Dexron III made anymore?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some reports that Dex VI is not the best for older trans's. I don't necessarily buy that, but I just used the Chevron MD3 when I changed out the fluid in my 1993 Jimmy. Chevron is a solid mfgr of fluids, so you can't miss going with it. Bottle says it's iso processed, so it's not junk grp I fluid. Probably grp II+. Fairly cheap too.
 
I was going to use the Dex VI in my 1987 and older GM 2004R trans that have previous run on Dex 3 and Mercon 5. Any reason not to?
 
Originally Posted By: Chero87
Are there any advantages of the Dex VI over Dex III, anything that would make a 200K transmission perform any better?

Any input on thise "high mileage" ATF's?


I'm running Dex VI in a 200k FWD transmission right now, and a mechanic friend was floored at just how incredibly quick yet silky smooth it shifts. Best it's ever shifted, in fact.

Just going by the specs, Dex VI is a major performance improvement over Dex III(H). Anyone saying otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. I'm not going to comment on the claims of the various universal fluids, some of which may very well be engineered to exceed Dex III specs.

But if it calls for Dex III, GM insists that Dex VI will work fine in it. Otherwise, they wouldn't have retired the license.
 
Been running Castrol Dexron VI in my 95 bmw 525i for the last 10,000 or so miles. No problems. It is a French made GM trany that originally speced Dexron II.

My previous changes were Dexron III. The last change previous to Dexton VI I used Mobil 1 synthetic Dexron III with excellent results. I have about 157,000 miles on the car.
 
Last edited:
What about makes that aren't GM, but spec Dex II or Dex III, is there any reason not use use Dex VI in them.

My Yota specs Dex II, and of course I have been using Dex III, but if Dex VI is going to be an even better fluid for it, I am happy to use it, but the last thing I need is it to cause a problem.
 
Originally Posted By: onion
Whitewolf, our local Dex VI expert, told me that the seal compatibility issue that they're referring to isn't a big deal and that the same issue existed with Dex III. No details beyond that, so take that it for what it's worth.

Maybe Whitewolf will grace us with his presence and elaborate?


Hi Onion,
Sorry I missed your post. I don't really want to get into a discussion about politics ... but basically the issue seems to be one that I've experienced before. In my experience, every time an OEM introduces a new fluid and starts testing, they start looking for things they never looked for before ... so, they find things and then of course it's the fault of the new fluid! If you want more information about the whole TranSynd deal, go onto the Trucker's Forum there's some very interesting information!
 
Originally Posted By: Chero87
Are there any advantages of the Dex VI over Dex III, anything that would make a 200K transmission perform any better?

Any input on thise "high mileage" ATF's?


The simple answer to your question is, yes, vastly improved durability with DEXRON-VI compared to the old DEXRON-III but I see that VolvoHead has already done an admirable job in replying to your query!

Not quite sure what you mean by 'high mileage ATFs' but my recommendation is to stick to whatever the OEM recommends, oil is cheap, transmissions are expensive!
 
Originally Posted By: caprice_2nv
I was going to use the Dex VI in my 1987 and older GM 2004R trans that have previous run on Dex 3 and Mercon 5. Any reason not to?


Quite simply, NO!
 
Originally Posted By: Chero87
What about makes that aren't GM, but spec Dex II or Dex III, is there any reason not use use Dex VI in them.

My Yota specs Dex II, and of course I have been using Dex III, but if Dex VI is going to be an even better fluid for it, I am happy to use it, but the last thing I need is it to cause a problem.


This is a little more difficult, because in theory the answer should be 'yes' in view of the fact that DEXRON-VI replaces DEXRON-III and earlier specs. BUT ... you have to remember that GM (and other OEMs that do this) test only in their own equipment so it doesn't necessarily mean that it is back-compatible with existing control systems, calibrations, friction materials etc. that are used by other OEMs. Not a very good answer, I know, it's just that there's no data (as far as I know) to support it. If it was me, I'd use DEXRON-VI but it's your transmission and your money!!!!
a050.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Big Jim
That would be a yesno.

Companies still make a fluid that they claim "meets the requirements of" or "for use where Dexron III is specified" so in that manner, yes.

General Motors no longer licenses Dexron III so technically it no longer exists. In that manner, no.


You are spot-on!
 
Originally Posted By: dorkiedoode
i wouldn't use it yet... yota atf not working for you?


Why wouldn't you use it yet? The bottle says it is OK to use in applications that call for Dexron III. What do you know that Mobil doesn't?
 
Originally Posted By: yummy88
So it is ok to use Mobil 1 ATF for my 97 Toyota that requires Dexron III? Or should I go for Dexron IV

Am confused!


Technically, Dex VI should work fine as a replacement for Dex III. It has only improved transmission performance wherever I've used it. It certainly shouldn't cause any fluid-related problems.

But the only way to know for sure is to change it over and drive it. If the shift quality is adversely changed in any way, then promptly change back to a III or a suitable universal fluid.

Do yourself a favor and ARX the box 1500 miles before any changeover. You won't be condemning a new fluid for deposit-related troubles.
 
Originally Posted By: yummy88
So it is ok to use Mobil 1 ATF for my 97 Toyota that requires Dexron III? Or should I go for Dexron IV

Am confused!


I didn't mean to confuse you but the problem is that many companies market products that claim 'DEXRON-III' ~ however, how do you know what they are? The simple answer is, that you don't. Anyone can claim any weasley words that imply that they meet 'DEXRON-III' but there's no way of finding out what that means.

The original DEXRON-III specification was introduced in 1994, since then there have been several upgrades ... so when people now use weasel words to claim that they meet (somehow) 'DEXRON-III' what is it that they're really saying? The original DEXRON-III, or IIIG or IIIH??? Nobody knows! Or would they even meet any one of the previous DEXRON-III specifications? This is where, in my opinion, Mobil 1 ATF resides ... whereas, in the case of DEXRON-VI, you at least have the guarantee of knowing what it is and how it performs because of strict OEM policing.

No wonder you're confused!!!

In theory, if Toyota specified DEXRON-III, then you would reasonably assume that DEXRON-VI would be equally useable ~ but since it has not been tested by Toyota (as far as I know) there is no data to support that. So you should be confused, and I can't give you a simple answer!
 
Quote:
In theory, if Toyota specified DEXRON-III, then you would reasonably assume that DEXRON-VI would be equally useable ~ but since it has not been tested by Toyota (as far as I know) there is no data to support that. So you should be confused, and I can't give you a simple answer!


Well if we assume that Toyota tested Dexron-VI in Toyota trannys that require Dex-II or Dex-III, and they do not recommend it. Which ATF should be used in this case Whitewolf?
 
Originally Posted By: Footpounds
Originally Posted By: dorkiedoode
i wouldn't use it yet... yota atf not working for you?


Why wouldn't you use it yet? The bottle says it is OK to use in applications that call for Dexron III. What do you know that Mobil doesn't?


Originally Posted By: Whitewolf

In theory, if Toyota specified DEXRON-III, then you would reasonably assume that DEXRON-VI would be equally useable ~ but since it has not been tested by Toyota (as far as I know) there is no data to support that. So you should be confused, and I can't give you a simple answer!


that part about toyota not testing it yet..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom