ATF Differences?

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted by Gebo
Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by dlundblad
The best way to get a 1 size fits all ATF for your fleet is to buy based on ATF specs. It sounds good, but the research and gamble is a hassle IMO.

For me, different cars mean different fluids. I have a fluids shelf in the garage. Wifey knows what's for her car if it's ever needed and I'm not around.

I agree. I'm not a fan of anything that's universal or works for multiple makes of vehicles. I don't care how good the reputation is of the company making the fluid. Transmissions aren't cheap.


Agreed. Especially if you keep cars as long as I do.

LOL I have a 1988 in the fleet still going strong, and I have no intentions of getting rid of it.

 

[Gebo]

Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by Gebo
Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by dlundblad
The best way to get a 1 size fits all ATF for your fleet is to buy based on ATF specs. It sounds good, but the research and gamble is a hassle IMO.

For me, different cars mean different fluids. I have a fluids shelf in the garage. Wifey knows what's for her car if it's ever needed and I'm not around.

I agree. I'm not a fan of anything that's universal or works for multiple makes of vehicles. I don't care how good the reputation is of the company making the fluid. Transmissions aren't cheap.


Agreed. Especially if you keep cars as long as I do.

LOL I have a 1988 in the fleet still going strong, and I have no intentions of getting rid of it.


I have no intentions of even buying another car.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted by Gebo
I have no intentions of even buying another car.

I plan on going through a few more. 10 years / 200k might not be much these days but NH road salt sure is. At some point you wonder if there isn't some crossing of curves, some level of ignoring problems so as to save a buck, and just letting it go with a minimum of fuss--versus maintaining to the extreme so as to obtain the lowest TCO. Curves for the effort expended and the TCO plotted against time. Depends on one's frustration and effort level I guess.

Plus it can be fun getting a new (or new to me) vehicle and going through it to get it up to snuff. Each time I've gotten a new (or newer) vehicle I've had a different set of plans and goals to accomplish.

 

[bulwnkl]

Originally Posted by dave1251
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.aftonchemical.com/Afton/media/PdfFiles/Product/Driveline%2520Additives/HiTEC-4006_PDS.pdf%3Fext%3D.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwir3cKozerpAhW1HjQIHf61AFw4FBAWMAB6BAgGEAE&usg=AOvVaw3qzvAIRYY65mqapqkPBY4W

I guess ATF'S are so different because one fluid is formally certified MOPAR, DEXRON, JASO, and ZF.


That's a very interesting document from Afton.

I notice that it claims both "Formal Approval" and "Suitable for Use" for the MOPAR +4 spec. Those two things seem mutually exclusive, don't they?

 

[dave1251]

I agree but this is from a company who states there is no such thing as a muti-vehicle AFT which not only formulated one they actually went out and received formal approvals for mutiple ATF licenses with the one ATF. But the members who disagree mutil-vehicle ATF's can not be as good or better than OEM recommended will not read this or will ignore it.

 

[Gebo]

Originally Posted by dave1251
I agree but this is from a company who states there is no such thing as a muti-vehicle AFT which not only formulated one they actually went out and received formal approvals for mutiple ATF licenses with the one ATF. But the members who disagree mutil-vehicle ATF's can not be as good or better than OEM recommended will not read this or will ignore it.


Not exactly correct. I read it AND I'll ignore it.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by Gebo
Originally Posted by dave1251
I agree but this is from a company who states there is no such thing as a muti-vehicle AFT which not only formulated one they actually went out and received formal approvals for mutiple ATF licenses with the one ATF. But the members who disagree mutil-vehicle ATF's can not be as good or better than OEM recommended will not read this or will ignore it.


Not exactly correct. I read it AND I'll ignore it.

Why? Even Aisin Warner licenses a muti-vehicle AFT for your Toyota's with the same suitiable for recommended for not only is the recommendations for AW products it's also for DEXRON, MERCON, Volvo, ZF and many more including modern 3309 but no formal OEM licenses. This is the company who designed and supplied the transmissions to Toyota. So when the actual manufacturer of the transmission states the fluid is suitable for or recommended the belief mutil-vehicle ATF's the belief should be shattered.

So not only are blenders and additive companies producing mutil-vehicle ATF's which formal approvals and licenses at least the largest OEM transmission manufacturer is licensing a muti-vehicle ATF's. In short what you have in the garage isn't special or unique.

 

[Gebo]

I guess this is where we choose to disagree. I don't figure we are gonna reconcile on this issue. I do respect your opinion.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by Gebo
I guess this is where we choose to disagree. I don't figure we are gonna reconcile on this issue. I do respect your opinion.

I respect you sticking to your guns. But even when the OE states their fluid is suitable for its own transmission this makes a very profound statement IMO.

 

[Gebo]

I've been called quite a few things but "profound" is a new one. I must say I resemble that remark.

 

[bbhero]

Dave I believe that Mercon LV and Dexron VI are very likely very similar in composition. Which then opens the proverbial door to the very real possibility that a fluid could possibly meet more specs than just those two.. .

