Carlostrece
$100 Site Donor 2025
OK. Thanks everyone for all the info and advice. You've given me a lot to consider.
Maxlife ATF Compatibility
- Thread starter Carlostrece
- Start date
Carlostrece
$100 Site Donor 2025
Here's an update based on info from other forums and Youtube. Many people are using Maxlife Full Syn (FS) ATF, Valvoline EP FS ATF, and Idemitsu Type H Plus ATF for Honda ATF and report smoother shifting than with Honda DW-1 ATF.
The users of those ATF in Honda say they work better than Honda DW-1.
The users of those ATF in Honda say they work better than Honda DW-1.
Maxlife is for transmissions that spec dexron. Hondas only do Honda or Idemitsu fluid nothing else.
Check out professor John Kelly with weber college on youtube, and his post on the supposed one size fits all automatic transmission fluids. Basically the label says it is compatible is not true and is a gimick to sell the product. Anyone could do the same with a jug of water.
Check out professor John Kelly with weber college on youtube, and his post on the supposed one size fits all automatic transmission fluids. Basically the label says it is compatible is not true and is a gimick to sell the product. Anyone could do the same with a jug of water.
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
In my view Prof. Kelly is an excellent and affable transmission mechanic, but his lack of knowledge re. the formulations of ATF's shows what he doesn't know.Maxlife is for transmissions that spec dexron. Hondas only do Honda or Idemitsu fluid nothing else.
Check out professor John Kelly with weber college on youtube, and his post on the supposed one size fits all automatic transmission fluids. Basically the label says it is compatible is not true and is a gimick to sell the product. Anyone could do the same with a jug of water.
Last edited:
But he is correct there is no one size fits all Automatic Transmission fluid. The fluid is part of the basic design of the transmission, it needs the correct friction modifiers for the materials used, the pressures, the shift schedules, the required lubrication, and with CVT's the required coefficient of friction for pulley and belt grip. But then I suppose good chemists can copy those formulations.
The main issue is fluids like Maxlife do not have most transmission manufacuters licensed approval, they say they are compatible, but that is just talk, not approval.
I wonder how many dealers check for incorrect fluid before honoring a warranty? They sure should.
MolaKule
Staff member
They never claim approval, only that the formulation can cover a wide range of transmission designs, as stipulated by the additive supplier.
I doubt dealers want to fork out $700+ for a forensic analysis, which is the only way of proving that MaxLife or any other fluid is present.
My daughter bought a new 2016 Acura RDX. Soon after the transmission would shudder in lock up. She brought her vehicle to the dealer and a TSB indicated the factory fluid couldn’t handle the heat generated. Updated software was installed as well as a fluid exchange with factory fluid. This fixed the problem for a bit, but it always returned. The dealer had no answer except to change the fluid again. I finally did a complete fluid change myself at around 30k miles with Maxlife and now have over 130k miles, never had the problem again. IMO the Maxlife is a better quality fluid and is probably the most widely fluid used.
Last edited:
So you believe that a fluid such as Maxlife that says it is suitable is the cause of a failure?
Not only do I doubt that they would spend the money to check (the Honda dealer I worked never did), but they would also have to question the products they used. I’d venture to say that most Honda dealers use a bulk ATF for service, unless you specified DW-1, at which point they would charge you extra for the fluid. My Honda dealer used BG ATF which, as I understood it, most Honda dealers in my area were using.
This is exactly correct. I've mentioned this before in other threads, where engineers at the OEM I used to work for would perform fully instrumented in-vehicle tests, different driving conditions, temperatures, etc, and they had a laptop so they could tune the TCM logic on the fly. Small changes in line pressures, shift timing, rpm, etc, can have a big impact. All this validation testing done using the OEM fluid.
It could be that the OEM fluid is a perfect match for the generic fluid in question, but not always. It's a gamble. In the case of that Honda discussed just above, that's case in point that the fluids are NOT the same. In that case, it seems that the Honda fluid isn't "as good" in some way. My point is just to highlight that maxfife IS DIFFERENT, and there is no guarantee that the transmission will shift as designed using it.
Last edited:
Honda has stated that "firmer" shifts with Z1 or DW-1 are by design and these firmer shifts are not indicative of a problem.
Idemitsu fluid is nowhere equal to DW-1. There are fluid analyses here that prove this.
