Originally Posted By: The Critic
The problem is that all of the Asian manufacturers call for a fluid that is proprietary. Unlike GM, Ford and Chrysler who holds fluid licensing programs so that blenders can have their fluids certified, no blender can call their fluid certified for any Asian manufacturer as there is no certification program available. For a blender to say a fluid meets/exceeds specs is not the same as certification.
Exactly. That's the reason for all the recommended for everything, meets nothing ATF nowadays.
Many propriety specs are actually different and not renamed from a known spec/standard. Sometimes, the propriety spec's requirement makes it physically impossible for 1 fluid to meet 2 standards. But still, some ATF manufacturers put the "recommended" label on their bottles.
The reality is that for the above example, the ATF does not meet the spec, but the ATF manufacturer thinks it is "close enough" to be used for such application, contradicting what the car manufacturer recommended.
Unfortunately, there is no way to verify the ATF manufacturer's claim, because the propriety specs are not often available - especially for the general public.
So here comes some BITOGer's opinions' on XX ATF works for me and it shifts smooth, and I have 15/30/45k miles on it! Did they do any UOA to measure wear? Did they run it long enough to know it does not shorten their transmission's life? Even if so, it's just 1 particular transmission.
I would rather trust the engineers who made my car, instead of some dude's a$$ dyno results online.
