And once you alter any items in the prescribed "recipe," without re-running all of the relevant tests, you cannot be 100% certain that the fluid will satisfy all of the performance requirements, especially the frictional properties. That testing costs significant money and it is not financially viable for every blender to run those tests for every application they claim to support.
The question is this ...
Is the ATF+F a true performance spec, or a chemistry/base oil spec?
Sounds like it's the later and not the former based on this explanation:
slacktide_bitog said:
ATF+4 isn't just a spec certification. Chrysler is much more insecure and childish than that. In order to get the license, they require not just specific ingredients, but specific suppliers of those ingredients. A group III base stock from SK, Shell, or Petro-Canada. The only approved additive package is a specific one from Lubrizol.
Therefore, all licensed ATF+4 is the same. That means even the cheapest Walmart brand ATF+4 is just as good as the dealer. IIRC, OEM Mopar ATF+4 is supplied by Valvoline.
However, there is something better that's not officially approved. Redline C+ uses the same Lubrizol add pack as licensed ATF+4 but with a group V base oil. But Chrysler won't license it because it's not the exact same base oil from one of their suppliers.
Presuming the above is true, then the "performance requirements" Critic references really aren't relevant to the license. If it was a true "performance" spec, there would be many other products which could be validated. As as shown in the quote above, when you buy a licensed +4 product, no matter who makes it, it's all pretty much identical. This is why OE and supplier companies love chemistry specs; they get to significantly restrict the players in the approved market.
I prefer true "performance" specs; lay out the task and set the end objectives, and let the product achieve those tasks in any manner they choose. As long as the roads end at the same destination in a safe manner, who cares what roads are taken? Rather than saying "
you gotta use our approved oil and additive package ...", consider the following true "performance" based criteria
- must sustain X deg temperature held for 5 hours while sustaining minimum vis value of Y
- must sustain H torque value in a XYZPDQ rig to test standard ABC, with no more than 5% slippage
- etc ...
I suspect that the internal ATF+4 validation for establishing those chemistry standards were based on some performance criteria, but they don't want to release the "spec" as a "performance" standard, because that would open the door to many other ways to pass the INTENT of the validation. So instead, they set a "chemistry" spec known to pass those underlying performance standards, all the while raking in the money from the severely restricted license options.
We must acknowledge the fact that there are some chemistry issues at times that relate to physical components selected for the equipment (typically seals). This would be part of the now old topic of DEX VI vs TES-295, when Allison was released from GM around 2006. Ironically, in this case, using the GM spec'd DEX VI fluid might have actually been detrimental to the input seals used in early production 1000/2000 series units according to Allison but only for the GM produced units at Baltimore. This was, however, a fairly limited concern depending upon who you talked to. The topic is old enough that garners little attention today.
Most of the time, when a spec is chemistry based, it's just a means of limiting external players in the market while maximizing internal profits. It's a layer of marketing that is unnecessary to the final goal, but serves it's master well.
