ENEOS Import Model S CVT Fluid

[Adkcedarman]

Many dealers refused to service because it’s “lifetime” fluid…..

Warranty can not be denied by use of aftermarket fluids unless it causes damage or the dealer provides the OEM fluid at no charge. They can also apply for a waiver. I actually called the FTC to make sure Jeep didn’t have one for the ZF8. They don’t.

Another thing dealers always do are upsell additives and flushes which is clearly stated in the manual not to do. So there’s really no enforcement.

Oh I know Magnussen Moss - but unfortunately the people who brag about it haven’t had to try and levy it successfully. Dealer usually wins.

 

[kschachn]

Oh I know Magnussen Moss - but unfortunately the people who brag about it haven’t had to try and levy it successfully. Dealer usually wins.

Have you ever actually experienced or seen someone lose? That’s an often-cited concern but we had a thread a while back on this and motor oil, and no one was able to give a personal example of it happening to them.

 

[GW.]

Oh I know Magnussen Moss - but unfortunately the people who brag about it haven’t had to try and levy it successfully. Dealer usually wins.

Actually the dealer rarely wins. I’ve been to two representing the dealer as the diagnosing tech. Arbitration is heavily weighted in the consumer’s favor. The number one reason people have a hard time is they don’t know about arbitration which is free for the consumer. 99% of the time as soon as a customer mentions filing for arbitration the dealer backs down.

 

[kschachn]

Another thing dealers always do are upsell additives and flushes which is clearly stated in the manual not to do. So there’s really no enforcement.

Some do. And when they do, this is a pretty clear “violation” of the owners manual. One of the VW dealers I go to for parts has signs marketing upsell products, and yet the owners manual clearly states that such things are not to be used.

 

[GW.]

I didn’t mean to high jack your thread. We don’t need any more warranty denial threads…

Good find with ENEOS! Many Subaru owners will thank you.

 

[Adkcedarman]

I didn’t mean to high jack your thread. We don’t need any more warranty denial threads…

Good find with ENEOS! Many Subaru owners will thank you.

No worries homie - it’s all good I know there are folks like myself who prefer to stay with OEM or a OEM spec (as close as can be to OEM) fluid for half the price, like this Eneos I paid $109 for 12qts instead of $20/qt for Subaru CVTF-iii. And there are plenty of folks who don’t care and will use any reputable brand that puts their brand and the word compatible on the bottle, which isn’t inherently a problem, just not convincing enough for me lol.

Your points are valid, no worries!

 

[GW.]

No worries homie - it’s all good I know there are folks like myself who prefer to stay with OEM or a OEM spec (as close as can be to OEM) fluid for half the price, like this Eneos I paid $109 for 12qts instead of $20/qt for Subaru CVTF-iii

Your points are valid, no worries!

That’s a win right there! Saving a bunch of money!

 

[martinq]

Is there a list somewhere of "Subaru CVT Fluids"? I'm always interested in alternatives that may offer better value.

 

[Adkcedarman]

Is there a list somewhere of "Subaru CVT Fluids"? I'm always interested in alternatives that may offer better value.

I mean, there’s this chart showing compatible fluids for Subaru vehicles that includes all the fluids they use.

 

[kschachn]

No worries homie - it’s all good I know there are folks like myself who prefer to stay with OEM or a OEM spec (as close as can be to OEM) fluid for half the price, like this Eneos I paid $109 for 12qts instead of $20/qt for Subaru CVTF-iii. And there are plenty of folks who don’t care and will use any reputable brand that puts their brand and the word compatible on the bottle, which isn’t inherently a problem, just not convincing enough for me lol.

Your points are valid, no worries!

How do you know this though? Where is the OEM spec and where is the Eneos spec?

 

[martinq]

I mean, there’s this chart showing compatible fluids for Subaru vehicles that includes all the fluids they use.

View attachment 351395

No, I mean suitable aftermarket fluids like those from Valvoline, Mobil, Pennzoil, Castrol, etc.

 

[Adkcedarman]

No, I mean suitable aftermarket fluids like those from Valvoline, Mobil, Pennzoil, Castrol, etc.

Oh I’m not sure such a list exists, but it would be nice if it did. The only ones I’m aware of that claim CVTF2 compatibility are Valvoline, Redline, Amsoil, for broad multi vehicle and Idemitsu SB2 for specific. I would assume Castrol and others claim CVTF2/3 compatibility as well. Oddly enough no third-party ATF or CVT fluid manufacturers were claiming CVTF3 compatibility up until the last year, which left folks like myself with only the $20/qt OEM fluid as an option for almost five years.

Amsoil and Redline now claim CVTF-iii compatibility, but I personally trust this less because they are such broad vehicle application fluids. That’s just me. Also, the price points of these boutique fluids is not much of an incentive. If I’m going to pay as much or more than the OEM fluid, it better be made specifically for my vehicle or at least my line of vehicles, not some one size fits all baseball hat fluid.

CVTF-iii specific/compatible fluid I am aware of is just Eneos Import Model S as of now.

 

[Adkcedarman]

How do you know this though? Where is the OEM spec and where is the Eneos spec?

I know you’re being sarcastic, atf ingredient lists are not shared by most manufacturers and cannot be as easily tested as engine oils can be through oil analysis. The primary things we don’t know are friction modifiers, but analysis can determine viscosities base oil formulation, and some ingredients, but there are other components that we cannot identify through your normal testing like we can with engine oil. So I can’t say that I KNOW that Eneos import model S is 100% identical to OEM CVTF-iii, but I simply stated I have much more confidence that the leading lubricant company and OEM supplier in Japan and much of the eastern world says it’s specifically formulated for Subaru CVTs, rather than a broad application fluid that’s meant to just barely meet the needs of dozens of different transmissions which have a large variation in internal components from belt design to clutch design, with or without torque converter, etc.

