car is Buick Lasaber with the 3.8 and 4T60E transmission. It has 100,000 miles on it but the engine is in great shape and so is the rest of the car.

I know that most polyo esters can remove most deposits in an engine in about 3000-7000 miles of use. I am also qurious about the amount of polyo stock in the new Amsoil Series 2000 fluids. I am just wondering if he should get the tranny completly flushed with solvents or if he should just completely flush and fill with Amsoil ATF.

I purposely used Redline in my tranny last time for this very reason since I was not flushing just replacing what was drained out.

Thanks.

 

[Sin City]

I don't understand how a transmission fluid could be Highly Friction Modified and work in an ATF+3 or similar application and at the same time also be OK to use in a Mercon or Dexron application. I can imagine that this might be possible on paper but would it really work in the real world?

I am not trying to slam Amsoil as I think they make some of the best motor oil money can Buy. I really think they should give up on this universal ATF idea and produce a HFM ATF fluid (ATF+3 etc) and another ATF fluid for Mercon, Mercon V and Dexron III.

[ May 18, 2003, 03:56 AM: Message edited by: Sin City ]

 

[widman]

I have a Study (By Chevron) on the friction characteristics of different ATF's and the results of additives. The graph is posted at http://www.widman.biz/Aplicaciones/ATF/atf.html
I have questioned the tec people and they stand by the fact that there is no way a single fluid can meet Dexron and Chrysler specs. I once had Dexron III in my GLC (before I started importing ATF+3) and there is a huge difference in performance. Fluids have to have the right friccional properties to match the materials in the bands and clutches. I can't post the ATF study, but if anyone wants to email me I'll forward a copy.

 

[tmgxray]

I have a 02 Durango R/T with the 5.9 and a 01 Trans Am WS6 with a six speed. I put the amsoil atf in both of them a couple of months ago and haven't noticed any differences or problems yet.

hope that helps

[ May 19, 2003, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: tmgxray ]

 

[keith]

Sin City - my thoughts entirely. Either the fluid meets one friction profile or another, can't possibly be both - or more than 2 - out of the same bottle. I like and have used the Amsoil motor oil, but the "universal" ATF is not credible. I found out for myself when it didn't work in my Chrysler 4 speed.

Amsoil ought to again produce a separate Chrysler ATF and forget about "universal".

Keith.