ENEOS Import Model S CVT Fluid

[Adkcedarman]

For anyone who may also be wondering - i hope this helps.

I’ve been searching since purchase of my 2021 Subaru Crosstrek, for a compatible third party CVT Fluid that specifically states compatibility with Subaru’s CVTF-iii, as some TR580 transmissions spec for CVTF-ii and others spec CVTF-iii.

Sure, there are broad application fluids like Amsoil, Redline, Valvoline etc that claim compatibility. I have been seeking something more OEM spec oriented however, like Idemitsu SB2 for CVTF-ii, but they do not have a CVTF-iii variant.

I found while digging that ENEOS (Japan’s largest lubrication manufacturer and primary supplier of Japanese vehicle OEM fluids) has an Import line specifically made to meet OEM spec of Asian import vehicles, like Nissan, Subaru, Honda, etc. Their Model S line is for Subaru, and the product data sheet specifically states it is compatible with CVTF-ii and CVTF-iii. The bottle labels and packaging as well as main product page do not say this however, which led to some uncertainty.

I finally received a response from the company, and am pleased to make it clear for anyone else who has been searching for a better than “broad multivehicle CVTF” fluid for their Subaru CVT, that ENEOS Import Model S is fully compatible with Subaru CVTF-ii and iii. Please see the ENEOS response i received today. I’m sure this will be helpful when folks like myself over the years, search the web looking for something like Idemitsu SB2 provided for CVTF-ii when for so long there has been no specific CVTF-iii OEM Spec fluid available.

The PDS is available here: https://www.eneos.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/PDS-of-ENEOS-Import-Series-Ver.05192026.pdf


“AdkCedarMan,
Thank you for your patience. We apologize that we didn't get back you sooner.

Regarding your inquiry about the compatibility, thank you for bringing this to our attention. We appreciate you taking the time to point this out.

We apologize for any confusion or inconvenience caused by the outdated documentation.

The formulation of Import CVT Fluid Model S has not changed. The product has always been formulated to be compatible with Subaru CVTF-III (Lineartronic III), and we have been selling the same formulation throughout.

The recent update was made to the Product Data Sheet only. The documentation had not been updated to reflect the full compatibility of the product, and the revised PDS now clarifies compatibility with Subaru CVTF-III.

Likewise, the bottle label has not yet been updated and therefore still references CVTF-II only. This is a documentation and labeling update rather than a change to the product itself.

Since there has been no formulation change, there is no manufacturing date or batch code that distinguishes a "CVTF-III-compatible" version from earlier production. All production of Import CVT Fluid Model S has been manufactured using the same formulation and is compatible with Subaru CVTF-III.

Regarding part numbers 3074-300 and 3074-301, they contain the same formulation. The difference between these part numbers is related to the SKU, -300 represents 1 qt bottle, while -301 represents 1 case (1qt*12).

Thank you for your understanding. Please let me know if you have any questions.


Shunsuke “Shun” Kuniyuki
General Manager of ENEOS Aftermarket, ENEOS USA Inc.
20 N. Martingale Rd. Suite 325, Schaumburg, IL 60173
Email: [email protected]”

 

[martinq]

Sounds like another quality CVTF to add to the list? Do you have a link to a PDS?

 

[Adkcedarman]

Sounds like another quality CVTF to add to the list? Do you have a link to a PDS?

Sure do! The import Model S is specifically for Subaru, but they have an ECO CVT line that is a multivehicle CVTF also compatible with CVTF-ii but not iii.

https://www.eneos.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/PDS-of-ENEOS-Import-Series-Ver.05192026.pdf

 

[DCDG]

For anyone who may also be wondering - i hope this helps.

I’ve been searching since purchase of my 2021 Subaru Crosstrek, for a compatible third party CVT Fluid that specifically states compatibility with Subaru’s CVTF-iii, as some TR580 transmissions spec for CVTF-ii and others spec CVTF-iii.

Sure, there are broad application fluids like Amsoil, Redline, Valvoline etc that claim compatibility. I have been seeking something more OEM spec oriented however, like Idemitsu SB2 for CVTF-ii, but they do not have a CVTF-iii variant.

I found while digging that ENEOS (Japan’s largest lubrication manufacturer and primary supplier of Japanese vehicle OEM fluids) has an Import line specifically made to meet OEM spec of Asian import vehicles, like Nissan, Subaru, Honda, etc. Their Model S line is for Subaru, and the product data sheet specifically states it is compatible with CVTF-ii and CVTF-iii. The bottle labels and packaging as well as main product page do not say this however, which led to some uncertainty.