 

[kschachn]

I know you’re being sarcastic, atf ingredient lists are not shared by most manufacturers and cannot be as easily tested as engine oils can be through oil analysis. The primary things we don’t know are friction modifiers, but analysis can determine viscosities base oil formulation, and some ingredients, but there are other components that we cannot identify through your normal testing like we can with engine oil. So I can’t say that I KNOW that Eneos import model S is 100% identical to OEM CVTF-iii, but I simply stated I have much more confidence that the leading lubricant company and OEM supplier in Japan and much of the eastern world says it’s specifically formulated for Subaru CVTs, rather than a broad application fluid that’s meant to just barely meet the needs of dozens of different transmissions which have a large variation in internal components from belt design to clutch design, with or without torque converter, etc.

I am most certainly not being sarcastic. You made the claim that the Eneos was closest to the OEM specification and I wondered what the basis was for that claim.

Either way, it isn't about ingredients. Performance specifications aren't about composition but rather about performance. The means and methods to achieve the performance specification is left up to the blender. Sometimes there is a materials specification but I highly doubt that is the case here. You are correct that no cheap spectrographic analysis would come close to being some sort of substitute for a performance specification - especially here with this type of fluid. But neither does it give "ingredients". The only thing it shows are some of the bare elements decomposed from compounds.

So bottom line, as I noted before this is a speculation on your part, and as it turns out is based on no technical evidence. You say above that you don't know it, so why state it as if it were the truth?

And your claim above that other aftermarket fluids (which Eneos is) "barely meet the needs" is equally baseless. You have zero proof that it is the case or even remotely close. You imagine it, but you do not know it. Another statement made as fact but actually unknown.

Eneos is an aftermarket fluid. If you have confidence in them, fine. But you keep making sweeping generalized assumptions for which there is no technical justification.

 

[Adkcedarman]

I am most certainly not being sarcastic. You made the claim that the Eneos was closest to the OEM specification and I wondered what the basis was for that claim.

Either way, it isn't about ingredients. Performance specifications aren't about composition but rather about performance. The means and methods to achieve the performance specification is left up to the blender. Sometimes there is a materials specification but I highly doubt that is the case here. You are correct that no cheap spectrographic analysis would come close to being some sort of substitute for a performance specification - especially here with this type of fluid. But neither does it give "ingredients". The only thing it shows are some of the bare elements decomposed from compounds.

So bottom line, as I noted before this is a speculation on your part, and as it turns out is based on no technical evidence. You say above that you don't know it, so why state it as if it were the truth?

And your claim above that other aftermarket fluids (which Eneos is) "barely meet the needs" is equally baseless. You have zero proof that it is the case or even remotely close. You imagine it, but you do not know it. Another statement made as fact but actually unknown.

Eneos is an aftermarket fluid. If you have confidence in them, fine. But you keep making sweeping generalized assumptions for which there is no technical justification.

I seriously worry about the blood pressure of some keyboard warriors.

I haven’t made any assertion as fact that the largest lubricant manufacturer and supplier in Japan and for OEM Japanese/Asian vehicles claims - they are the ones saying it is specially formulated for Subaru CVTs. I trust this much more than a bottle of multi vehicle fluid that has my vehicle listed among several dozen others.

Welcome to the internet - and forums. People are entitled to share opinions, even if more passionately and assertively than some prefer.

It is not equally baseless to state that a fluid physically can not properly meet the needs of 30 different transmissions. It is statistically nearly impossible. The burden of proof to say otherwise is on someone seeking to do so, as the preponderance of “evidence” and common sense points against it.

Friction modifier requirements are one of the most important aspects of a transmission fluid and should not be discarded in discussion. A large portion of why I don’t have much use for multi vehicle transmission fluids is due to this - there is no evidence I am aware of proving that Valvoline Maxlife properly meets the performance needs of a 1/2 ton pickup truck, with high torque and towing, and simultaneously meets the performance needs of a mustang, and of a Corolla. This is why I suggest that a multi vehicle formula is attempting to meet the basic or minimum requirements to allow a generic transmission to operate.

A more robust fluid like Amsoil SS can definitely conquer a lot of this headroom, but it’s not the same as a fluid specifically made for and designed around a truck for towing, or a sporty car for torque/acceleration load, or in this case a CVT where there is not only the needs of a normal AT that the fluid must meet, but also specific needs of Subaru’s steel belt driven CVT which has had revisions to the fluid spec and calibration of the valve body and TCM by the manufacturer. Using incorrect fluid can matter. I said can, not will.

If it is really so universal and simplistic, why would a brand care about claiming compatibility with certain brands and not others? This on its own implies they are aware their blanket generic fluid cannot accommodate the needs of some transmissions. It’s inherent anyway, as I said, it’s not feasible that a fluid can meet the varied array of needs among 30 different transmissions and their different clutch materials/designs/galleys/pressures/and calibrations.

It still amazes me the hills some people choose to die on. Why not simply state your thoughts and move on rather than trash a thread nitpicking why someone believes differently? You’re not asking to learn you are simply combative. I’ve seen it in many threads over the 10 years I’ve been a lurker on this forum.