I have a 2007 mazda3 that calls for Mazda ATF M-III for power steering. I also have a 2000 Mazda MPV that specs the M-III for the 4-speed automatic transmission (Ford calls the ATX 4EAT-G, Mazda calls it GF4A-EL). I am about to pull the trigger for the Motorcraft Mercon-V based on Ford's ATF application guide, but just found out from one dealer that they do have the M-III available. I need the fluid to do a DIY ATF exchange. Previous trans services were done at a Ford/mazda dealer, and they used Mercon, which is now superseded by Mercon-V. The prices for the two fluids are comparable, so please help me choose which one is better for the 2000 Mazda MPV ATX. Thanks.
Need help: MAZDA ATF M-III or Motorcraft Mercon-V
- Thread starter windeye
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: sangyup81
if they are similar priced, go with the M-III
Thanks for your comment. My main concern is the performance of the fluid. Motorcraft Mercon-V seems to be a better spec than the old Mazda ATF M-III. If the Mercon-V works well in the 4EAT-G trans of the 2000 Mazda MPV, I'd like to use that, since it's more readily available than the M-III, which took detective work to find out (I had to give the part number to the parts dept; when I simply asked what the ATF for 2000 mazda mpv, I got Dexron-III as an answer; when I told them Dexron-III is not longer made, they the told me to use Mercon-V).
if they are similar priced, go with the M-III
Thanks for your comment. My main concern is the performance of the fluid. Motorcraft Mercon-V seems to be a better spec than the old Mazda ATF M-III. If the Mercon-V works well in the 4EAT-G trans of the 2000 Mazda MPV, I'd like to use that, since it's more readily available than the M-III, which took detective work to find out (I had to give the part number to the parts dept; when I simply asked what the ATF for 2000 mazda mpv, I got Dexron-III as an answer; when I told them Dexron-III is not longer made, they the told me to use Mercon-V).
I wouldn't bother with either. Use a full synthetic ATF like Mobil1, RoyalPurple, Amsoil, or Redline.
With the typical lack of maintenance that PSF's usually see, I'd upgrade at the 1st opportunity. Mercon-V is a synth blend and a step above mineral DexII/M-III.
With the typical lack of maintenance that PSF's usually see, I'd upgrade at the 1st opportunity. Mercon-V is a synth blend and a step above mineral DexII/M-III.
Originally Posted By: unDummy
I wouldn't bother with either. Use a full synthetic ATF like Mobil1, RoyalPurple, Amsoil, or Redline.
With the typical lack of maintenance that PSF's usually see, I'd upgrade at the 1st opportunity. Mercon-V is a synth blend and a step above mineral DexII/M-III.
Thanks. Here's the link to the Motorcraft Mercon-V, there's data sheet and a MSDS available. I am no petro engineer, can you confirm that Motorcraft Mercon-V is synth blend?
http://www.fcsdchemicalsandlubricants.com/Main/product.asp?product=MERCON%AE%20V%20Automatic%20Transmission%20and%20Power%20Steering%20Fluid&category=Transmission%20Fluid
I wouldn't bother with either. Use a full synthetic ATF like Mobil1, RoyalPurple, Amsoil, or Redline.
With the typical lack of maintenance that PSF's usually see, I'd upgrade at the 1st opportunity. Mercon-V is a synth blend and a step above mineral DexII/M-III.
Thanks. Here's the link to the Motorcraft Mercon-V, there's data sheet and a MSDS available. I am no petro engineer, can you confirm that Motorcraft Mercon-V is synth blend?
http://www.fcsdchemicalsandlubricants.com/Main/product.asp?product=MERCON%AE%20V%20Automatic%20Transmission%20and%20Power%20Steering%20Fluid&category=Transmission%20Fluid
Last edited:
I used Walmart Supertech Dex/Merc (Dexron III/Mercon equivalent) in my 2000 Protege which also calls for M-III with good results. Just change it out more often.
I've been using SuperTech Dexron VI in my 1999 Millenia's LJ4A-EL (which also calls for M-III) for over two years now, so probably close to 25,000 miles ago. I've also flushed my power steering fluid with Dexron VI around the same time. No issues whatsoever.
Originally Posted By: windeye
I have a 2007 mazda3 that calls for Mazda ATF M-III for power steering. I also have a 2000 Mazda MPV that specs the M-III for the 4-speed automatic transmission (Ford calls the ATX 4EAT-G, Mazda calls it GF4A-EL). I am about to pull the trigger for the Motorcraft Mercon-V based on Ford's ATF application guide, but just found out from one dealer that they do have the M-III available. I need the fluid to do a DIY ATF exchange. Previous trans services were done at a Ford/mazda dealer, and they used Mercon, which is now superseded by Mercon-V. The prices for the two fluids are comparable, so please help me choose which one is better for the 2000 Mazda MPV ATX. Thanks.
Hmmm! My daughters Mazda3 2.0L auto calls for M-V IIRC. I'll have to check!
I have a 2007 mazda3 that calls for Mazda ATF M-III for power steering. I also have a 2000 Mazda MPV that specs the M-III for the 4-speed automatic transmission (Ford calls the ATX 4EAT-G, Mazda calls it GF4A-EL). I am about to pull the trigger for the Motorcraft Mercon-V based on Ford's ATF application guide, but just found out from one dealer that they do have the M-III available. I need the fluid to do a DIY ATF exchange. Previous trans services were done at a Ford/mazda dealer, and they used Mercon, which is now superseded by Mercon-V. The prices for the two fluids are comparable, so please help me choose which one is better for the 2000 Mazda MPV ATX. Thanks.
Hmmm! My daughters Mazda3 2.0L auto calls for M-V IIRC. I'll have to check!
I used Castrol Import Multi Vehicle ATF
I have the GF4A-EL transmission in a 2000 Mazda 626. I have changed the fluid twice since new. First time the stealership flushed it with whatever OEM fluid they used, second time I used a combo of Supertech and Meijer brand Dex/Merc. I currently have 15 or so quarts of Valvoline Maxlife ATF that I will be putting in it in a few weeks. I got it for around $3.25 a quart out the door using the Advanced coupon. Seems to be a recommended bang for the buck fluid on the board. I never really noticed a difference in shifting with either previous fluid.
FWIW, the dipstick is stamped ATF M-III or Dexron II, Mercon
FWIW, the dipstick is stamped ATF M-III or Dexron II, Mercon
This is almost unbelievable. M-V is not a special specification at all, despite what some heads might say.
M-V as a "spec" was chosen because it can be loosely interpreted as Multi-Vehicle or MerconV, which all Multi Vehicle fluids inherently conform to. Mercon V is nothing special either, it's simply the new Mercon, which was identical to Dexron III, which no longer exists. Heck, Dexron VI (VI presumably boasts it's Viscosity Index, and doesn't mean 6) can be used in most Mercon V applications without an issue, only differing in an Afton Chemical addpack over say Lubrizol and being 1cSt thinner, but more shear stable. I mean, the mainstream fluids are pretty much standardized without being officially standardized, causing manufacturers "make up" their own specification names for the "not using a competing brand's spec" reason.
M-V as a "spec" was chosen because it can be loosely interpreted as Multi-Vehicle or MerconV, which all Multi Vehicle fluids inherently conform to. Mercon V is nothing special either, it's simply the new Mercon, which was identical to Dexron III, which no longer exists. Heck, Dexron VI (VI presumably boasts it's Viscosity Index, and doesn't mean 6) can be used in most Mercon V applications without an issue, only differing in an Afton Chemical addpack over say Lubrizol and being 1cSt thinner, but more shear stable. I mean, the mainstream fluids are pretty much standardized without being officially standardized, causing manufacturers "make up" their own specification names for the "not using a competing brand's spec" reason.
Originally Posted By: windeye
Originally Posted By: sangyup81
if they are similar priced, go with the M-III
Thanks for your comment. My main concern is the performance of the fluid. Motorcraft Mercon-V seems to be a better spec than the old Mazda ATF M-III. If the Mercon-V works well in the 4EAT-G trans of the 2000 Mazda MPV, I'd like to use that, since it's more readily available than the M-III, which took detective work to find out (I had to give the part number to the parts dept; when I simply asked what the ATF for 2000 mazda mpv, I got Dexron-III as an answer; when I told them Dexron-III is not longer made, they the told me to use Mercon-V).