Kind of like a CVT fluid that meets Nissan NS-2 or NS-3 can be used in a Honda CVT or Subaru CVT equipped vehicle.

One thing of note though... There are some transmissions that need a different fluid than Mercon LV or Dexron VI.... And that is due to a different additive package that is truly needed... In those transmissions it would be best to stay with a fluid that is known to have the exact same additive package as the OE fill.

Kind of like the difference between a regular CVT transmission fluid vs a torriodial CVT transmission...
And I'd bet good money the main difference between those types of CVT fluids is the additive packages.

 

[bulwnkl]

Originally Posted by dave1251
I agree but this is from a company who states there is no such thing as a muti-vehicle AFT which not only formulated one they actually went out and received formal approvals for mutiple ATF licenses with the one ATF.


I was not aware that Afton claimed there is no such thing as a multi-vehicle ATF. They strike me as a company who has been very active in developing multi-vehicle ATF additive systems. Afton, or their engineers, have published papers for many years now which support the notion of multi-vehicle ATFs.

OTOH, I stopped looking some years ago, so _maybe_ OEMs' fluids have trended apart over time? That seems very unlikely in general, though possible in specific instances.

To me, the notion of multi-vehicle ATFs is reasonable, and the research I have seen suggests it is entirely do-able, to one extent or another. The only bother for me is that the marketers don't (can't?) actually _show_ their fluid's performance against most of the various standards. In the case of the Asians, that's mainly because they don't publish their specs. Perhaps they don't even _have_ specs. If they won't publish them, it's hard to tell. As far as I'm concerned, that's a flagrant case of ignoring MMWA, but no ones seems terribly interested in addressing that directly.

OR, maybe they do have specs, the additive companies or fluid marketers have paid a big fee to get them, and so they know that the fluids are mostly super-similar and their multi-vehicle ATFs work well.

OR, maybe it's something else.

None of this does anything to clear up the point at issue in the thread, does it?
(-:

 

[demarpaint]

I look at it this way, for about $5 or so on sale I can buy quarts of Castrol ATF+4 and know it is the correct fluid for both my Jeeps. Win win for me, and I'm not gambling with info I found on the internet. Having said that I did run Maxlife ATF in a 2000 Buick Century w/o issue, but I wouldn't use it in my Jeeps.

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by demarpaint
I look at it this way, for about $5 or so on sale I can buy quarts of Castrol ATF+4 and know it is the correct fluid for both my Jeeps. Win win for me, and I'm not gambling with info I found on the internet. Having said that I did run Maxlife ATF in a 2000 Buick Century w/o issue, but I wouldn't use it in my Jeeps.



Ohh yeah I agree... Knowing for sure it's right matters... And for $5 a qt... That's a good deal....

Vs me paying $12.49 a qt for CVT transmission fluid... That is a very good deal compared to $22 a qt for CVT fluid from a dealership

And again I believe that Dexron VI and Mercon LV are likely very similar in composition... And that other transmission fluids are likely close to those two has well.

If I'm thinking right... The ATF +4 fluid is definitely different vs Dexron VI or Dexron III...

 

[Gebo]

Originally Posted by bulwnkl
..,None of this does anything to clear up the point at issue in the thread, does it?
(-:


Nope.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by bbhero
Dave I believe that Mercon LV and Dexron VI are very likely very similar in composition. Which then opens the proverbial door to the very real possibility that a fluid could possibly meet more specs than just those two.. .

Kind of like a CVT fluid that meets Nissan NS-2 or NS-3 can be used in a Honda CVT or Subaru CVT equipped vehicle.

One thing of note though... There are some transmissions that need a different fluid than Mercon LV or Dexron VI.... And that is due to a different additive package that is truly needed... In those transmissions it would be best to stay with a fluid that is known to have the exact same additive package as the OE fill.

Kind of like the difference between a regular CVT transmission fluid vs a torriodial CVT transmission...
And I'd bet good money the main difference between those types of CVT fluids is the additive packages.



The Afton example is approved more than DEXRON VI and MERCON LV. It holds ATF+4, ZF, JASO approvals. The AW Mutil-vehicle is licensed by AW and it's recommended for AW transmissions plus just about every major GM descendant under the sun.

Even being the OE for the transmission it's not licensed for its own transmission. Likely AW doesn't want to share revenue with Toyota.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by Gebo
Originally Posted by bulwnkl
..,None of this does anything to clear up the point at issue in the thread, does it?
(-:


Nope.

It perfectly does. In a traditional AT the requirements are so close a single fluid can obtain approvals for mutiple OE's. The whole issues is so moot even a OE recommends a mutil-vehicle fluid with no approvals for it's own transmissions.

 

[bbhero]

You have stated what I said in my first paragraph there.



I do believe though there are other transmissions where there is a difference in form and materials utilized and why they necessitate a truly different transmission fluid in them due to needing different additive packages.


Just like the regular CVT transmission vs a torriodial CVT...

Regular CVT fluid IS not fir universal in torriodial CVT transmissions... I'd bet good money the difference is additive package between those two types of CVTs.