MolaKule
Staff member
@4329
I am not sure how you were able to attribute your comments to me but you messed up and I am not able to do a direct Reply because of it, so here is a sentence-by-sentence response
S1: My comments on Mr. Kelly show my highest regards for his mechanical knowledge and experience. Read my comments again. A good mechanic does not equate to a knowledgeable lubricant formulator.
S2, S3: I have already explained approvals, recommendations, suitable for, and fluid specifications elsewhere on bitog, so do a search. Your lack of understanding of each of the above topics shows.
Here is one such article: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/third-party-atf-development.358527/
S4, S5, S6: Let me make it simple for you; I am a formulator, and your false analogy of engine oils to ATFs is nonsensical.
Here is another discussion: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...r-toyotas-atf-3309.358381/page-2#post-6204469
specifically,
"Please read post #23 again.
I think we need a terminology/definition clarification in this thread.
Approvals (Industry Term) – A document from the OEM, or an OEM's testing representative, stating that a lubricant meets original OEM specifications. The approval License number should be stated on the label, bottle, or in marketing literature.
Coverage (Industrial, Marketing) - the extent to which this product applies. No licensure or approval from the OEM is inferred or assumed.
Recommended (Industrial, Marketing) – This lubricant is not licensed by an OEM for the recommended listed coverage, but the manufacturer or blender believes it is appropriate because of internal or external testing, or the listed coverage is supported by the additive manufacturer who has tested the DI formulation in actual hardware.
"Recommended for the Following" DOES NOT imply the exact same chemistry as the OEM chemistry, but what it does imply is the viscosity, dynamic friction (shifting) characteristics, and other performance items are commensurate with the OEM fluid.
Specification (Industry Term)- a precise description of a material entity stating precise requirements. In ATF terms, an OEM document that details the multitude of necessary tests the fluid must pass in order to receive the proper Type identification and labeling.
Requirement (Industry/Engineering Term) - A statement in a specification document essential to the meeting of one or more of the specifications contained therein. One such set of requirements may define the base oils to be used, the manufacturer of those base oils, their viscosity, a suggested VII chemistry, and the DI package to be used."
I am not sure how you were able to attribute your comments to me but you messed up and I am not able to do a direct Reply because of it, so here is a sentence-by-sentence response
S1: My comments on Mr. Kelly show my highest regards for his mechanical knowledge and experience. Read my comments again. A good mechanic does not equate to a knowledgeable lubricant formulator.
S2, S3: I have already explained approvals, recommendations, suitable for, and fluid specifications elsewhere on bitog, so do a search. Your lack of understanding of each of the above topics shows.
Here is one such article: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/third-party-atf-development.358527/
S4, S5, S6: Let me make it simple for you; I am a formulator, and your false analogy of engine oils to ATFs is nonsensical.
Here is another discussion: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...r-toyotas-atf-3309.358381/page-2#post-6204469
specifically,
"Please read post #23 again.
I think we need a terminology/definition clarification in this thread.
Approvals (Industry Term) – A document from the OEM, or an OEM's testing representative, stating that a lubricant meets original OEM specifications. The approval License number should be stated on the label, bottle, or in marketing literature.
Coverage (Industrial, Marketing) - the extent to which this product applies. No licensure or approval from the OEM is inferred or assumed.
Recommended (Industrial, Marketing) – This lubricant is not licensed by an OEM for the recommended listed coverage, but the manufacturer or blender believes it is appropriate because of internal or external testing, or the listed coverage is supported by the additive manufacturer who has tested the DI formulation in actual hardware.
"Recommended for the Following" DOES NOT imply the exact same chemistry as the OEM chemistry, but what it does imply is the viscosity, dynamic friction (shifting) characteristics, and other performance items are commensurate with the OEM fluid.
Specification (Industry Term)- a precise description of a material entity stating precise requirements. In ATF terms, an OEM document that details the multitude of necessary tests the fluid must pass in order to receive the proper Type identification and labeling.
Requirement (Industry/Engineering Term) - A statement in a specification document essential to the meeting of one or more of the specifications contained therein. One such set of requirements may define the base oils to be used, the manufacturer of those base oils, their viscosity, a suggested VII chemistry, and the DI package to be used."
Last edited:
