This conversation is no different than those regarding licensed motor oils, gear lubes, etc.
It would be of benefit for most people to understand they fall into one of two camps:
- if you have no intention of learning about the specific application nuances or understanding the pros/cons of the specific license parameters, and won't put effort into researching potential alternatives on a detailed level, then buying only licensed products is a reasonable approach to servicing your equipment. There is nothing wrong with taking this approach.
- if you are willing to learn about your application past the shiny OEM marketing highlights, and you are willing to investigate the conditions which surround the license parameters, and are adept enough to discern good information from bad, then choosing an unlicensed fluid can present you with either potential savings or superior performance expectations. There is nothing wrong with this approach.
When you buy a licensed fluid, it meets a known spec. That spec might be chemistry based, or performance based, or both. While it does assure a minimum standard will be met, it does not mean that unlicensed products cannot outperform that standard. Or not. Some lube companies choose not to attain license status because of the substantial costs involved; they cannot make the ROI work, typically because the volume of sales would not justify the expenses. Other companies don't attempt to get the licensed status because they know their product(s) won't qualify.
If you choose a product that is not licensed, then there exists some amount of risk. That risk factor is either heightened or mitigated based upon the comfort level of the purchaser's belief in the lube maker's knowledge and quality commitments. It is disingenuous to imply that simply because a fluid does not carry a license, that fluid is automatically unfit for the application. That is a massive over-generalization of the topic; it is a blanket statement that is true at times, and false at times. Just because some unlicensed fluids fail in some applications, does not mean all unlicensed fluids will fail in all applications. Anyone who says that all unlicensed fluids are always bound to fail is grossly uneducated about the choices out there.
To the topic at hand in this thread ...
I have personally toured the HPL facility a few times. I have had lengthy conversations with Ward and others at HPL about various fluids. I have met and respect many of the contributing chemists/tribologists who consult to HPL. I have absolute faith that any HPL offering will "meet/exceed" the expectations for the applications they offer. In this case, the HPL "Blue" offering would be a product I would find more than acceptable for an "ATF+4" application. Some people may not have that same comfort level.
To each his own.