Universal Fully Synthetic ATF in a ZF transmission (Audi, BMW, Mercedes, etc.)? These transmissions typically have a "lifetime" fill with dire warnings about using anything other than the OEM factory fill fluid which happens to be absurdly expensive (often Esso LT71141).
Anybody using Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF or Amsoil
- Thread starter BullyT
- Start date
- Status
I've used Mobil ATF for years with no problems.
Don't believe the sky will fall warnings, except in rare cases........
This forum is full of people using Amsoil ATF in various transmissions and the sky has not fallen. Almost everyone reports better shifting. And its more cost effective as it lasts longer and should allow your transmission to last longer.
I know that the Amsoil Universal ATF is not compatible with the Toyota WS fluid they use for their "lifetime" transmissions.
The good thing is that you don't have to change it very often.
The good thing is that you don't have to change it very often.
I'm inclined to go with Amsoil based on what I understand about Dexron VI and Mercon SP.
Anyone is welcome to correct any misinformation or bad logic in this post. According to the Amsoil site, it seems that the main requirements brought forth with GM VI are greater oxidative and shear stability, foam performance and protection against pitting.
While "MERCON® V specification that requires improved anti-oxidation, antiwear and anti-shudder properties. Ford also introduced its MERCON® SP specification in 2004. Designed for high torque sixspeed transmissions, MERCON SP fluids have lower viscosity requirements and more stringent cold-temperature Brookfield viscosity requirements."
M1 has separate fluids for these two specs while Amsoil uses their universal ATF for those two in addition to all the OEM compatibilities. So what I surmise is that even those that don't have GM or Ford vehicles get the benefits of those stricter specs when Amsoil makes their universal atf meet them. Amsoil's ATF has a higher flash point and lower cold viscosity than M1 Synthetic ATF; much like M1's Dexron VI fluid. It's an easy choice to go with Amsoil atf imo, esp since so many people have had such success with it.
Anyone is welcome to correct any misinformation or bad logic in this post. According to the Amsoil site, it seems that the main requirements brought forth with GM VI are greater oxidative and shear stability, foam performance and protection against pitting.
While "MERCON® V specification that requires improved anti-oxidation, antiwear and anti-shudder properties. Ford also introduced its MERCON® SP specification in 2004. Designed for high torque sixspeed transmissions, MERCON SP fluids have lower viscosity requirements and more stringent cold-temperature Brookfield viscosity requirements."
M1 has separate fluids for these two specs while Amsoil uses their universal ATF for those two in addition to all the OEM compatibilities. So what I surmise is that even those that don't have GM or Ford vehicles get the benefits of those stricter specs when Amsoil makes their universal atf meet them. Amsoil's ATF has a higher flash point and lower cold viscosity than M1 Synthetic ATF; much like M1's Dexron VI fluid. It's an easy choice to go with Amsoil atf imo, esp since so many people have had such success with it.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
It is in Amsoil's IN HOUSE testing that their fluid meets both. It is not certified by GM or Ford.
M1 has different fluids because the fluids are different.
Both are great products. But it is always wise to fully understand what one reads.
M1 has different fluids because the fluids are different.
Both are great products. But it is always wise to fully understand what one reads.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hardly any Amsoil products are certified by OEM's. By that logic, one would have to condemn almost all their engine oils as well.
Look at the specs and performace differences between M1 Syn atf and Dexron VI. It's clear that XOM has to use better base oils for the latest GM and Ford specs. That's only part of their increased costs. In light of what's coming out with their engine oils, them trying to reduce cost on their high volume atf wouldn't surprise me.
http://www.justanswer.com/questions/162na-mercon-v-sp-06-f-250
Quote:
it is a new fluid made for that transmiision, I would try to get it from the dealer,since it may be a while before it is available from the aftermarket. I will send some information on the transmission fluid.Thanks for using Just Answer,have a great day,Jerry.