I'm curious why would you consider using an older, non-synthetic ATF from the dark ages (M-III) over the semi-synthetic product of superior quality (Mercon V) which also was intended to superscede it? From personal experience, the GF4A-EL transmission was one of the higher tech boxes of the time, one which the fluid of the time wasn't up to task for. It debuted in 92' when all we had was ATFs that amounted to kerosene mixed with VIIs & red food colouring and many of them failed because the fluid would break down too easily under the heat of the box. It's 2010 now, I'd strongly advise using a better, current spec rather than searching high and low for a doo doo ATF from ye olde days.
Originally Posted By: sangyup81
if they are similar priced, go with the M-III
Thanks for your comment. My main concern is the performance of the fluid. Motorcraft Mercon-V seems to be a better spec than the old Mazda ATF M-III. If the Mercon-V works well in the 4EAT-G trans of the 2000 Mazda MPV, I'd like to use that, since it's more readily available than the M-III, which took detective work to find out (I had to give the part number to the parts dept; when I simply asked what the ATF for 2000 mazda mpv, I got Dexron-III as an answer; when I told them Dexron-III is not longer made, they the told me to use Mercon-V).
I'm curious why would you consider using an older, non-synthetic ATF from the dark ages (M-III) over the semi-synthetic product of superior quality (Mercon V) which also was intended to superscede it? From personal experience, the GF4A-EL transmission was one of the higher tech boxes of the time, one which the fluid of the time wasn't up to task for. It debuted in 92' when all we had was ATFs that amounted to kerosene mixed with VIIs & red food colouring and many of them failed because the fluid would break down too easily under the heat of the box. It's 2010 now, I'd strongly advise using a better, current spec rather than searching high and low for a doo doo ATF from ye olde days.
How about the best of both worlds? A synthetic old school Dex II/Mercon...HA!
http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=50&pcid=9
http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=50&pcid=9
Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
This is almost unbelievable. M-V is not a special specification at all, despite what some heads might say.
M-V as a "spec" was chosen because it can be loosely interpreted as Multi-Vehicle or MerconV, which all Multi Vehicle fluids inherently conform to. Mercon V is nothing special either, it's simply the new Mercon, which was identical to Dexron III, which no longer exists. Heck, Dexron VI (VI presumably boasts it's Viscosity Index, and doesn't mean 6) can be used in most Mercon V applications without an issue, only differing in an Afton Chemical addpack over say Lubrizol and being 1cSt thinner, but more shear stable. I mean, the mainstream fluids are pretty much standardized without being officially standardized, causing manufacturers "make up" their own specification names for the "not using a competing brand's spec" reason.
Mercon v is not Mazda M-V: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/1628444/
I saw the above im few places around the net while looking for the correct fluid for my wifes 08 Mazda 3i.
I do agree that M-V is nothing special based on what I cleaned out of the pan. Actually IMO M-V is garbage!! No fluid should be that rancid,discolored and have that much sludge in the pan at 45k (about 80% highway miles, wish I would have done a UOA.
Actually did a drain fill with Castrol Import, then a week later dropped the pan for a filter and used Maxlife Dex/Merc. And after about 8k its working well, actually helped a 2nd shudder that the car would get going up a hill.
This is almost unbelievable. M-V is not a special specification at all, despite what some heads might say.
M-V as a "spec" was chosen because it can be loosely interpreted as Multi-Vehicle or MerconV, which all Multi Vehicle fluids inherently conform to. Mercon V is nothing special either, it's simply the new Mercon, which was identical to Dexron III, which no longer exists. Heck, Dexron VI (VI presumably boasts it's Viscosity Index, and doesn't mean 6) can be used in most Mercon V applications without an issue, only differing in an Afton Chemical addpack over say Lubrizol and being 1cSt thinner, but more shear stable. I mean, the mainstream fluids are pretty much standardized without being officially standardized, causing manufacturers "make up" their own specification names for the "not using a competing brand's spec" reason.
Mercon v is not Mazda M-V: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/1628444/
I saw the above im few places around the net while looking for the correct fluid for my wifes 08 Mazda 3i.
I do agree that M-V is nothing special based on what I cleaned out of the pan. Actually IMO M-V is garbage!! No fluid should be that rancid,discolored and have that much sludge in the pan at 45k (about 80% highway miles, wish I would have done a UOA.
