Mobil 3309 vs Toyota T-IV

Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
5,752
Location
VA
I realize the existence of this forum (which I love) is to discuss many topics which most people think we are crazy to even discuss. Here is my point of discussion: Unless I am really dumb and my reading comprehension is lacking, I don't understand how "everybody" equates 3309 and T-IV as the "same" or as "equals." I realize it might be that Toyota won't approve the 3309. I get that. My bottles of T-IV only reference "T-IV." This following is copied and pasted from the Mobil website stating the specifications and approvals of Mobil 3309. Specifications and Approvals Mobil ATF 3309 meets or exceeds the requirements of: Ford WSS-M2C924-A VW TL 52540-A According to ExxonMobil, Mobil ATF 3309 is of the following quality level: Audi G-055-025-A2 Saturn GM9986195 Toyota Type T-IV VW G-055-025-A2 So, if this is the case and 3309 is the same as T-IV, this means I can use T-IV in a Ford WSS-M2C924-A and VW TL 52540-A application. RIght? I mean, if they are the same?
 
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
13,602
Location
Suburban Washington DC
When the Toyota fluid is relatively cheap and available and is made for the car, why use anything else. Mobil 3309 may be great, but is a compromise designed for requirements from many different car makers.
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
13,189
Location
Maricopa Arizona
Originally Posted by atikovi
When the Toyota fluid is relatively cheap and available and is made for the car, why use anything else. Mobil 3309 may be great, but is a compromise designed for requirements from many different car makers.
How do you know it's a compromise? Do you have the technical data?
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
15,538
Location
The Old North State
I'd have no problem whatsoever using Mobil 3309 in a T-IV application and vice versa. If forced to choose between the two 'only', I'd go with the less expensive of the two. Fortunately it's of no concern to me. grin In the linked thread majority appears to go with an affirmative opinion of them being the same. Only way to know if they are identical or very close is to have VOAs done for both. If it's really of concern, feel free have that done at any time. smile2 https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2995984/1
 
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
13,602
Location
Suburban Washington DC
If one fluid is claimed to be good in many different makes, each of which have their own proprietary additives in their fluids, that is a compromise to me.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2004
Messages
13,729
Location
Middlesex County CT
Originally Posted by atikovi
If one fluid is claimed to be good in many different makes, each of which have their own proprietary additives in their fluids, that is a compromise to me.
? the Aisin spec is JWS3309; They make their own fluid ATF-0T4; They aren't "different makes" They are Aisin transmissions. Volvo, Lexus, Toyota, Saturn etc. Do you think aisin designs transmissions differently with "special proprietary additives" suggested by the auto maker?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
12,941
Location
North Carolina
Originally Posted by atikovi
If one fluid is claimed to be good in many different makes, each of which have their own proprietary additives in their fluids, that is a compromise to me.
Even if they're all Aisin transmissions? 3309 is T-IV is G 055 025 A2 is WSS-M2C924-A. T-WS is G 055 540 A2 They're the same fluid, for the same transmissions, with different OE specification designations. So where is the compromise? That's like saying ZF Lifeguard 8 is a compromise because it is suitable for BMW, Jeep, Ram, Dodge, Aston Martin, Bentley, Rolls Royce, etc.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2004
Messages
13,729
Location
Middlesex County CT
https://www.ipdusa.com/files/product/509/AISIN%20ATF%20OE%20INTERCHANGE.PDF Here is the cross-ref to mfg part #s; directly from the transmission manufacturer. Suzuki: Suzuki ATF 3317 or Mobil ATF 3309 So the transmission mfg indicates Mobil 3309 is suitable for their transmissions. You can keep believing they are different if you want, but you have provided no documentation that they are or even might be.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
13,189
Location
Maricopa Arizona
Originally Posted by atikovi
I've used the Toyota fluid in Volvos with the Aisin transmissions but wouldn't use the 3309 unless it was much cheaper.
Wow talk about ignorance.
 

Gebo

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
5,752
Location
VA
Copy and paste from Mobile website: Mobil ATF 3309 is recommended for use in transmissions requiring fluids of JWS 3309 or GM 9986195 quality levels. It is also recommended for service fill applications where Toyota T-IV or T4, T-III or T3 are called for. Please refer to the owners' manual for proper fluid requirements. My understanding from reading this copy and paste from Mobil website is "JWS 3309" is not the same as "Mobil ATF 3309." If it is the same, wouldn't "GM 9986195" be the same as "Mobil ATF 3309?" Not to clog up the drain, but my question is not if Mobil 3309 is suitable. My question is 3309 and T-IV the exact same formula? Maxlife is suitable, Amsoil is suitable, etc. I'm not questioning which ATF's are suitable replacements for T-IV. Apparently there are lots of ATF's that others find suitable to use to substitute for T-IV. I had thought 3309 was the same at T-IV but now I don't think so. I do think it is suitable to use in place of T-iV for some people. Just not suitable for me and my house.
 

Gebo

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
5,752
Location
VA
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by atikovi
I've used the Toyota fluid in Volvos with the Aisin transmissions but wouldn't use the 3309 unless it was much cheaper.
Wow talk about ignorance.
Dave, that was mean. Why you wanna type that?
 
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
13,602
Location
Suburban Washington DC
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by atikovi
When the Toyota fluid is relatively cheap and available and is made for the car, why use anything else. Mobil 3309 may be great, but is a compromise designed for requirements from many different car makers.
How do you know it's a compromise? Do you have the technical data?
Until someone does a 100,000 mile side by side comparison test, nobody knows. As another poster said, suitable or compatible with, doesn't mean identical to, the factory fluid. Helll, I once mistakenly flushed and filled a Honda transmission requiring DW1, with Dexron 6. It was my first Saturn Vue and assumed all GM cars used Dexron. Afterwards, it drove great. Put another 1,000 miles on before selling to make sure nothing weird happens, but who knows if it makes it another 100,000 miles. The fact that I stuffed some 18 quarts into the flush removing 99% of the old fluid might have something to do with it making it, I don't know.
 

pbm

Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
9,486
Location
New York
I've always thought they were the same fluid and have used both in my Toyota.....and I still think their the same......
 
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
1,147
Location
USA
I know that the general standard for these fluids is JASO-1, so it would seem that if that standard is mentioned on the product the fluid should meet standards and perform perfectly as well. Japanese are very good about such things in general.
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
13,189
Location
Maricopa Arizona
Because the truth is blunt. This topic on the forum members here speak as ATF is alchemy. Following this logic the only motor oil should be used is what brand the owner's manual recommends and you need to buy the lifetime of the cars motor oil blended at the time during the engines testing period. Anything before or after the engines testing phase could be different formulations.
 
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
5,288
Location
Parts Unknown
Originally Posted by rooflessVW
Originally Posted by atikovi
If one fluid is claimed to be good in many different makes, each of which have their own proprietary additives in their fluids, that is a compromise to me.
Even if they're all Aisin transmissions? 3309 is T-IV is G 055 025 A2 is WSS-M2C924-A. T-WS is G 055 540 A2 They're the same fluid, for the same transmissions, with different OE specification designations. So where is the compromise?
T-IV and T-WS are not the same fluid. T-WS is a so-called lifetime fluid, with lower viscosity than T-IV (for fuel economy).
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
12,941
Location
North Carolina
Originally Posted by UG_Passat
Originally Posted by rooflessVW
Originally Posted by atikovi
If one fluid is claimed to be good in many different makes, each of which have their own proprietary additives in their fluids, that is a compromise to me.
Even if they're all Aisin transmissions? 3309 is T-IV is G 055 025 A2 is WSS-M2C924-A. T-WS is G 055 540 A2 They're the same fluid, for the same transmissions, with different OE specification designations. So where is the compromise?
T-IV and T-WS are not the same fluid. T-WS is a so-called lifetime fluid, with lower viscosity than T-IV (for fuel economy).
I never said T-IV and T-WS were the same. Read my post again.
 
Top