Ford Motor Co. says it is seeking greater assurance that automatic transmission fluids bearing its Mercon trademark are worthy to bear its seal of approval.
Lubricant blenders are not happy about the costs they will incur for that peace of mind.
In conjunction with its launch of a specification for low-viscosity fluid, the automaker recently amended its Mercon program to require companies producing any Mercon-licensed ATF at multiple plants to obtain approvals for each plant. Market sources say the changes will increase costs by $20,000 or more per plant.
"This is really going to drive up costs for companies that make fluid at several different sites," said one marketer, who spoke on condition that he not be identified. "I can't see these changes yielding benefits that are worth the cost. But, of course, Ford doesn't have to bear those costs."
Ford's Service Automatic Transmission Fluid Committee announced the changes in a June 1 letter, ahead of last month's introduction of the Mercon SP specification for low-viscosity ATF used in new high-torque transmissions. SP is the third spec in the Mercon program, the others being Mercon and Mercon V (Roman numeral 5). The latter two fluids are used in most Ford vehicles with automatic transmissions.
The Mercon program offers licenses to three types of marketers. Original formulators make fluids using formulas that they develop themselves or in cooperation with additive companies. Reblenders produce fluids using formulas for which others have obtained approval. Rebranders typically repackage fluid that others blend. Some 400 to 450 commercial ATF products are covered by the program.
Ford charges $3,000 per original license, $2,500 for reblenders and $2,000 for each rebrander. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The program's major expenses come from testing required to verify that fluids meet the specs.
Until now, Ford has required original licensees to submit samples from their own labs to third-party testing companies, which determine if the sample meets specification requirements. However, according to the June 1 letter from the Ford committee to current licensees, the automaker will now require companies to submit two samples - a lab sample and a production sample from the plant designated as the primary blending site. The purpose of the former is to test the fluid's formula, the latter to guarantee the plant's ability to make a fluid that matches the formula.
The letter says licensees that make fluid at more than one plant will now be required to obtain reblender approvals for all of them. The ATF committee said in its letter that the changes were made to ensure that the quality of Mercon fluids "remains constant." Ford officials declined Lube Report's requests for further comment.
Market observers said the changes will indeed give the carmaker tighter control over the quality of products carrying its trademark.
"If they want to understand the quality of what's actually on the market, this is a good move," said Katherine Richard, marketing technical service representative for specialty lubricants at Infineum. "But it is going to increase licensing costs for larger companies that have more than one plant."
Some companies may see their bill for licensing fees increase several-fold. Testing fees will also rise in proportion with the number of plants at which companies blend. Sources said Ford has added new tests that will raise the cost of reblender testing to approximately $20,000 - still significantly less than costs of tests for original formulators. Additive companies have typically covered those costs in the past, but some blenders speculated that they may cease to do so when the bill increases.
The good news for blenders and additive companies is that the changes generally do not take effect for nine months. Companies applying to renew licenses before June 30, 2005 must disclose all plants that blend the licensed fluid but need obtain approvals for just one plant.
Ford officials declined to discuss the SP specification, but market sources said it was developed for high-torque five-speed transmissions built by German manufacturer ZF and used by Ford in some light trucks. The biggest differences between SP and the two older Mercon specs are the viscosity requirements. SP requires a kinematic viscosity of 5.5 to 6 square millimeters per second at 100 degrees C, compared to a minimum of 6.8 for both Mercon and Mercon V. SP also has more stringent requirements for cold-temperature Brookfield viscosity.
Infineum's Richard said the viscosity and shear stability requirements of SP will drive formulators to use Group III and partial synthetic base stocks, compared to Mercon and Mercon V, which can be formulated with Group I and Group II base stocks, respectively. She and other observers agreed that demand for SP will be small, at least for the time being.
Look at the specs and performace differences between M1 Syn atf and Dexron VI. It's clear that XOM has to use better base oils for the latest GM and Ford specs. That's only part of their increased costs. In light of what's coming out with their engine oils, them trying to reduce cost on their high volume atf wouldn't surprise me.
http://www.justanswer.com/questions/162na-mercon-v-sp-06-f-250
Quote:
it is a new fluid made for that transmiision, I would try to get it from the dealer,since it may be a while before it is available from the aftermarket. I will send some information on the transmission fluid.Thanks for using Just Answer,have a great day,Jerry.
Ford Motor Co. says it is seeking greater assurance that automatic transmission fluids bearing its Mercon trademark are worthy to bear its seal of approval.
Lubricant blenders are not happy about the costs they will incur for that peace of mind.
In conjunction with its launch of a specification for low-viscosity fluid, the automaker recently amended its Mercon program to require companies producing any Mercon-licensed ATF at multiple plants to obtain approvals for each plant. Market sources say the changes will increase costs by $20,000 or more per plant.
"This is really going to drive up costs for companies that make fluid at several different sites," said one marketer, who spoke on condition that he not be identified. "I can't see these changes yielding benefits that are worth the cost. But, of course, Ford doesn't have to bear those costs."
Ford's Service Automatic Transmission Fluid Committee announced the changes in a June 1 letter, ahead of last month's introduction of the Mercon SP specification for low-viscosity ATF used in new high-torque transmissions. SP is the third spec in the Mercon program, the others being Mercon and Mercon V (Roman numeral 5). The latter two fluids are used in most Ford vehicles with automatic transmissions.
The Mercon program offers licenses to three types of marketers. Original formulators make fluids using formulas that they develop themselves or in cooperation with additive companies. Reblenders produce fluids using formulas for which others have obtained approval. Rebranders typically repackage fluid that others blend. Some 400 to 450 commercial ATF products are covered by the program.
Ford charges $3,000 per original license, $2,500 for reblenders and $2,000 for each rebrander. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The program's major expenses come from testing required to verify that fluids meet the specs.
Until now, Ford has required original licensees to submit samples from their own labs to third-party testing companies, which determine if the sample meets specification requirements. However, according to the June 1 letter from the Ford committee to current licensees, the automaker will now require companies to submit two samples - a lab sample and a production sample from the plant designated as the primary blending site. The purpose of the former is to test the fluid's formula, the latter to guarantee the plant's ability to make a fluid that matches the formula.
The letter says licensees that make fluid at more than one plant will now be required to obtain reblender approvals for all of them. The ATF committee said in its letter that the changes were made to ensure that the quality of Mercon fluids "remains constant." Ford officials declined Lube Report's requests for further comment.
Market observers said the changes will indeed give the carmaker tighter control over the quality of products carrying its trademark.
"If they want to understand the quality of what's actually on the market, this is a good move," said Katherine Richard, marketing technical service representative for specialty lubricants at Infineum. "But it is going to increase licensing costs for larger companies that have more than one plant."
Some companies may see their bill for licensing fees increase several-fold. Testing fees will also rise in proportion with the number of plants at which companies blend. Sources said Ford has added new tests that will raise the cost of reblender testing to approximately $20,000 - still significantly less than costs of tests for original formulators. Additive companies have typically covered those costs in the past, but some blenders speculated that they may cease to do so when the bill increases.
The good news for blenders and additive companies is that the changes generally do not take effect for nine months. Companies applying to renew licenses before June 30, 2005 must disclose all plants that blend the licensed fluid but need obtain approvals for just one plant.
Ford officials declined to discuss the SP specification, but market sources said it was developed for high-torque five-speed transmissions built by German manufacturer ZF and used by Ford in some light trucks. The biggest differences between SP and the two older Mercon specs are the viscosity requirements. SP requires a kinematic viscosity of 5.5 to 6 square millimeters per second at 100 degrees C, compared to a minimum of 6.8 for both Mercon and Mercon V. SP also has more stringent requirements for cold-temperature Brookfield viscosity.
Infineum's Richard said the viscosity and shear stability requirements of SP will drive formulators to use Group III and partial synthetic base stocks, compared to Mercon and Mercon V, which can be formulated with Group I and Group II base stocks, respectively. She and other observers agreed that demand for SP will be small, at least for the time being.
Originally Posted By: BullyT
Universal Fully Synthetic ATF in a ZF transmission (Audi, BMW, Mercedes, etc.)? These transmissions typically have a "lifetime" fill with dire warnings about using anything other than the OEM factory fill fluid which happens to be absurdly expensive (often Esso LT71141).
Look around many oils meet this.
Amsoil would be great.
When looking before I found like Valvoline Mercon V listed that spec, QS/Pennzoil multi-vehicle, and others.
Universal Fully Synthetic ATF in a ZF transmission (Audi, BMW, Mercedes, etc.)? These transmissions typically have a "lifetime" fill with dire warnings about using anything other than the OEM factory fill fluid which happens to be absurdly expensive (often Esso LT71141).
Look around many oils meet this.
Amsoil would be great.
When looking before I found like Valvoline Mercon V listed that spec, QS/Pennzoil multi-vehicle, and others.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: vinu_neuro
Hardly any Amsoil products are certified by OEM's. By that logic, one would have to condemn almost all their engine oils as well.
Look at the specs and performace differences between M1 Syn atf and Dexron VI. It's clear that XOM has to use better base oils for the latest GM and Ford specs. That's only part of their increased costs. In light of what's coming out with their engine oils, them trying to reduce cost on their high volume atf wouldn't surprise me.
http://www.justanswer.com/questions/162na-mercon-v-sp-06-f-250
Quote:
it is a new fluid made for that transmiision, I would try to get it from the dealer,since it may be a while before it is available from the aftermarket. I will send some information on the transmission fluid.Thanks for using Just Answer,have a great day,Jerry.
Ford Motor Co. says it is seeking greater assurance that automatic transmission fluids bearing its Mercon trademark are worthy to bear its seal of approval.
Lubricant blenders are not happy about the costs they will incur for that peace of mind.
In conjunction with its launch of a specification for low-viscosity fluid, the automaker recently amended its Mercon program to require companies producing any Mercon-licensed ATF at multiple plants to obtain approvals for each plant. Market sources say the changes will increase costs by $20,000 or more per plant.
"This is really going to drive up costs for companies that make fluid at several different sites," said one marketer, who spoke on condition that he not be identified. "I can't see these changes yielding benefits that are worth the cost. But, of course, Ford doesn't have to bear those costs."
Ford's Service Automatic Transmission Fluid Committee announced the changes in a June 1 letter, ahead of last month's introduction of the Mercon SP specification for low-viscosity ATF used in new high-torque transmissions. SP is the third spec in the Mercon program, the others being Mercon and Mercon V (Roman numeral 5). The latter two fluids are used in most Ford vehicles with automatic transmissions.
The Mercon program offers licenses to three types of marketers. Original formulators make fluids using formulas that they develop themselves or in cooperation with additive companies. Reblenders produce fluids using formulas for which others have obtained approval. Rebranders typically repackage fluid that others blend. Some 400 to 450 commercial ATF products are covered by the program.
Ford charges $3,000 per original license, $2,500 for reblenders and $2,000 for each rebrander. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The program's major expenses come from testing required to verify that fluids meet the specs.
Until now, Ford has required original licensees to submit samples from their own labs to third-party testing companies, which determine if the sample meets specification requirements. However, according to the June 1 letter from the Ford committee to current licensees, the automaker will now require companies to submit two samples - a lab sample and a production sample from the plant designated as the primary blending site. The purpose of the former is to test the fluid's formula, the latter to guarantee the plant's ability to make a fluid that matches the formula.
