Multi vehicle ATF

4WD

Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
18,249
Location
Texas
What I think is weird, is that Mobil 1 has 2 Synthetic ATFs. One being Multi Vehicle, the other not. The MV one have similar recommendations like Maxlife, but the other synthetic looks like it is only recommended for Dex iii like applications.
Note the 100 viscosity is up there … MaxLife is even lower than some of the Dex VI that I have used …
The old Dex products were not made from good base stock … M1 always was … So I don’t entirely buy the notion that they all broke down. AC Delco did … I sure recall that 👀

For the other M1 … you mean the LV stuff that Tig put in his Fusion ?
 
Joined
May 12, 2018
Messages
482
Location
England
I get very confused with the Multi ATF.
Generally i agree with the guys who point to OEM as the correct fluid choice.

But what if you have a Transmission that is used by two different vehicle manufacturers. The Transmission is the same and is built in the same factory.

Mercedes who built that transmission in Germany state that the fluid must now be 236.14 and is the latest backward compatible fluid for the tranny.

Jeep on the other hand purchase the 722.6 ,complete with OM642 And designated it a W5J400' It must have ATF+4 say Jeep.
 

4329

Thread starter
Joined
Jul 25, 2021
Messages
16
I get very confused with the Multi ATF.
Generally i agree with the guys who point to OEM as the correct fluid choice.

But what if you have a Transmission that is used by two different vehicle manufacturers. The Transmission is the same and is built in the same factory.

Mercedes who built that transmission in Germany state that the fluid must now be 236.14 and is the latest backward compatible fluid for the tranny.

Jeep on the other hand purchase the 722.6 ,complete with OM642 And designated it a W5J400' It must have ATF+4 say Jeep.
This is a very difficult question to answer without the input of qualified transmission rebuilders.

The rebuilders would know if the friction maternal, valve body calibration and software in both transmissions where the same. We do know that many transmissions are tweeted to suit different operating conditions resulting in the requirement for a different fluid.

Without approved data, or qualified view, I would err on the side of caution and use the recommended manufactures fluid.

Forums are great for one to express a view or opinion, the problem is sorting fact from fiction.
 
Joined
May 12, 2018
Messages
482
Location
England
This is a very difficult question to answer without the input of qualified transmission rebuilders.

The rebuilders would know if the friction maternal, valve body calibration and software in both transmissions where the same. We do know that many transmissions are tweeted to suit different operating conditions resulting in the requirement for a different fluid.

Without approved data, or qualified view, I would err on the side of caution and use the recommended manufactures fluid.

Forums are great for one to express a view or opinion, the problem is sorting fact from fiction.
Hi 4329.
Thanks for the reply.
I do not know what to make of it all. Maybe some transmissions are just more tolerant of variations in fluid specification?

My Transmission was made in Germany by Mercedes. It has 722.6 written on the casing. Jeep say i must use ATF+4. Mercedes who made the Tranny say i must use 236.14. Go figure!

Maybe a Multi-vehicle fluid would be fine for my purposes.
 
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
5,869
Location
North Texas
Running Amsoil SS blue cap ATF in both Tacoma (WS) and Pilot (DW1). Shifts seem to a little firmer other than that both are running great.
 

4329

Thread starter
Joined
Jul 25, 2021
Messages
16
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act oil change facts

Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act oil changes do not void your warranty. The Act allows routine maintenance to be performed on your vehicle. “Routine maintenance” by definition of the FTC includes an oil change. The FTC has stated that it’s illegal for an automobile dealer or OEM to refuse your warranty coverage because someone else performed routine maintenance or repairs on your vehicle. Any independent auto technician, a chain service repair business, or even yourself in your driveway are allowed to do routine maintenance or repairs on your vehicle.

According to the FTC you must still use proper oil specifications. Neglecting oil changes, neglecting maintenance or using oil that does not comply with factory-recommended specifications are completely separate issues from the Magnuson-Moss regulations.

This is from Penrite: Does the manufacturer specify that the engine oil must meet either their required standard or that it requires their OEM approval's Many manufacturers worldwide, have their own engine oil standards and will only specify oils that meet and are approved by themselves as meeting their OEM requirement. Using an oil that that does not meet their specification and or is not approved can lead to warranty being voided if something goes wrong with the engine. Again, the owner’s manual generally provides details of the oil that is needed. Examples i.e. Mercedes Benz, BMW, Volkswagen and General Motors have specific approvals for their petrol and diesel engine oils. If your vehicle requires an OEM approved product, approvals are generally specified on the products packaging label.

I have had feedback from three main oil companies and they say their their products are suitable, however they informed me that some OEMs do not provide the data that would enable them to fully conform with the OEM specifications. Some aftermarket lubricants do not advise use of their lubricants during the warranty period.

This lack of data may well allow the vehicle manufacturer to deny warranty.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
36,258
Location
NY
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act oil change facts

Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act oil changes do not void your warranty. The Act allows routine maintenance to be performed on your vehicle. “Routine maintenance” by definition of the FTC includes an oil change. The FTC has stated that it’s illegal for an automobile dealer or OEM to refuse your warranty coverage because someone else performed routine maintenance or repairs on your vehicle. Any independent auto technician, a chain service repair business, or even yourself in your driveway are allowed to do routine maintenance or repairs on your vehicle.

According to the FTC you must still use proper oil specifications. Neglecting oil changes, neglecting maintenance or using oil that does not comply with factory-recommended specifications are completely separate issues from the Magnuson-Moss regulations.

This is from Penrite: Does the manufacturer specify that the engine oil must meet either their required standard or that it requires their OEM approval's Many manufacturers worldwide, have their own engine oil standards and will only specify oils that meet and are approved by themselves as meeting their OEM requirement. Using an oil that that does not meet their specification and or is not approved can lead to warranty being voided if something goes wrong with the engine. Again, the owner’s manual generally provides details of the oil that is needed. Examples i.e. Mercedes Benz, BMW, Volkswagen and General Motors have specific approvals for their petrol and diesel engine oils. If your vehicle requires an OEM approved product, approvals are generally specified on the products packaging label.

I have had feedback from three main oil companies and they say their their products are suitable, however they informed me that some OEMs do not provide the data that would enable them to fully conform with the OEM specifications. Some aftermarket lubricants do not advise use of their lubricants during the warranty period.

This lack of data may well allow the vehicle manufacturer to deny warranty.
This says it all. Some swear they've never seen or heard of a warranty claim being denied because of oil, or another fluid. Having sold cars for a few years I beg to differ, but for those who believe otherwise, go for it........ Maybe Magnuson and Moss, or the oil company making the fluid in question will pay the claim if the car maker denies it. ;)

Some might say no warranty no worries I guess.
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
19,004
Location
Silicon Valley
Not directly related only to ATF but most OEM have their own requirements and backward compatible to deal with that aftermarket do not usually worry about. OEM also need to have components that help them sell cars (comfort, noise, vibration), meet emission requirement, locally available, meet the volume required, similar to prior design so they don't need to redo all the qualification testing, anything that reduces risk to avoid recalls and warranty problem of the bigger more expensive system.

Aftermarket just test what most people need and in the worst case they will pay you to drain and refill with the OEM ATF, maybe rebuild your transmission. They won't get lawsuit and people not buying their cars, fined by EPA or CARB for emission and mpg rating miss, souring the car brand and lost future sales, etc etc.

Aftermarket also do not need to meet deadline of qualification cycle or see you next year like OEM do. So yeah, designs in aftermarket retail can be easier so they can tolerate jack of all trade.
 

4329

Thread starter
Joined
Jul 25, 2021
Messages
16
Not directly related only to ATF but most OEM have their own requirements and backward compatible to deal with that aftermarket do not usually worry about. OEM also need to have components that help them sell cars (comfort, noise, vibration), meet emission requirement, locally available, meet the volume required, similar to prior design so they don't need to redo all the qualification testing, anything that reduces risk to avoid recalls and warranty problem of the bigger more expensive system.

Aftermarket just test what most people need and in the worst case they will pay you to drain and refill with the OEM ATF, maybe rebuild your transmission. They won't get lawsuit and people not buying their cars, fined by EPA or CARB for emission and mpg rating miss, souring the car brand and lost future sales, etc etc.

