For those that use it. A lot of wal marts are now stocking Mopar ATF+4....Same bottle that the dealers has....
Mopar ATF+4
- Thread starter rszappa1
- Start date
- Status
Hey i use the Super tech Oil...Nothing wrong with it....
I did not even know that Supertech was making ATF+4. I will look for it now and stock up!
While the Super Tech ATF+4 meets the frictional and I suppose other qualities specified by Chrysler, do we know that the quality of the base stock and additives are equal? Could the cheaper fluid maybe not hold up as well under heat, etc?
Just wanting to know if ST is really EXACTLY the same.
Just wanting to know if ST is really EXACTLY the same.
To meet Chrysler ATF+4, the fluid must be a group III basestock with a specific Lubrizol additive package.
Good grief...how many times do we have to go through this?
As has been posted on here numerous times, Chrysler specifies the exact chemical make-up for ATF+4 and to be an approved (licensed) ATF+4 blender, an oil company has to follow that recipe. There are currently only four licensed blenders, and the ATF+4 they each produce is chemically identical because the exact same ingredients are used by each company to produce the fluid.
What's this means is that the Mopar branded ATF+4 could come from the same blender that makes the ST ATF+4. Same fluid, different label on the bottle.
From the AMSOIL website:
"AMSOIL ATF is recommended for transmission, hydraulic and other applications requiring any of the following specifications:
* GM DEXRON® II, III & VI
* Ford MERCON®, MERCON® V & SP
* Chrysler ATF+ through ATF+4®
* Honda Z-1 (Not for use in CVT transmissions)
* Toyota Type T and T-IV
* Mitsubishi/Hyundai Diamond SP II & III
* Allison C-3, C-4
* Caterpillar TO-2
* Voith G607, G1363
* ZF TE-ML 14A, 14B & 14C
* Mercedes Benz 236.1, 236.2, 236.6, 236.7, 236.9
* BMW 7045E
* NAG 1 & 2
* JWS 3309
* LT 71141 (ESSO)
* Nissan Matic D, J & K
* Vickers I-286S & M-2950S"
So it appears that AMSOIL ATF is not licensed so has more freedom to choose a different (likely better?) formulation than the licensed ATF+4's? I've got this in my Chevy Venture and like it better than what it came with originally and what the dealer replaced it with 50,000 miles earlier.
"AMSOIL ATF is recommended for transmission, hydraulic and other applications requiring any of the following specifications:
* GM DEXRON® II, III & VI
* Ford MERCON®, MERCON® V & SP
* Chrysler ATF+ through ATF+4®
* Honda Z-1 (Not for use in CVT transmissions)
* Toyota Type T and T-IV
* Mitsubishi/Hyundai Diamond SP II & III
* Allison C-3, C-4
* Caterpillar TO-2
* Voith G607, G1363
* ZF TE-ML 14A, 14B & 14C
* Mercedes Benz 236.1, 236.2, 236.6, 236.7, 236.9
* BMW 7045E
* NAG 1 & 2
* JWS 3309
* LT 71141 (ESSO)
* Nissan Matic D, J & K
* Vickers I-286S & M-2950S"
So it appears that AMSOIL ATF is not licensed so has more freedom to choose a different (likely better?) formulation than the licensed ATF+4's? I've got this in my Chevy Venture and like it better than what it came with originally and what the dealer replaced it with 50,000 miles earlier.
Every recipe has substitutions. I understand that chrysler atf+4 is basestock selective, and requires the lubrizol additive, but what about the rest of the fluid in the bottle? I wonder what percentage of the fluid is 'filler'.
I just did a drain/refill on a transmission using ATF+4. 4 differents quarts were used. It was about 20F outside. All bottles were left in the vehicles trunk overnight.
I felt that the valvoline had the best quickest cold pour to it through the funnel. I was actually surprised since the little sunshine would've given the OEM Mopar black bottle some extra warmth compared to the 'blue' bottles. I won't be recommending the supertech or advancedauto ATF+4. I also assumed that the generics just detoured down the assembly line for different bottle labels/stickers. Maybe not?
I'm not even a Valvoline fan but would use the Mopar or Valvoline over the generics! I wish I had some Redline-C+ for comparison.
I just did a drain/refill on a transmission using ATF+4. 4 differents quarts were used. It was about 20F outside. All bottles were left in the vehicles trunk overnight.