The letter says licensees that make fluid at more than one plant will now be required to obtain reblender approvals for all of them. The ATF committee said in its letter that the changes were made to ensure that the quality of Mercon fluids "remains constant." Ford officials declined Lube Report's requests for further comment.
Market observers said the changes will indeed give the carmaker tighter control over the quality of products carrying its trademark.
"If they want to understand the quality of what's actually on the market, this is a good move," said Katherine Richard, marketing technical service representative for specialty lubricants at Infineum. "But it is going to increase licensing costs for larger companies that have more than one plant."
Some companies may see their bill for licensing fees increase several-fold. Testing fees will also rise in proportion with the number of plants at which companies blend. Sources said Ford has added new tests that will raise the cost of reblender testing to approximately $20,000 - still significantly less than costs of tests for original formulators. Additive companies have typically covered those costs in the past, but some blenders speculated that they may cease to do so when the bill increases.
The good news for blenders and additive companies is that the changes generally do not take effect for nine months. Companies applying to renew licenses before June 30, 2005 must disclose all plants that blend the licensed fluid but need obtain approvals for just one plant.
Ford officials declined to discuss the SP specification, but market sources said it was developed for high-torque five-speed transmissions built by German manufacturer ZF and used by Ford in some light trucks. The biggest differences between SP and the two older Mercon specs are the viscosity requirements. SP requires a kinematic viscosity of 5.5 to 6 square millimeters per second at 100 degrees C, compared to a minimum of 6.8 for both Mercon and Mercon V. SP also has more stringent requirements for cold-temperature Brookfield viscosity.
Infineum's Richard said the viscosity and shear stability requirements of SP will drive formulators to use Group III and partial synthetic base stocks, compared to Mercon and Mercon V, which can be formulated with Group I and Group II base stocks, respectively. She and other observers agreed that demand for SP will be small, at least for the time being.
I'm not condemning AMSOIL. I use their products. I am simply pointing out the difference between the Mobil stuff and the AMSOIL stuff. ExxonMobil has them certified. There is likely enough of a difference between the fluids that they cannot be certified for both with the same chemistry. Otherwise, I'm sure ExxonMobil would not go through the added expense of developing two bloody fluids.
Hardly any Amsoil products are certified by OEM's. By that logic, one would have to condemn almost all their engine oils as well.
Look at the specs and performace differences between M1 Syn atf and Dexron VI. It's clear that XOM has to use better base oils for the latest GM and Ford specs. That's only part of their increased costs. In light of what's coming out with their engine oils, them trying to reduce cost on their high volume atf wouldn't surprise me.
http://www.justanswer.com/questions/162na-mercon-v-sp-06-f-250
Quote:
it is a new fluid made for that transmiision, I would try to get it from the dealer,since it may be a while before it is available from the aftermarket. I will send some information on the transmission fluid.Thanks for using Just Answer,have a great day,Jerry.
Ford Motor Co. says it is seeking greater assurance that automatic transmission fluids bearing its Mercon trademark are worthy to bear its seal of approval.
Lubricant blenders are not happy about the costs they will incur for that peace of mind.
In conjunction with its launch of a specification for low-viscosity fluid, the automaker recently amended its Mercon program to require companies producing any Mercon-licensed ATF at multiple plants to obtain approvals for each plant. Market sources say the changes will increase costs by $20,000 or more per plant.
"This is really going to drive up costs for companies that make fluid at several different sites," said one marketer, who spoke on condition that he not be identified. "I can't see these changes yielding benefits that are worth the cost. But, of course, Ford doesn't have to bear those costs."
Ford's Service Automatic Transmission Fluid Committee announced the changes in a June 1 letter, ahead of last month's introduction of the Mercon SP specification for low-viscosity ATF used in new high-torque transmissions. SP is the third spec in the Mercon program, the others being Mercon and Mercon V (Roman numeral 5). The latter two fluids are used in most Ford vehicles with automatic transmissions.
