Lubrizol Multi-Vehicle ATF Additives

[The Critic]

Lubrizol has two multi-vehicle additive solutions listed on their website.

One of them is the 9684, which is their premium multi-vehicle additive. It is designed to be paired with synthetic base stocks. In the product data sheet, they list two possible combinations of base oils, but I'm sure that upgraded base oils (e.g. PAO) could be substituted as well. I would not be surprised if Amsoil was using this additive package in their ATF product in combination with PAO base oils.

Lubrizol's second multi-vehicle additive package is the 9680. This one is marketed as a "cost-effective solution." I suspect that this additive package is used in many over-the-counter multi-vehicle fluids. This additive package does not require the usage of synthetic base oils. Motive Group II base stocks are listed in the data sheet as one of the options, but of course, I'm sure that others could be substituted.

Earlier this year, Lubrizol discussed these multi-vehicle additive offerings in their DriveLine magazine. Here's a link to the report.

 

[bmwtechguy]

I assume it's possible that a company could get a custom additive package other than the ones you are seeing online?

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: bmwtechguy
I assume it's possible that a company could get a custom additive package other than the ones you are seeing online?


Bingo!!

 

[Johnny]

Critic, thanks for posting. All very interesting reads.

 

[Audi Junkie]

afaik, AMSoil ATF was an Afton-sourced package.

 

[Whitewolf]

So, apart from the claims, what real approvals have been achieved?

 

[Ken2]

Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
So, apart from the claims, what real approvals have been achieved?
Many of the universal ATFs cannot get multiple approvals simply due to the fact that the required viscosities are different. A fluid that meets the viscosity spec for Dexron-VI cannot meet the MerconV spec, etc. There are other reasons these fluids cannot meet each spec.

This does not mean that these multi-vehicle ATFs do not do a good job; they just do not do exactly the job the transmission designer wanted the fluid to do. For that, get licensed fluids.

 

[buster]

Quote:
they just do not do exactly the job the transmission designer wanted the fluid to do.


Do you consider that to be a problem?

 

[Whitewolf]

Jack of some trades master of none.
The catch is that WHEN something does go wrong it's hard to prove that the fluid is the cause.

 

[buster]

Quote:
Jack of some trades master of none.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
Jack of some trades master of none.


Can we have some proof for this? Just another claim.

 

[Whitewolf]

Try SAE 2007-01-3987.

As far as claims are concerned I would have thought that your guys were the world experts!

 

[Pablo]

GM?

 

[Whitewolf]

I'm sure I don't know what you mean ... what's this discussion got to do with GM?

 

[Pablo]

Nothing, nothing at all!!

But pretty quick you'll be claiming how Dexron VI is superior to all known fluids and that it's impossible to actually design a better fluid.

 

[Whitewolf]

So in your testing, where have you found it to be lacking? Just interested!

 

[Pablo]

Not lacking in the least.

Just letting you know there are better options if you want more oxidation and thermal degradation protection, better low temperature protection, better antiwear protection and longer drains AND the ability to use it in more than one type of transmission.

 

[Whitewolf]

... and we're right back where we always get to ~ show everyone the side-to-side comparative data (please).

 

[Pablo]

As soon as you prove this: "Jack of some trades master of none."

 

[Whitewolf]

This is just getting silly ... proof is here SAE 2007-01-3987 clearly you've not bothered to read it ... it's all there.