Aftermarket also do not need to meet deadline of qualification cycle or see you next year like OEM do. So yeah, designs in aftermarket retail can be easier so they can tolerate jack of all trade.
All OEMs have their own requirements and if the specifications are listed in the owner’s manual then you can safely use any brand aftermarket lubricant that complies with the specification and not a lubricant that simply suits or meets the requirements. Example: OEM calls up API SM or ACEA A5, then you can use the aftermarket lubricant during warrant that is licensed to the OEM specifications.

If the OEM has not released the lubricant data to the aftermarket, then it is not legally possible for the aftermarket to fully comply with the OEM specifications.

I have never found evidence of any aftermarket lubricant that caused engine or transmission failure during warrant using a non approved lubricant to have the OEM cover the warranty.

The owner of the vehicle would then have to get the aftermarket to repair the vehicle and one would need to have very deep pockets to cover the court costs requiring the aftermarket to cover all costs.
 

MolaKule

Staff member
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
22,282
Location
Iowegia - USA
If the OEM has not released the lubricant data to the aftermarket, then it is not legally possible for the aftermarket to fully comply with the OEM specifications.

I have never found evidence of any aftermarket lubricant that caused engine or transmission failure during warrant using a non approved lubricant to have the OEM cover the warranty.

The owner of the vehicle would then have to get the aftermarket to repair the vehicle and one would need to have very deep pockets to cover the court costs requiring the aftermarket to cover all costs.
Well, one can legally develop an exact copy of the lubricant. It's called reverse engineering.
 

MolaKule

Staff member
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
22,282
Location
Iowegia - USA
The rebuilders would know if the friction maternal, valve body calibration and software in both transmissions where the same. We do know that many transmissions are tweeted to suit different operating conditions resulting in the requirement for a different fluid.
The software is "tweeked" for operational differences. The Friction Modification chemistry stays the same.
 

4329

Thread starter
Joined
Jul 25, 2021
Messages
16
Well, one can legally develop an exact copy of the lubricant. It's called reverse engineering.
Of course a product can be reverse engineered but you may well find there are laws to prevent a product that has been copied and then sold as an equivalent without the approval of an OEM.

This is why the reverse engineered product can only be sold as suitable or recommended as opposed to approved.
 

4329

Thread starter
Joined
Jul 25, 2021
Messages
16
The software is "tweeked" for operational differences. The Friction Modification chemistry stays the same.
If it can be confirmed that the only difference between the two transmissions is a software rewrite, then ok.

However if different friction clutch material is used then a different fluid may well be required. If it were me and not being able to confirm the difference I would use what the manufacturer called up. Transmissions are expensive to repair; OEM fluid is expensive and it’s a person’s call as to what makes them happy. As the saying goes penny wise, pound foolish.
 

4329

Thread starter
Joined
Jul 25, 2021
Messages
16
You seem to be basing your assumptions on viscosity alone, so here is some background information.

Older Dexron III/Mercon ATFs had a 100C starting viscosity of about 7.5 cSt, but sheared down to about 4.5 cSt around 30k miles.

When GM developed the Dexron VI fuel efficient ATF, the viscosity was dropped to about 5.9 [email protected], give or take a few tenths of a centistoke (cSt) and it became known as one of the Low Viscosity (LV) ATF's. At the same time the chemistry (DI package) and the VII was updated to be more stable in terms of oxidation, dynamic friction retention, and shear resistance. It was "back-speced" so that it could be used in older transmissions that had previously speced Dexron III/Mercons. To my knowledge, none of the older transmissions have failed due to using this new LV ATF alone.

Shortly after that, Lubrizol and other additive companies developed friction modification chemistry such that ATF's could be used over a wider spectrum of Step-Shift OEM transmission types. Since the trend was to lower ATF viscosity, Valvoline and others also lowered the viscosity.