The Mercon program offers licenses to three types of marketers. Original formulators make fluids using formulas that they develop themselves or in cooperation with additive companies. Reblenders produce fluids using formulas for which others have obtained approval. Rebranders typically repackage fluid that others blend. Some 400 to 450 commercial ATF products are covered by the program.
Ford charges $3,000 per original license, $2,500 for reblenders and $2,000 for each rebrander. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The program's major expenses come from testing required to verify that fluids meet the specs.
Until now, Ford has required original licensees to submit samples from their own labs to third-party testing companies, which determine if the sample meets specification requirements. However, according to the June 1 letter from the Ford committee to current licensees, the automaker will now require companies to submit two samples - a lab sample and a production sample from the plant designated as the primary blending site. The purpose of the former is to test the fluid's formula, the latter to guarantee the plant's ability to make a fluid that matches the formula.
The letter says licensees that make fluid at more than one plant will now be required to obtain reblender approvals for all of them. The ATF committee said in its letter that the changes were made to ensure that the quality of Mercon fluids "remains constant." Ford officials declined Lube Report's requests for further comment.
Market observers said the changes will indeed give the carmaker tighter control over the quality of products carrying its trademark.
"If they want to understand the quality of what's actually on the market, this is a good move," said Katherine Richard, marketing technical service representative for specialty lubricants at Infineum. "But it is going to increase licensing costs for larger companies that have more than one plant."
Some companies may see their bill for licensing fees increase several-fold. Testing fees will also rise in proportion with the number of plants at which companies blend. Sources said Ford has added new tests that will raise the cost of reblender testing to approximately $20,000 - still significantly less than costs of tests for original formulators. Additive companies have typically covered those costs in the past, but some blenders speculated that they may cease to do so when the bill increases.
The good news for blenders and additive companies is that the changes generally do not take effect for nine months. Companies applying to renew licenses before June 30, 2005 must disclose all plants that blend the licensed fluid but need obtain approvals for just one plant.
Ford officials declined to discuss the SP specification, but market sources said it was developed for high-torque five-speed transmissions built by German manufacturer ZF and used by Ford in some light trucks. The biggest differences between SP and the two older Mercon specs are the viscosity requirements. SP requires a kinematic viscosity of 5.5 to 6 square millimeters per second at 100 degrees C, compared to a minimum of 6.8 for both Mercon and Mercon V. SP also has more stringent requirements for cold-temperature Brookfield viscosity.
Infineum's Richard said the viscosity and shear stability requirements of SP will drive formulators to use Group III and partial synthetic base stocks, compared to Mercon and Mercon V, which can be formulated with Group I and Group II base stocks, respectively. She and other observers agreed that demand for SP will be small, at least for the time being.
I'm not condemning AMSOIL. I use their products. I am simply pointing out the difference between the Mobil stuff and the AMSOIL stuff. ExxonMobil has them certified. There is likely enough of a difference between the fluids that they cannot be certified for both with the same chemistry. Otherwise, I'm sure ExxonMobil would not go through the added expense of developing two bloody fluids.
ZF has since changed their tune on lifetime fluid and is now recommending a change around 60-70k miles. BMW switched their reco as well, dunno about the others. Up till 03, BMW said lifetime fluid. In 2004, they switched to a 100k mile interval. A lot of models' transmissions didn't change, neither did the fluid.
Originally Posted By: BullyT
Universal Fully Synthetic ATF in a ZF transmission (Audi, BMW, Mercedes, etc.)? These transmissions typically have a "lifetime" fill with dire warnings about using anything other than the OEM factory fill fluid which happens to be absurdly expensive (often Esso LT71141).
Originally Posted By: BullyT
Universal Fully Synthetic ATF in a ZF transmission (Audi, BMW, Mercedes, etc.)? These transmissions typically have a "lifetime" fill with dire warnings about using anything other than the OEM factory fill fluid which happens to be absurdly expensive (often Esso LT71141).
