How is QuakerState able to state that its multi-fluid ATF is recommended for use in Chrysler ATF+4 applications (as per their technical data sheet) when they make a licensed ATF+4 automatic transmission fluid as well? Does Chrysler allow Quaker State to state that for the multi-fluid ATF? Or would that be a violation of a licensing agreement?
QuakerState Multi-Fluid ATF technical advise
- Thread starter Ridds
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Ridds
How is QuakerState able to state that its multi-fluid ATF is recommended for use in Chrysler ATF+4 applications (as per their technical data sheet)
because it is highly friction modified fluid.
How is QuakerState able to state that its multi-fluid ATF is recommended for use in Chrysler ATF+4 applications (as per their technical data sheet)
because it is highly friction modified fluid.
Originally Posted By: Ridds
How is QuakerState able to state that its multi-fluid ATF is recommended for use in Chrysler ATF+4 applications (as per their technical data sheet) when they make a licensed ATF+4 automatic transmission fluid as well? Does Chrysler allow Quaker State to state that for the multi-fluid ATF?
Putting "Chrysler ATF+4" requires the use of the Lubrizol additive package and a license from Chrysler.
Noting that it works in Chrysler transmissions that use ATF+4 requires testing it.
How is QuakerState able to state that its multi-fluid ATF is recommended for use in Chrysler ATF+4 applications (as per their technical data sheet) when they make a licensed ATF+4 automatic transmission fluid as well? Does Chrysler allow Quaker State to state that for the multi-fluid ATF?
Putting "Chrysler ATF+4" requires the use of the Lubrizol additive package and a license from Chrysler.
Noting that it works in Chrysler transmissions that use ATF+4 requires testing it.
Thank you Wilhelm D.
Last edited:
From Shell U.S. Product Technical Service:
We state that our Pennzoil or Quaker State Multi-Vehicle Automatic Transmission Fluidshave been tested in Chrysler automatic transmissions specifying the use of fluids meeting specification MS 7176E or MS 9602 and are sutiable for use in these applications even though not licensed for use in these applications.
The specifications MS 7176 and MS 9602 cover the transmissions
calling for the use of ATF+3 and ATF+4 type automatic transmission
fluids.
Sincerely
Product Technical Service
Here is another question... Are they able to say that it is suitable for use even if they are making a licensed ATF+4 fluid? Other companies don't make that claim. How is QuakerState getting around that?
We state that our Pennzoil or Quaker State Multi-Vehicle Automatic Transmission Fluidshave been tested in Chrysler automatic transmissions specifying the use of fluids meeting specification MS 7176E or MS 9602 and are sutiable for use in these applications even though not licensed for use in these applications.
The specifications MS 7176 and MS 9602 cover the transmissions
calling for the use of ATF+3 and ATF+4 type automatic transmission
fluids.
Sincerely
Product Technical Service
Here is another question... Are they able to say that it is suitable for use even if they are making a licensed ATF+4 fluid? Other companies don't make that claim. How is QuakerState getting around that?
Because the license doesn't state that the blender can't make an unlicensed product that is suitable. Did you not read my earlier post? There is no getting around. They blend a licensed fluid per the formula required. And they blend their own universal multi-vehicle fluid with their OWN formula that they tested to be suitable.
Don't forget that ATF+4 is over a decade old, and base-stock & additive technologies have improved. At the time, it was probably the best ATF spec around. By now, I'd expect all the additive players to have a package that can meet or beat the requirements originally set forth.
Don't forget that ATF+4 is over a decade old, and base-stock & additive technologies have improved. At the time, it was probably the best ATF spec around. By now, I'd expect all the additive players to have a package that can meet or beat the requirements originally set forth.
Here's the problem with that. They can't say that. The CENTER FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE Chrysler LLC and ATF+4® will not allow it for other blenders who have licensed products under them. When I asked Shell a second time about this they wouldn't respond. I will be contacting Chrysler about this.
Last edited:
It will be interesting to know what Chrysler tells you on this, especially since Shell is factory fill on Chrysler products made in the USA.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Originally Posted By: Ridds
Here's the problem with that. They can't say that. The CENTER FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE Chrysler LLC and ATF+4® will not allow it for other blenders who have licensed products under them. When I asked Shell a second time about this they wouldn't respond. I will be contacting Chrysler about this.
This appears true from a standpoint that XOM doesn't once mention "suitable for use" with any other fluid ..including their multi-vehicle ATF or M1. It's conspicuously absent.
One swallow does not a summer make, however.
Here's the problem with that. They can't say that. The CENTER FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE Chrysler LLC and ATF+4® will not allow it for other blenders who have licensed products under them. When I asked Shell a second time about this they wouldn't respond. I will be contacting Chrysler about this.
This appears true from a standpoint that XOM doesn't once mention "suitable for use" with any other fluid ..including their multi-vehicle ATF or M1. It's conspicuously absent.
One swallow does not a summer make, however.
Quakerstate is unable to state that their multi fluid ATF is recommended or suitable for use with ATF+4 is required. Shell has spent millions of dollars with Chrysler to get three licensed ATF products:
Formula Shell ATF+4®
Pennzoil ATF+4®
Quaker State ATF+4®
The CENTER FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE; which is Chrysler’s licensing branch for the ATF+4 name says that they will be contacting Shell to help them with this.
Formula Shell ATF+4®
Pennzoil ATF+4®
Quaker State ATF+4®
The CENTER FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE; which is Chrysler’s licensing branch for the ATF+4 name says that they will be contacting Shell to help them with this.
Walmarts super Tech multi use ATF says the same thing, that it can be used in ATF +3 and +4 transmissions as top off or complete fill.
After further review of this, I cannot find where Shell/Quaker State makes this statement about their Multi-Vehicle ATF. Here is the latest technical data sheet on the product, and no where does it say anything about ATF+4.
http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_X_cbe_26680_key_140003339385_200911041746.pdf
http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_X_cbe_26680_key_140003339385_200911041746.pdf
When I brought up the tech data sheet for that product online a couple of days ago it was dated Jan 2007 as stated earlier in the thread. When I phoned 1800 BEST OIL they state that it is suitable for use in ATF+4 applications. Shell can't say it. They should be telling people to use their licensed products instead.
Last edited:
Well, it appears from the latest tech sheet that I posted they are telling people not to use it "officially". But with all due respect, it will probably work just fine as someone must have told you.
And besides that, if your going to post a spec sheet, you should do it from North America, not from a QS site in Europe.
http://www.quakerstate.se/kontakt.asp
And besides that, if your going to post a spec sheet, you should do it from North America, not from a QS site in Europe.
http://www.quakerstate.se/kontakt.asp
Royal Dutch Shell plc is a European company. You Johnny used to work for a subsidiary of Shell headquartered in Houston, Texas. I posted a tech data sheet in English mind you from a Quaker State site. If different branches of the company don't have up to data technical information on their own products then Shell's marketing and technical department need to work more closely together. Other competitors do... The fact that the only differences in the two sheets are the ATF+3 and ATF+4 are what I have already found out. I thank you for your imput on this matter.
Last edited:
- Status