The AT "coverage" in the Multi-Vehicle ATF literature is a result of the additive companies testing those ATF formulae in various transmission hardware.
Technical Paper

2003-01-3258​

Comparison of OEM Automatic Transmission Fluids in Industry Standard Tests​

2

Technical Paper

2007-01-3987​

ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4271/2007-01-3987

Published October 29, 2007 by SAE International in United States





Annotation ability available



Sector:
Automotive
Event:Powertrain & Fluid Systems Conference and Exhibition
Language:English

Abstract

As a result of raised awareness regarding the proliferation of individual OEM recommended ATFs, and discussion in various forums regarding the possibility of ‘universal’ service fill fluids, it was decided to study how divergent individual OEM requirements actually are by comparing the fluids performance in industry standard tests.
A bench-mark study was carried out to compare the performance of various OEM automatic transmission fluids in selected industry standard tests. All of the fluids evaluated in the study are used by certain OEMs for both factory and service fill. The areas evaluated included friction durability, oxidation resistance, viscosity stability, aeration and foam control. The results of this study are discussed in this paper. Based on the results, one can conclude that each ATF is uniquely formulated to specific OEM requirements. In addition, the results show that a customer should not deviate from the automatic transmission fluid specified in the vehicle's owners manual.

Not sure what to make off that, and can not access the documents. Comings from the SAE there may be some basis to it. What do you think
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
1,016
Technical Paper

2003-01-3258​

Comparison of OEM Automatic Transmission Fluids in Industry Standard Tests​

2

Technical Paper

2007-01-3987​

ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4271/2007-01-3987

Published October 29, 2007 by SAE International in United States





Annotation ability available



Sector:
Automotive
Event:Powertrain & Fluid Systems Conference and Exhibition
Language:English

Abstract

As a result of raised awareness regarding the proliferation of individual OEM recommended ATFs, and discussion in various forums regarding the possibility of ‘universal’ service fill fluids, it was decided to study how divergent individual OEM requirements actually are by comparing the fluids performance in industry standard tests.
A bench-mark study was carried out to compare the performance of various OEM automatic transmission fluids in selected industry standard tests. All of the fluids evaluated in the study are used by certain OEMs for both factory and service fill. The areas evaluated included friction durability, oxidation resistance, viscosity stability, aeration and foam control. The results of this study are discussed in this paper. Based on the results, one can conclude that each ATF is uniquely formulated to specific OEM requirements. In addition, the results show that a customer should not deviate from the automatic transmission fluid specified in the vehicle's owners manual.

Not sure what to make off that, and can not access the documents. Comings from the SAE there may be some basis to it. What do you think
It’s also important to note that it was published in 2007.
 

4329

Thread starter
Joined
Jul 25, 2021
Messages
16
It’s also important to note that it was published in 2007.
Yes I am aware of the date, be really keen to know what the current SAE tests/views are on AFT.

I am in Australia and perhaps aftermarket AFT information is different, for example I have received information from five main aftermarket companies that say only to use the OEM fluid during warranty.

Please find attached the difference between American and Australian Valvoline ATF, all companies are the same that I know off. This is in no way a slight on Valvoline as I have used their engine oils for many years. This is used only to show the difference between the two countries. Note the highlighted areas.
 

Attachments

  • Maxlife_ATF-PI_Sheet.pdf
    177.8 KB · Views: 12
  • US_Val_MLMultiVehicle_ATF_EN.pdf
    602 KB · Views: 13

MolaKule

Staff member
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
22,282
Location
Iowegia - USA
...I am in Australia and perhaps aftermarket AFT information is different, for example I have received information from five main aftermarket companies that say only to use the OEM fluid during warranty.

Please find attached the difference between American and Australian Valvoline ATF, all companies are the same that I know off. This is in no way a slight on Valvoline as I have used their engine oils for many years. This is used only to show the difference between the two countries. Note the highlighted areas.
I do not see any differences in oil properties.

The differences between the Aussie literature and American literature is a matter of each country's statutes.

If you know of any differences in the chemistry between the fluid supplied to Australia and the US then that would be interesting.

Otherwise, the point you are attempting to make is escaping me.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
1,016
I do not see any differences in oil properties.

The differences between the Aussie literature and American literature is a matter of each country's statutes.

If you know of any differences in the chemistry between the fluid supplied to Australia and the US then that would be interesting.

Otherwise, the point you are attempting to make is escaping me.
It's also interesting to note that Valvoline cannot reccomend their Maxlife ATF in California where it does not meet viscosity requirements of the recommended application.
 
Top