You're welcome to spend your money on what you want; but there's a very plausible motive behind their marketing these products based not only the added expense of using superior ingredients to meet more stringent requirements, but also what they've been doing with motor oils.
Are all the Amsoil products you use certified by the manufacturer of your vehicle?
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I'm not condemning AMSOIL. I use their products. I am simply pointing out the difference between the Mobil stuff and the AMSOIL stuff. ExxonMobil has them certified. There is likely enough of a difference between the fluids that they cannot be certified for both with the same chemistry. Otherwise, I'm sure ExxonMobil would not go through the added expense of developing two bloody fluids.
Are all the Amsoil products you use certified by the manufacturer of your vehicle?
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I'm not condemning AMSOIL. I use their products. I am simply pointing out the difference between the Mobil stuff and the AMSOIL stuff. ExxonMobil has them certified. There is likely enough of a difference between the fluids that they cannot be certified for both with the same chemistry. Otherwise, I'm sure ExxonMobil would not go through the added expense of developing two bloody fluids.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: vinu_neuro
You're welcome to spend your money on what you want; but there's a very plausible motive behind their marketing these products based not only the added expense of using superior ingredients to meet more stringent requirements, but also what they've been doing with motor oils.
Are all the Amsoil products you use certified by the manufacturer of your vehicle?
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I'm not condemning AMSOIL. I use their products. I am simply pointing out the difference between the Mobil stuff and the AMSOIL stuff. ExxonMobil has them certified. There is likely enough of a difference between the fluids that they cannot be certified for both with the same chemistry. Otherwise, I'm sure ExxonMobil would not go through the added expense of developing two bloody fluids.
Dear God no, but my vehicles are 20 and 28 years old. They have no warranty and they have obsolete specs anyways.
There is a difference between the ExxonMobil fluid and the AMSOIL fluid because of the fact that ExxonMobil pays to have their fluids certified, so there are constraints on the fluid in order to meet those specs. AMSOIL does not have to do this. So they have developed a "universal" fluid. Whether it's as good as "real" DexIV, well, that I do not know. The ExxonMobil fluid, since it is certified, has to be.
You're welcome to spend your money on what you want; but there's a very plausible motive behind their marketing these products based not only the added expense of using superior ingredients to meet more stringent requirements, but also what they've been doing with motor oils.
Are all the Amsoil products you use certified by the manufacturer of your vehicle?
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I'm not condemning AMSOIL. I use their products. I am simply pointing out the difference between the Mobil stuff and the AMSOIL stuff. ExxonMobil has them certified. There is likely enough of a difference between the fluids that they cannot be certified for both with the same chemistry. Otherwise, I'm sure ExxonMobil would not go through the added expense of developing two bloody fluids.
Dear God no, but my vehicles are 20 and 28 years old. They have no warranty and they have obsolete specs anyways.
There is a difference between the ExxonMobil fluid and the AMSOIL fluid because of the fact that ExxonMobil pays to have their fluids certified, so there are constraints on the fluid in order to meet those specs. AMSOIL does not have to do this. So they have developed a "universal" fluid. Whether it's as good as "real" DexIV, well, that I do not know. The ExxonMobil fluid, since it is certified, has to be.
Last edited by a moderator:
Even though Amsoil may not certify their ATF fluids, when they "recommend for" specific applications, I have found that their fluid works very well for that application. So, I do beleive that they at least test their fluid in applications that they recommend for. I have chosen to use certified fluids while vehicles are under warranty just to prevent hassles if a problem should arise. Current OEM fluids can usually last for the warranty period in most cases these days due to better quality OEM fluids and specs.
I recently used Universal Amsoil ATF in a relative's 2004 Powerstroke 5 speed automatic for a complete flush. The original Mercon SP fluid had 102,000 hard miles on it, but the fluid still looked and smelled fine, and the pan was the cleanest I have seen for that mileage. The inline filter was changed also. The trans shifted the same as before the service and should be good for another 100,000 miles or more, IMO.
