Approved vs Reccomended vs Suitable ?

[David1]

For Instance reccomened and suitable and approved. I think approved means they just paid the license fees. However personally I would rather have something recommended then just suitable.

What do you think? B/c THE VALVOLINE MAXLIFE Is just suitable for HONDA AT and there where the Castrol Multi Import is recommended...

Transmax Full Synthetic Multi-vehicle ATF is only suitable.. but look at bottom.

Then I read Valvoline Max Life ATF and I KNOW that Valvoline Max Life ATF is a very respected ATF here on this forum. Now you will see the wording gets weird.

Now Remember both above are FULL SYN... now read for VALVOLINE MAXLIFE ATF

Now the Castrol Multi Import that is NOT FULL SYN

However the Castrol Multi Import is the only one that says recommended


So what is better, a product approved or a product recommended or a product that is just plain suitable ???

 

[Oil Changer]

I learned the hard way that Valvoline will NOT stand behind their products. Leave that MaxJunk on the shelf to rot.

 

[salv]

Keep in mind it is recommended by Castrol, not the manufacturer of any of the makes that they mention. It does not carry any manufacturer approvals.
In this case, "recommended" and "suitable for use in..." mean the same thing.
If you want something that carries a manufacturer's approval, buy OEM fluid.

 

[Boomer]

Castrol is way out of date for Nissan. Matic J was superseded by Matic S several years ago. Makes me wonder how out of synch they are on other items.

 

[Wilhelm_D]

Originally Posted By: David1
For Instance reccomened and suitable and approved. I think approved means they just paid the license fees. However personally I would rather have something recommended then just suitable.

This discussion is highly related to the other thread "Expert- what is the real difference between ATFs?".

"Approved" means that it has passed whatever approval process that the specification originator provided and can bear the "approval" that it has done so. This varies from specification originator to originator. For example, Dexron approval involved performing certain tests and providing the results. Chrysler's ATF+4 requires a formal process which includes buying the additive package from the approved supplier so that every ATF+4 is basically indistinguishable chemically and physically.

"Recommended" means the lubricant maker believes that the product will work in an application for which the manufacturer has provided one or more specifications. This recommendation can be based on field test results, on examination of specifications, or on wishful thinking.

An example of a recommended ATF would be the entire Red Line synthetic automatic transmission fluid lineup.

Because the frictional characteristics and visometric properties of ATFs change over time, and thanks to "universal" ATF additive packages developed by the major additive manufacturers, it's possible to get one ATF to perform reasonably well in multiple environments.

 

[demarpaint]

I like Maxlife ATF a lot in my GM application, but I would stick with something from Honda or the Castrol product in your Honda. Honda transmissions can be a little touchy IMO.

 

[RF Overlord]

^^^what Wilhelm_D said^^^

"Approved" is obvious..."recommended for" and "suitable for" are the same thing and carry very little weight with me.

 

[Rolla07]

Originally Posted By: salv
Keep in mind it is recommended by Castrol, not the manufacturer of any of the makes that they mention. It does not carry any manufacturer approvals.
In this case, "recommended" and "suitable for use in..." mean the same thing.
If you want something that carries a manufacturer's approval, buy OEM fluid.


+1..considering price isnt much more, I'd stick with OEM.

 

[Sayjac]

Imo fwiw, the terms 'recommended' for and 'suitable' for, is a matter semantics. I take that to be nothing more than a different term used by a different company in this case, Valvoline versus Castrol. To me though, I'd have equal confidence with either term and consider the meaning to be equal as regards the specifications.

Otoh, approved/approval in general terms would indicate getting/having the acceptance of some outside manufacturer eg., GM etc.

Also, ML has relatively recently added DW1 to it's suitable for spec list.

 

[David1]

Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
I learned the hard way that Valvoline will NOT stand behind their products. Leave that MaxJunk on the shelf to rot.


What about Valvoline OIL??

Also what do you think of Castrol ATF???

Personally for my Honda I have only used ATF Z1 and DW-1

However one time i took the cooler hose off and filled with Castol Multi Import while the Hose was dumping all the dirty junk out.

Then drove a week then ever since then I have done 3 drain and fills with HONDA GENUINE DW-1 or Z1 back in the day.

I have 182K miles on my Honda and it shifts very well,

However I do sorta like Valvoline Maxlife oil.

But Im starting to like Pennzoil b/c Pennzoil Syn Blend is 50% Synthetic

and I have sent emails to Valvoline and Castrol and Quaker State and other brands that sell blended syn oil and asked them what the ratio was and some did not respond and a few send a mumbo jumbo email saying it was a company secret and something about Trademarks and the addative package mumbo jumbo and I would respond and say all I want to know is when I buy 1 Quart of your brand of Blended Syn / Convental oil. How much oil is Synthetic and how much is Convential and I would paste then how Pennzoil made it public.

For instance Amsoil has a video on You tube saying never trust Blended oil and the guy says that they can use a tea spoon of the lowest grade syn base oil then use regular oil then they can sell it as syn blend... and make a huge profit. However when I pasted and showed him Pennzoil Syn Blend he really changed his tune and I respect Amsoil for that.

Sorry Im off topic

 

[David1]

Originally Posted By: Rolla07
Originally Posted By: salv
Keep in mind it is recommended by Castrol, not the manufacturer of any of the makes that they mention. It does not carry any manufacturer approvals.
In this case, "recommended" and "suitable for use in..." mean the same thing.
If you want something that carries a manufacturer's approval, buy OEM fluid.


+1..considering price isnt much more, I'd stick with OEM.


Thats how I feel, but then i talk to people who have a HIGH MILAGE Tranny that is acting funny and or as a small leak..... and they swear the maxlife helps.

However as 1 person said.. with HONDA and with HONDA AT being very picky on what ATF you use I at least feel its best to use OEM.

Plus I saw MaxLIFE ATF for 9.69 a QT at AUTOZONE.... and Castrol Import Muilti Vehicle was like $9.00 a Quart also.

I wonder what the dealer charges.. I would say probably about the same.

I cant see the dealer chargeing 10$ a quart

however they did charge me 85 cents for the Oil plug washer for the oil plug when I bought my oil filter from them..

the A02

I saw the bill and I was like 80 cents for this?????????????

LOL they must make huge $ on them

I wish I could sell them all day for 80 cents.... I would be rich.

lol

 

[Doog]

I only use fluids on the "vehicle manufacturers" approved list.

 

[Ken2]

Quote:
I think approved means they just paid the license fees.
More than just that. In some cases the newer fluids are a lower viscosity, so no ATF can meet both Dexron-III and Dexron-VI specs, for one example. Yet, a single near-universal fluid can be "recommended" for transmissions that use both. (Yes, I know that many transmissions that used to use Dex-III are now certified for Dex-VI, but not all.) There are other specs that cannot be met to licensing standards, but are still probably close enough for these multi-vehicle fluids.

 

[asand1]

Originally Posted By: Ken2
More than just that. In some cases the newer fluids are a lower viscosity, so no ATF can meet both Dexron-III and Dexron-VI specs, for one example. Yet, a single near-universal fluid can be "recommended" for transmissions that use both. (Yes, I know that many transmissions that used to use Dex-III are now certified for Dex-VI, but not all.) There are other specs that cannot be met to licensing standards, but are still probably close enough for these multi-vehicle fluids.


According to GM and Mobil oil, Dexron VI is backwards compatible for all GM transmissions calling for any Dexron derivative.

Originally Posted By: Mobil
Mobil DEXRON-VI ATF is a high performance, synthetic blend formulation that meets or exceeds the stringent requirements of GM's DEXRON-VI specification and provides warranty protection for 2006 and newer GM vehicles. It also provides improved performance in older GM vehicles, wherever DEXRON is specified.


http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_Dexron-VI_ATF.aspx

IF GM and Mobil Say that a single fluid is acceptable in both DexIII and DexVI (as well as Dex, DexII, DexIII and DexIV), then why cant Valvoline and Castrol claim the same about a multi vehicle ATF?

I think people are just OEM fanboys and too afraid to use an aftermarket that in all likelihood ecxeeds OEM.

Personally I will be draining the Dex VI in my wife's Uplander for Maxlife Dex/Merc. The ONLY purpose as far as I can tell for low vis DexVI is for meeting CAFE standards, and likely performs poorer than DexIII anyway.

 

[lomez]

Here's how I understand it. The BIGGEST difference is that:

Dexron is a registered trademark of GM
Mercon is a registered trademark of Ford
T-IV is a registered trademark of Toyota
ATF+4 is a registered trademark of Chrysler

......to use those marks, or to even say "approved by" or to use the actual trade-name on the label.....you have to pay BIG BIG BIG BIG $$$$$$$$$ to GM or Ford or whoever. And you also pay per quart sold. So, oil companies will say "recommended by ________" (insert oil company there) "to replace _________" (insert trade name there). That way, THEY are saying it can be used in place of whatever, but they are not claiming to meet the approvals of that trade name.

I think the auto manufactures make more $$$$ through their licensing than they do selling cars.