I finally received a response from the company, and am pleased to make it clear for anyone else who has been searching for a better than “broad multivehicle CVTF” fluid for their Subaru CVT, that ENEOS Import Model S is fully compatible with Subaru CVTF-ii and iii. Please see the ENEOS response i received today. I’m sure this will be helpful when folks like myself over the years, search the web looking for something like Idemitsu SB2 provided for CVTF-ii when for so long there has been no specific CVTF-iii OEM Spec fluid available.

The PDS is available here: https://www.eneos.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/PDS-of-ENEOS-Import-Series-Ver.05192026.pdf


“AdkCedarMan,
Thank you for your patience. We apologize that we didn't get back you sooner.

Regarding your inquiry about the compatibility, thank you for bringing this to our attention. We appreciate you taking the time to point this out.

We apologize for any confusion or inconvenience caused by the outdated documentation.

The formulation of Import CVT Fluid Model S has not changed. The product has always been formulated to be compatible with Subaru CVTF-III (Lineartronic III), and we have been selling the same formulation throughout.

The recent update was made to the Product Data Sheet only. The documentation had not been updated to reflect the full compatibility of the product, and the revised PDS now clarifies compatibility with Subaru CVTF-III.

Likewise, the bottle label has not yet been updated and therefore still references CVTF-II only. This is a documentation and labeling update rather than a change to the product itself.

Since there has been no formulation change, there is no manufacturing date or batch code that distinguishes a "CVTF-III-compatible" version from earlier production. All production of Import CVT Fluid Model S has been manufactured using the same formulation and is compatible with Subaru CVTF-III.

Regarding part numbers 3074-300 and 3074-301, they contain the same formulation. The difference between these part numbers is related to the SKU, -300 represents 1 qt bottle, while -301 represents 1 case (1qt*12).

Thank you for your understanding. Please let me know if you have any questions.


Shunsuke “Shun” Kuniyuki
General Manager of ENEOS Aftermarket, ENEOS USA Inc.
20 N. Martingale Rd. Suite 325, Schaumburg, IL 60173
Email: [email protected]”

ENEOS and Idemitsu are going to be closest to mothers milk for OEM matched CVT fluid.

 

[GSCJR]

Same with Aisin CVT fluid (ATF-SCV).

 

[Pablo]

OTOH this tells us there is no (not huge) difference for the (between) CVTF-ii and CVTF-iii.

Another good argument for using a good synthetic CVT fluid.

 

[Adkcedarman]

OTOH this tells us there is no (not huge) difference for the (between) CVTF-ii and CVTF-iii.

Another good argument for using a good synthetic CVT fluid.

That’s a theory, yes, but given it’s been over five years Subaru has been very clear not to use CVTF-ii in a CVTF-iii spec transmission, and technicians as well as shops have parroted the sentiment, I find it foolhardy to claim blanket statement that they are so similar they must be interchangeable to close enough that any “multi vehicle” CVTF will do just fine.

From what I have found over the years, it seems Subaru tweaked the viscosity and friction modifiers after some of the valve body and solenoid issues pre - 2020, and the fluid change was significant enough that they made it clear to not use anything but CVTF-iii and Subaru master techs have agreed and continued that sentiment for years.

More accurate would be that Eneos developed a OEM specific replacement fluid to replace CVTF-ii and it is more robust or exceeds those requirements, and after 5 years post-CVTF-iii release they were comfortable verifying it is compatible with CVTF-iii also.

It’s great that multi vehicle fluids exist, and for traditional ATFs it’s probably not that big of a deal. Fire CVTs which have a variety of friction requirements from traditional belt to steel belt, torque converter to no torque converter, etc - I doubt it’s as straightforward. In principle, I will always prefer something at near attempting to be matching OE specs, over something made to supposedly meet the bare minimum requirements of 30+ models. There’s simply a higher likelihood of optimal compatibility when a fluid is designed for and around the requirements and specs of one vehicle rather than trying to keep R&D sans inventory down by making a “multi vehicle” juice that can’t possibly be as accurately matched to every vehicle’a friction modifier package and viscosity etc as it could for one or a few vehicles.

For Subaru however, it’s a very unique design and calibration of hardware not really similar to anything else in the market, and staying close to the MFG specs of viscosity friction modifiers matters. For instance, Amsoil is nearly 30% higher viscosity which I have a hard time believing is not an issue at -15f in northern winters, especially since there is indication that Subaru specifically spec’d lower viscosity after the prior issues with CVTF-ii. For what it’s worth, possibly anecdotal, overall issues with the TR580 and TR690 have decreased substantially since those fluid and calibration changes were made.

I don’t hate on Amsoil or Valvoline, Redline, etc for making these multi vehicle claims, and I see there is good feedback from users so clearly they are all robust fluids that can work - I’m simply not convinced that a blend made for 30+ vehicles is going to be the best for a very specific vehicle like a Subaru.

 

[kschachn]

One also needs to be careful not to give excessive importance to “they make the fluid” for the transmission. No VOA on here has ever shown those aftermarket fluids to be identical or even all that close to the OEM. It’s an aftermarket fluid and that’s the bottom line.

“Marketed for” is a better description than “designed for”. Not that it matters to me but just because a blender may happen to blend an aftermarket fluid for the OEM doesn’t make it better.

 

[kschachn]

I don’t hate on Amsoil or Valvoline, Redline, etc for making these multi vehicle claims, and I see there is good feedback from users so clearly they are all robust fluids that can work - I’m simply not convinced that a blend made for 30+ vehicles is going to be the best for a very specific vehicle like a Subaru.

There is no real indication that this is true.

Marketing at its best.

 

[Pablo]

That’s a theory, yes, but given it’s been over five years Subaru has been very clear not to use CVTF-ii in a CVTF-iii spec transmission, and technicians as well as shops have parroted the sentiment, I find it foolhardy to claim blanket statement that they are so similar they must be interchangeable to close enough that any “multi vehicle” CVTF will do just fine.

From what I have found over the years, it seems Subaru tweaked the viscosity and friction modifiers after some of the valve body and solenoid issues pre - 2020, and the fluid change was significant enough that they made it clear to not use anything but CVTF-iii and Subaru master techs have agreed and continued that sentiment for years.

More accurate would be that Eneos developed a OEM specific replacement fluid to replace CVTF-ii and it is more robust or exceeds those requirements, and after 5 years post-CVTF-iii release they were comfortable verifying it is compatible with CVTF-iii also.

It’s great that multi vehicle fluids exist, and for traditional ATFs it’s probably not that big of a deal. Fire CVTs which have a variety of friction requirements from traditional belt to steel belt, torque converter to no torque converter, etc - I doubt it’s as straightforward. In principle, I will always prefer something at near attempting to be matching OE specs, over something made to supposedly meet the bare minimum requirements of 30+ models. There’s simply a higher likelihood of optimal compatibility when a fluid is designed for and around the requirements and specs of one vehicle rather than trying to keep R&D sans inventory down by making a “multi vehicle” juice that can’t possibly be as accurately matched to every vehicle’a friction modifier package and viscosity etc as it could for one or a few vehicles.

For Subaru however, it’s a very unique design and calibration of hardware not really similar to anything else in the market, and staying close to the MFG specs of viscosity friction modifiers matters. For instance, Amsoil is nearly 30% higher viscosity which I have a hard time believing is not an issue at -15f in northern winters, especially since there is indication that Subaru specifically spec’d lower viscosity after the prior issues with CVTF-ii. For what it’s worth, possibly anecdotal, overall issues with the TR580 and TR690 have decreased substantially since those fluid and calibration changes were made.

I don’t hate on Amsoil or Valvoline, Redline, etc for making these multi vehicle claims, and I see there is good feedback from users so clearly they are all robust fluids that can work - I’m simply not convinced that a blend made for 30+ vehicles is going to be the best for a very specific vehicle like a Subaru.

A couple things with this logic, first of all simplistically ENEOS is doing exactly that. Making an ii and iii fluid. I'm not saying it's easy, but it can be done. Some of this is exactly the same argument used for/against uni ATF's. "Friction", "FM"'s too different.

Then viscosity.......look at the ASTM D2983 -40°C numbers. Amsoil CVT is actual less viscous cold. And pour point near identical. Viscosity range so to speak is not an issue here because the CVT does not sense ambient or internal temperatures and adjust or change anything.

I do understand your overall logic, but I just contend no difference, and therefore chose an oil with better basestocks.

 

[Adkcedarman]

There is no real indication that this is true.

Marketing at its best.

So you’re agreeing, that a multi vehicle fluid cannot possibly be as ideally formulated for one of the 30 vehicles as it is for all 30?

 

[Adkcedarman]

A couple things with this logic, first of all simplistically ENEOS is doing exactly that. Making an ii and iii fluid. I'm not saying it's easy, but it can be done. Some of this is exactly the same argument used for/against uni ATF's. "Friction", "FM"'s too different.

Then viscosity.......look at the ASTM D2983 -40°C numbers. Amsoil CVT is actual less viscous cold. And pour point near identical. Viscosity range so to speak is not an issue here because the CVT does not sense ambient or internal temperatures and adjust or change anything.

I do understand your overall logic, but I just contend no difference, and therefore chose an oil with better basestocks.

Better base stocks is certainly important - even my limited knowledge is aware of this. My main argument against personally using a multi vehicle fluid, if I ranted too much above, is that based on probability alone I don’t see a reasonable possibility of a fluid claiming to meet or exceed a broad slew of transmission requirements also being somehow more capable than a fluid designed to meet two CVTF requirements such as CVTF -ii and iii.

I find it more plausible that the largest lubrication manufacturer and OEM lubricant supplier in Japan and much of the eastern world is more knowledgeable of Japanese vehicles and capable of matching an OEM spec fluid with more thorough testing and comparison than most other places in the world. Just like it’s more plausible that another massive tech mogul in Silicon Valley is going to have the ability to match and copy a certain piece of technology than a small company in Virginia can. There has also been implication that Eneos has access to Subaru’s internal requirements for their fluid because they have made OE fluids for them in the past and likely are given bid options for new fluid specs. Idemitsu won the CVTF-ii and some other Subaru CVTF bids a while back, but manufacturing agreements run out and new boys on the block get a chance to take over. I suspect the biggest player in lubrication in Japan has the ability to test for FMs and a lot more details in a fluid than a much smaller company can.

 

[kschachn]

So you’re agreeing, that a multi vehicle fluid cannot possibly be as ideally formulated for one of the 30 vehicles as it is for all 30?

There is no real indication that the OEM branded fluid is “ideally formulated” either. The OEM has multiple considerations in their fluid formulations, not all of which are mechanically “ideal”. Some are regulatory.

But no one got fired for buying IBM, so go for it.

 

[kschachn]

Better base stocks is certainly important - even my limited knowledge is aware of this. My main argument against personally using a multi vehicle fluid, if I ranted too much above, is that based on probability alone I don’t see a reasonable possibility of a fluid claiming to meet or exceed a broad slew of transmission requirements also being somehow more capable than a fluid designed to meet two CVTF requirements such as CVTF -ii and iii.

I find it more plausible that the largest lubrication manufacturer and OEM lubricant supplier in Japan and much of the eastern world is more knowledgeable of Japanese vehicles and capable of matching an OEM spec fluid with more thorough testing and comparison than most other places in the world. Just like it’s more plausible that another massive tech mogul in Silicon Valley is going to have the ability to match and copy a certain piece of technology than a small company in Virginia can. There has also been implication that Eneos has access to Subaru’s internal requirements for their fluid because they have made OE fluids for them in the past and likely are given bid options for new fluid specs. Idemitsu won the CVTF-ii and some other Subaru CVTF bids a while back, but manufacturing agreements run out and new boys on the block get a chance to take over. I suspect the biggest player in lubrication in Japan has the ability to test for FMs and a lot more details in a fluid than a much smaller company can.

You can believe whatever you wish but it may not be rooted in reality.

 

[Adkcedarman]

There is no real indication that the OEM branded fluid is “ideally formulated” either. The OEM has multiple considerations in their fluid formulations, not all of which are mechanically “ideal”. Some are regulatory.

But no one got fired for buying IBM, so go for it.

Haha fair point. It’s a funky maze to decipher between the reality that a manufacturer who invests billions of dollars in R&D should know better than anyone else what fluid should be optimal to protect the piece of equipment they manufactured, as well as remember that a lot of government and financial incentives also push them to lower friction for efficiency, cost decreases are real, etc.

All in all when OEM fluid shows 200k miles without issues in the majority of transmissions on a certain model, it’s a decent indicator that it’s fairly optimal. Until an aftermarket fluid matches or exceeds that anecdotal data set, I’m more hesitant is all.

 

[Adkcedarman]

You can believe whatever you wish but it may not be rooted in reality.

I notice you jump to curt sarcasm really fast with anyone you disagree with… lol. If anything reality is closer to what I described rather than blindly assuming that a small company can magically produce a more robust and qualified fluid for a transmission they’ve never disassembled than the designer and manufacturer of the transmission and fluid itself can.

 

[kschachn]

I notice you jump to curt sarcasm really fast with anyone you disagree with… lol. If anything reality is closer to what I described rather than blindly assuming that a small company can magically produce a more robust and qualified fluid for a transmission they’ve never disassembled than the designer and manufacturer of the transmission and fluid itself can.

Go for it. I just wanted others to know that the assumption you’re making is not blindly true. That’s all.