I recently used Universal Amsoil ATF in a relative's 2004 Powerstroke 5 speed automatic for a complete flush. The original Mercon SP fluid had 102,000 hard miles on it, but the fluid still looked and smelled fine, and the pan was the cleanest I have seen for that mileage. The inline filter was changed also. The trans shifted the same as before the service and should be good for another 100,000 miles or more, IMO.
Originally Posted By: bmwtechguy
Even though Amsoil may not certify their ATF fluids, when they "recommend for" specific applications, I have found that their fluid works very well for that application. So, I do beleive that they at least test their fluid in applications that they recommend for. I have chosen to use certified fluids while vehicles are under warranty just to prevent hassles if a problem should arise. Current OEM fluids can usually last for the warranty period in most cases these days due to better quality OEM fluids and specs.
I recently used Universal Amsoil ATF in a relative's 2004 Powerstroke 5 speed automatic for a complete flush. The original Mercon SP fluid had 102,000 hard miles on it, but the fluid still looked and smelled fine, and the pan was the cleanest I have seen for that mileage. The inline filter was changed also. The trans shifted the same as before the service and should be good for another 100,000 miles or more, IMO.
Yes they can last awhile, like I said I ran Amsoil for 80+K and it still had some brand new color. A good quality syn transmission fluid and inline filter is a good combo.
Even though Amsoil may not certify their ATF fluids, when they "recommend for" specific applications, I have found that their fluid works very well for that application. So, I do beleive that they at least test their fluid in applications that they recommend for. I have chosen to use certified fluids while vehicles are under warranty just to prevent hassles if a problem should arise. Current OEM fluids can usually last for the warranty period in most cases these days due to better quality OEM fluids and specs.
I recently used Universal Amsoil ATF in a relative's 2004 Powerstroke 5 speed automatic for a complete flush. The original Mercon SP fluid had 102,000 hard miles on it, but the fluid still looked and smelled fine, and the pan was the cleanest I have seen for that mileage. The inline filter was changed also. The trans shifted the same as before the service and should be good for another 100,000 miles or more, IMO.
Yes they can last awhile, like I said I ran Amsoil for 80+K and it still had some brand new color. A good quality syn transmission fluid and inline filter is a good combo.
Greatly appreciate the information so far. I'm not concerned whether or not the transmission manufacturer (or car mfg) has ''certified'' the ATF. Just looking for any real-world experience anybody may have using these products in vehicles equipped with ZF transmissions. Thanks again.
Amsoil works great in ZF transmissions up to 5 speed. Have not tried in a 6 speed or newer and do not plan to anytime soon. Amsoil does not recommend their ATF for the newer 6+ speed units, at least not for BMW's. According to the ZF rep I know, the newer fluids for these is unique and actually tested well up to 200k+ miles during development.
Have not tried the newest multi-vehicle Mobil 1 ATF in a BMW yet, but according to them it is recommended for some BMW applications. I can get it for 6.50 a qt, so it may be another good option for ZF units. The previous M1 formulations have worked well in units calling for Dexron fluids, and most recently, MerconV apps in domestic units.
Have not tried the newest multi-vehicle Mobil 1 ATF in a BMW yet, but according to them it is recommended for some BMW applications. I can get it for 6.50 a qt, so it may be another good option for ZF units. The previous M1 formulations have worked well in units calling for Dexron fluids, and most recently, MerconV apps in domestic units.
I would think in most apps 50k would be a real piece of cake in a ZF trans. Especially with a syn fluid.
I can't see ZF being that much harder on fluid than any other manual trans. Is it under warranty?
I can't see ZF being that much harder on fluid than any other manual trans. Is it under warranty?
Manual trans' are easy on all fluids. I think he's talking about ZF automatic transmissions as per the thread.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked