Mobil 1 ATF and Chrysler ATF+4...

[drewjp]

Would the M1 Synthetic ATF work in this application??

I already have Redline C+ ATF in my transmission, but this would be for the PS fluid...

Thanks,
Drew

 

[psudaytona]

Use exactly what is called for from Chrysler, Chrysler/Dodge are some of THE most picky vehicles when it comes to fluids I have ever seen.

I personally never found PS fluid to be a fluid that has extremely high demands(unlike the transmission fluid). I wouldnt spend that sort of money on it, thats just me I suppose.

 

[Gary Allan]

M1 synthetic (hence the M1 part of it) meets those spec's ..but isn't going to pay to put the +4® on the bottle.

Read this and this too

 

[JohnBrowning]

I used all of my C+ATF in the transmission. I used Amsoil Universal ATF in my Dakota's power steering system and had no problem. I would imagine that Mobil 1 ATF would work just fine in the power steering system.

 

[The Critic]

Its not only about the licensing costs, but also about the base oils and additive package used. DC requires a specific Group III base oil to be used in all approved ATF+4 products, along with a unique additive package and VI improver developed by Lubrizol. Correct me if I'm wrong, but M1 Multi-Vehicle ATF does not use the required base oil/additive package combo needed to attain ATF+4 certification.

 

[drewjp]

Thanks, Gary!

On their website, they only say it's "approved for newer Chrysler transmissions", but didn't specifically state ATF+4...

And psudaytona, it's less than a quart capacity, so it's not a big investment, and I'll probably let it go for 60k after the M1 refill!

 

[Gary Allan]

I don't know ..but the whole thing appears to be "marketing legal" language ..and nothing to do with the substrata of the product.

Bestop makes all DC jeep soft tops ..but is 100% prohibitted from advertising "Direct fit ..Identical to OEM". You'll never see it in their literature ..and they won't directly confirm it when asked.

 

[charbaby]

You can only use Mobil 1 ATF in vehicles that require DEX III/Mercon or (H). For example: On the label of M-1 it states that M-1 can be used in Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, bla bla bla!....Yes! But only when DexIII/Mercon was required. Now that MFG's have gone to specific ATF's, we must use those specific ATF's or equivolent. We must read the labels very carefully. Most DexIII/Mercon labels state that their product can be used in Demestic and Imported vehicles where(key words) DexIII/Mercon is required. The labels may even mention MFG's names like Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Ford, GM, Mercedes, SAAB etc. etc. etc. Most of these vehicles at one time did require DexIII/Mercon or Dex, DEX II, IIE and on and on. USE CAUTION!

 

[The Critic]

Actually, the latest build of Mobil 1 ATF is a multi-vehicle formula. However, the multi-vehicle formula only covers Dex IIIH, Mercon, Mercon V, and ATF+4.

quote:

---

I don't know ..but the whole thing appears to be "marketing legal" language ..and nothing to do with the substrata of the product.

---

In this case, it is more than the "marketing legal" language. Mobil 1 ATF simply does not contain the specified baseoil and additive package required by DC to make it eligible for ATF+4 certification.

So, while M1 Multi-Vehicle ATF probably works fine in ATF+4 applications, its formula is different than the ATF+4 "licensed product."

 

[Gary Allan]

Now I've got to call you to task here on proving that. I don't want a "deduced" result. I want to see that just because they aren't paying to say +4 that the stuff isn't +4.

They already make +4 fluid for any number of labels ..so selling the same stuff without the +4 certification has no meaning without ABSOLUTE denial of it containing those elements.

Now this can surely be the case ..but I don't see the "bona fide" proof other then "well, it's unlikely that they did this ...like the other guys have to ..they wouldn't ..so that means that they must be fudging this factor to say that they "almost, can, and will probably" be okay to use type dialog.

 

[The Critic]

http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=002911

http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=002907

 

[Gary Allan]

You call this proof

quote:

---

I agree. I'm sure XOM has done extensive internal testing and is satisfied that Mobil 1 is perfectly suitable for Chrysler transmissions that require ATF+4. But now that "real" ATF+4 is finally available (Valvoline seems to be the first to get theirs to market, but others will follow), I can see no reason to choose Mobil 1 ATF over ATF+4.

---

and

quote:

---

Lubrizol developed a shear-stable VI improver specifically for ATF+4. The initial tests of this VI improver in the test fluids was so remarkable that Chrysler modified the then current ATF+3 spec (MS7176D) to include it. Thus Type 7176E fluid was born, which remained the factory fill until the introduction of ATF+4. In testing done during development of ATF+4, Chrysler noted the following viscosity loss from shearing for the following ATFs (20 hour KRL Shear Test):

---

So they developed it. How does this mean that XOM isn't using those additives? The use of those products would still not warrant the affixing of the +4 trademark if they were not licensed to sell the product under that recommendation.

License to manufacture doesn't mean license to market.

Again, they may not be ..and XOM may be everything that you say ...but I've yet to see:

"M1 is "simulated +4 fluid. It is not +4 compliant in any way, shape, or form. It's the same lame clap trap as using Lubeguard and DexIII. I'll stake my life on it."

Can you get me something more "first hand"???

[ June 26, 2006, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]

 

[The Critic]

quote:

---

License to manufacture doesn't mean license to market.

---

True, but I'm sure XOM could obtain the necessary licensing for marketing if they were indeed interested in brewing the ATF+4 product with the required components.

However, what you posted isn't exactly relevant. So what if XOM used the Lubrizol additive package? Using the Lubrizol additive package alone is only one portion of the total composition of a +4 licensed product. Both the specified base oil and the additive package (and VI improver as well) are part of the composition. Since XOM isn't using the specified Group III base oil, then they aren't producing a product that is identical to an "approved" ATF+4 fluid.

The point is, that while XOM may be using some of the components of a true ATF+4 licensed fluid, the Mobil 1 ATF does not contain ALL of the needed components to make the fluid even eligible for ATF+4 licensing. This of course, does not mean that Mobil 1 ATF cannot perform correctly in an ATF+4 application though, it just isn't "the real thing."

 

[Gary Allan]

If XOM is indeed using the approved Grp III base oil and additive package, then I see no reason why they wouldn't produce a +4 approved product.

Not if they wanted to just say, "no thanks" to being invited to pay for the right to put it on the bottle. Again, Bestop has the license to manufacture all the soft tops for DC ..but has NO RIGHT to market their tops as "OEM" ..the manufacturing license is totally separate from the marketing license.

This is not uncommon in many things. XOM is surely producing +4 fluid under some label ..just not theirs. More correctly stated, I would find it highly unlikely that they aren't producing it for some other vendor.

I have no hard evidence either

..but then again ..I'm not stating things as though they are "take it to the bank" facts.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

The point is, that while XOM may be using some of the components of a true ATF+4 licensed fluid, the Mobil 1 ATF does not contain ALL of the needed components to make the fluid even eligible for ATF+4 licensing. This of course, does not mean that Mobil 1 ATF cannot perform correctly in an ATF+4 application though, it just isn't "the real thing."

---

Again, how do you know this? You've just figured that out on your own.

Go get some authoratative article from a reputable source that confirms this.

Again, you may be right. But how do I know this is true?? Just taking your word for it

 

[LargeCarMan]

Lets have some fun....where's GManIII?

 

[Gary Allan]

He'll hammer one of us with his gavel ..all in due time.

I'm basically having fun with The Critic. Note all my qualifying statements

 

[The Critic]

I would assume that the SAE paper on the development of ATF+4 would state the importance of the Group III base oil and the unique additive package.

Logically, if one of the components is missing from the product, then how would it meet the specification?

Again, if Mobil 1 ATF contained the Group III base oil that licensed ATF+4 products use, then M1 wouldn't be considered a full synthetic product, at least by XOM practices.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Logically, if one of the components is missing from the product, then how would it meet the specification?

---

Logically tell me how you know this to be the case

You can just say that you don't ..but you believe it to be so.

This seems to be a very difficult thing for you to do

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Critic:
Logically, if one of the components is missing from the product, then how would it meet the specification?

---

Bingo. To carry the ATF+4 label, Chrysler requires the blend be comprised of a specific "recipe" which stipulates all the ingredients and NO substitutes are allowed.

If you talk to a XOM tech, they will tell you that their internal testing of Mobil 1 ATF shows that it meets all the performance requirements of ATF+4. But they will NOT tell you that it is an ATF+4 "equivalent" fluid, or that it actually meets the DCX licensing requirements for ATF+4.

They will also tell you (off the record) that they are an approved blender of ATF+4 and supply the Mopar branded stuff to Chrysler and have done so for years. They will tell you (on the record) that they have no plans to market ATF+4 under the Exxon or Mobil brand names.