Actually did a drain fill with Castrol Import, then a week later dropped the pan for a filter and used Maxlife Dex/Merc. And after about 8k its working well, actually helped a 2nd shudder that the car would get going up a hill.
Originally Posted By: chevys10
How about the best of both worlds? A synthetic old school Dex II/Mercon...HA!
http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=50&pcid=9
I wonder if their "High Temp ATF" would be better. It's also spec'd for Dexron III applications but its a good deal thicker.
How about the best of both worlds? A synthetic old school Dex II/Mercon...HA!
http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=50&pcid=9
I wonder if their "High Temp ATF" would be better. It's also spec'd for Dexron III applications but its a good deal thicker.
Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
This is almost unbelievable. M-V is not a special specification at all, despite what some heads might say.
M-V as a "spec" was chosen because it can be loosely interpreted as Multi-Vehicle or MerconV, which all Multi Vehicle fluids inherently conform to. Mercon V is nothing special either, it's simply the new Mercon, which was identical to Dexron III, which no longer exists. Heck, Dexron VI (VI presumably boasts it's Viscosity Index, and doesn't mean 6) can be used in most Mercon V applications without an issue, only differing in an Afton Chemical addpack over say Lubrizol and being 1cSt thinner, but more shear stable. I mean, the mainstream fluids are pretty much standardized without being officially standardized, causing manufacturers "make up" their own specification names for the "not using a competing brand's spec" reason.
Everything you said is incorrect. Ford also uses, or did, the FNR5 ATX made by Mazda in a few years of the Fusion 2.3L production. Did they use MerconV? No, they had to blend a new ATF called Motorcraft FNR5 ATF for this transmission.
Nevermind the service bulletins from Mazda warning against the use of Mercon-V and that Mercon-V is not a suitable replacement. There are suitable replacements like Maxlife and castrol import multi-vehicle.
This is almost unbelievable. M-V is not a special specification at all, despite what some heads might say.
M-V as a "spec" was chosen because it can be loosely interpreted as Multi-Vehicle or MerconV, which all Multi Vehicle fluids inherently conform to. Mercon V is nothing special either, it's simply the new Mercon, which was identical to Dexron III, which no longer exists. Heck, Dexron VI (VI presumably boasts it's Viscosity Index, and doesn't mean 6) can be used in most Mercon V applications without an issue, only differing in an Afton Chemical addpack over say Lubrizol and being 1cSt thinner, but more shear stable. I mean, the mainstream fluids are pretty much standardized without being officially standardized, causing manufacturers "make up" their own specification names for the "not using a competing brand's spec" reason.
Everything you said is incorrect. Ford also uses, or did, the FNR5 ATX made by Mazda in a few years of the Fusion 2.3L production. Did they use MerconV? No, they had to blend a new ATF called Motorcraft FNR5 ATF for this transmission.
Nevermind the service bulletins from Mazda warning against the use of Mercon-V and that Mercon-V is not a suitable replacement. There are suitable replacements like Maxlife and castrol import multi-vehicle.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
This is almost unbelievable. M-V is not a special specification at all, despite what some heads might say.
M-V as a "spec" was chosen because it can be loosely interpreted as Multi-Vehicle or MerconV, which all Multi Vehicle fluids inherently conform to. Mercon V is nothing special either, it's simply the new Mercon, which was identical to Dexron III, which no longer exists. Heck, Dexron VI (VI presumably boasts it's Viscosity Index, and doesn't mean 6) can be used in most Mercon V applications without an issue, only differing in an Afton Chemical addpack over say Lubrizol and being 1cSt thinner, but more shear stable. I mean, the mainstream fluids are pretty much standardized without being officially standardized, causing manufacturers "make up" their own specification names for the "not using a competing brand's spec" reason.
Everything you said is incorrect. Ford also uses, or did, the FNR5 ATX made by Mazda in a few years of the Fusion 2.3L production. Did they use MerconV? No, they had to blend a new ATF called Motorcraft FNR5 ATF for this transmission.
Nevermind the service bulletins from Mazda warning against the use of Mercon-V and that Mercon-V is not a suitable replacement. There are suitable replacements like Maxlife and castrol import multi-vehicle.