I felt that the valvoline had the best quickest cold pour to it through the funnel. I was actually surprised since the little sunshine would've given the OEM Mopar black bottle some extra warmth compared to the 'blue' bottles. I won't be recommending the supertech or advancedauto ATF+4. I also assumed that the generics just detoured down the assembly line for different bottle labels/stickers. Maybe not?
I'm not even a Valvoline fan but would use the Mopar or Valvoline over the generics! I wish I had some Redline-C+ for comparison.
How about the difference in the basestock from the factory fill and what is in the bottle? We all now that there will be variations from batch to batch.
Generics. That is funny there was an study just completed and it showed generics performed slightly better than name brand prescriptions. Just because it has a better well name on the bottle does not mean it is better.
I agree about the Redline C+4. I will more than likely try it when I am done with the factory fill.
Filler? Are you serious? LOL
There are only two ingredients: The base oil and the additive package. There are no substitutes permitted for the add pack. It has to be Lubrizol's proprietary ATF+4 add pack. The only variable in the ATF+4 formula is the base oil. For the ATF+4 add pack, Chrysler/Lubrizol tested and approved a specific cut of Group III from three different oil companies: Shell, Petro-Canada, and SK.
So whats formula? Don't know, do ya?
What about the carriers oils to dilute the additives? is it the same as the base oil?
Feel free to look at the MSDS for Valvoline ATF+4. Seems to be more then just 2 ingredients.
Sorry, but I posted what I saw. IMO, there is wiggle room even in the ATF+4 formula.
Batch difference? Maybe, but when I do another drain/refill, I won't be able to compare another batch 'cause I'm sticking with the name brands.
What about the carriers oils to dilute the additives? is it the same as the base oil?
Feel free to look at the MSDS for Valvoline ATF+4. Seems to be more then just 2 ingredients.
Sorry, but I posted what I saw. IMO, there is wiggle room even in the ATF+4 formula.
Batch difference? Maybe, but when I do another drain/refill, I won't be able to compare another batch 'cause I'm sticking with the name brands.
Basestock is your carrier oil.
What's in a fluid anyway?
Basestock
Additive pack
VII
PPD
All of those ingredients are regulated/specified by DC.
What's in a fluid anyway?
Basestock
Additive pack
VII
PPD
All of those ingredients are regulated/specified by DC.
Not to let a wounded horse suffer, I couldn't resist going to the source for the answer to my question: are all ATF+4 exactly the same regarding base oil, additive package, viscosity, performance characteristics, etc..
From Chrysler: "We are not in communication with our engineers and cannot answer your question. Please contact your Dealer because they are experts in maintaining your vehicle........lame, lame, lame.....not surprised.
And, from the Center For Quality Assurance (which somehow is tied to ATF+4 development/licensing):
"There may be variations in the formulations between the different brands of ATF+4. However, all brands of properly licensed and approved ATF+4 meet the rigorous criteria of Chrysler's performance specification".
So, I guess like all API SM oils can have variations but meet the requirements for engine protection, so too is ATF+4.
Unless Chrysler has changed their licensing requirements, this statement is simply wrong. The license specifies the formula with the only variation allowed being the base oil: there are three approved base oils.
The whole point in DCX choosing this unprecedented route for licensing was to ensure absolute uniformity from one blender to another. The only way to do that is by controlling the formula.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Err ..read your M1 bottles for what "carrier" is.
Oddly ..I couldn't find in on XOM's site ..but here it is from PZQS
PENNZOIL® 100% SYNTHETIC* LOWER UNIT GEAR LUBE is formulated with synthetic base stocks which have
better oxidation and low temperature properties compared to conventionally refined mineral oil base stocks. Because of
these properties, PENNZOIL® 100% SYNTHETIC* LOWER UNIT GEAR LUBE should stand up to the toughest high
speed and horsepower demands placed on it, day in and day out, by high powered marine engines, offering maximum
lubrication and gear protection over a wide range of temperatures. It contains extreme pressure agents, which protect
against shock loading and wear. Foam inhibitors protect against oil aeration, which can rupture the lubricant film and cause
wear due to lack of lubrication. Special rust inhibitors are incorporated into PENNZOIL® 100% SYNTHETIC* LOWER
UNIT GEAR LUBE to protect against corrosion than can result from water condensation. Oxidation inhibitors are
included to enhance the excellent oxidation stability of the synthetic oil. It exceeds the API GL-5 service level performance
requirements and is an SAE 75W-90 grade.
*Exclusive of additive carrier oil
Kinda rejects the basestock as being the aforementioned "carrier" oil.
- Status
Similar threads