Come on bud, you can't tell me the entire post is wrong, and go on to corroborate the suitability of Multi-Vehicle fluids. Motorcraft's Mercon V is a 13 year old specification. I shouldn't have suggested people use Motorcraft Mercon V fluids, however Aftermarket MultiVehicle ATF's are suitable, despite meeting Mercon V specs. Dealers don't deal with MultiVehicle fluids, and would cobble up a new spec in a knee-jerk reactionary fashion upon realising that Motorcraft Mercon V is not suitable for the FNR5. Betcha Mazda didn't know that at the time they chose the otherwise coincidental and arbitrary letters of M and V for their specification. Service Bulletins aren't friendly reminders, they're notices of change
Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
This is almost unbelievable. M-V is not a special specification at all, despite what some heads might say.
M-V as a "spec" was chosen because it can be loosely interpreted as Multi-Vehicle or MerconV, which all Multi Vehicle fluids inherently conform to. Mercon V is nothing special either, it's simply the new Mercon, which was identical to Dexron III, which no longer exists. Heck, Dexron VI (VI presumably boasts it's Viscosity Index, and doesn't mean 6) can be used in most Mercon V applications without an issue, only differing in an Afton Chemical addpack over say Lubrizol and being 1cSt thinner, but more shear stable. I mean, the mainstream fluids are pretty much standardized without being officially standardized, causing manufacturers "make up" their own specification names for the "not using a competing brand's spec" reason.
Everything you said is incorrect. Ford also uses, or did, the FNR5 ATX made by Mazda in a few years of the Fusion 2.3L production. Did they use MerconV? No, they had to blend a new ATF called Motorcraft FNR5 ATF for this transmission.
Nevermind the service bulletins from Mazda warning against the use of Mercon-V and that Mercon-V is not a suitable replacement. There are suitable replacements like Maxlife and castrol import multi-vehicle.
Come on bud, you can't tell me the entire post is wrong, and go on to corroborate the suitability of Multi-Vehicle fluids. Motorcraft's Mercon V is a 13 year old specification. I shouldn't have suggested people use Motorcraft Mercon V fluids, however Aftermarket MultiVehicle ATF's are suitable, despite meeting Mercon V specs. Dealers don't deal with MultiVehicle fluids, and would cobble up a new spec in a knee-jerk reactionary fashion upon realising that Motorcraft Mercon V is not suitable for the FNR5. Betcha Mazda didn't know that at the time they chose the otherwise coincidental and arbitrary letters of M and V for their specification. Service Bulletins aren't friendly reminders, they're notices of change
There's a reason why we stock Type F, Mercon V, Motorcraft FNR5, Motorcraft Premium, Mercon SP, Mercon LV plus Mazda M-V, Mazda T4. True the Mazda ones overlap, but if we bill out the Ford one on a Mazda warranty RO there will be [censored] to pay.
Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
Come on bud, you can't tell me the entire post is wrong, and go on to corroborate the suitability of Multi-Vehicle fluids. Motorcraft's Mercon V is a 13 year old specification. I shouldn't have suggested people use Motorcraft Mercon V fluids, however Aftermarket MultiVehicle ATF's are suitable, despite meeting Mercon V specs. Dealers don't deal with MultiVehicle fluids, and would cobble up a new spec in a knee-jerk reactionary fashion upon realising that Motorcraft Mercon V is not suitable for the FNR5. Betcha Mazda didn't know that at the time they chose the otherwise coincidental and arbitrary letters of M and V for their specification. Service Bulletins aren't friendly reminders, they're notices of change
Let the errors keep on coming.
Come on bud, you can't tell me the entire post is wrong, and go on to corroborate the suitability of Multi-Vehicle fluids. Motorcraft's Mercon V is a 13 year old specification. I shouldn't have suggested people use Motorcraft Mercon V fluids, however Aftermarket MultiVehicle ATF's are suitable, despite meeting Mercon V specs. Dealers don't deal with MultiVehicle fluids, and would cobble up a new spec in a knee-jerk reactionary fashion upon realising that Motorcraft Mercon V is not suitable for the FNR5. Betcha Mazda didn't know that at the time they chose the otherwise coincidental and arbitrary letters of M and V for their specification. Service Bulletins aren't friendly reminders, they're notices of change
Let the errors keep on coming.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
