I've got 185K now on my fragile 1999 41TE Chrysler 4 speed using first ATF+3 then ATF+4. There's no way it could have done that on OE fluid. Oops, silly me, that is OE fluid.
SAE Paper on Universal ATFs
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: keith
I've got 185K now on my fragile 1999 41TE Chrysler 4 speed using first ATF+3 then ATF+4. There's no way it could have done that on OE fluid. Oops, silly me, that is OE fluid.
How? Maintenance.
Just like w/motor oil, service length of synthetic oils is a key feature.
Let's just stop and think. Nobody is trying to knock good oem fluids like BMW LT1171 or ATF+4. Much of the concern, and thus the thrust of the endevour, is not to improve on those good ones so much as to improve on older oem fluids, like DexIII, Mercon and the like. Yes, until Honda steps up with a new synthetic Z1(II) that is worth what they charge, like they did with DPF II and the new MTL, I will lump them in with the antiquated older fluids.
Now, I still plan on trying the ATF+4 in the older CRV. It has ARX in w/ a lot of different fluids. M1/LG, AMSoil, some Z1 and even maybe MaxLife. Since I am really just trying to flush the ARX out, I can change fluids again quickly, if I desire. I actually want to stick it out for a while and use ATF+4 again. I ~KNOW~ it's a quality fluid and it's on the friction-modified end of the spectrum, like Z1 is. We also KNOW that the friction charistics chage over the service life, so likely there is a lot of cross-over and wiggle room. (is that the technical term?)
Nobody ever posted the reference rainbow of how the different fluids line up as far as friction coefficient. Does anybody know?
Btw, my solution if the ATF+4 "slips" is a round of Mobil 1 "Dex" rather than a Multi or whatever. Maybe that's a good approach, custom mixed M1 and ATF+4. If all else fails, it looks like MaxLife, Castrol High Mileage or MVI.
I've got 185K now on my fragile 1999 41TE Chrysler 4 speed using first ATF+3 then ATF+4. There's no way it could have done that on OE fluid. Oops, silly me, that is OE fluid.
How? Maintenance.
Just like w/motor oil, service length of synthetic oils is a key feature.
Let's just stop and think. Nobody is trying to knock good oem fluids like BMW LT1171 or ATF+4. Much of the concern, and thus the thrust of the endevour, is not to improve on those good ones so much as to improve on older oem fluids, like DexIII, Mercon and the like. Yes, until Honda steps up with a new synthetic Z1(II) that is worth what they charge, like they did with DPF II and the new MTL, I will lump them in with the antiquated older fluids.
Now, I still plan on trying the ATF+4 in the older CRV. It has ARX in w/ a lot of different fluids. M1/LG, AMSoil, some Z1 and even maybe MaxLife. Since I am really just trying to flush the ARX out, I can change fluids again quickly, if I desire. I actually want to stick it out for a while and use ATF+4 again. I ~KNOW~ it's a quality fluid and it's on the friction-modified end of the spectrum, like Z1 is. We also KNOW that the friction charistics chage over the service life, so likely there is a lot of cross-over and wiggle room. (is that the technical term?)
Nobody ever posted the reference rainbow of how the different fluids line up as far as friction coefficient. Does anybody know?
Btw, my solution if the ATF+4 "slips" is a round of Mobil 1 "Dex" rather than a Multi or whatever. Maybe that's a good approach, custom mixed M1 and ATF+4. If all else fails, it looks like MaxLife, Castrol High Mileage or MVI.
Are any of the OEM fluids backward compatible...for example, is Mobil 1 Synthetic, which says Mercon V, compatible with an application that calls for Dex III
ford states that Mercon V is fully backwards compatible with Mercon. just not with ford's that require type F.
Mike - did you buy the paper?
Originally Posted By: The Critic
If you want an honest, unbiased answer on the importance of application specific fluids, look no further than this SAE Paper.
That's quite an intro, but GM may attempt to be honest, but they are hardly "unbiased". This is not meant to start some war of words, but everyone has a bias!!! I would like to read the paper, but don't want to shell out $14.
If you want an honest, unbiased answer on the importance of application specific fluids, look no further than this SAE Paper.
That's quite an intro, but GM may attempt to be honest, but they are hardly "unbiased". This is not meant to start some war of words, but everyone has a bias!!! I would like to read the paper, but don't want to shell out $14.
Absolutely. I have been running Amsoil Universal ATF in my my Dodge minivan's A604, for nearly three years now, and my ATX still shifts perfectly.
Maybe I am just cheap. I just can't see paying $14 for what I suspect is really proprietary information though.
Questions for Whitewolf or Molakule:
It is understood that GM no longer acknowledges the existence of DEX III.
Assume ACME blenders had a previously GM licensed version of DEX III called 'ACME DEX III'.
Is there enough motivation (I'm taking $$$) to change the previously licensed formula of 'ACME DEX III'?
Wouldn't the add packs be cheaper to purchase now in that there is no license fees to worry about? Wouldn't ACME just continue to buy the add packs exactly as before and blend exactly as before?
If there is motivation to change, what would be the typical change, and how far would that change stray from the original formula that was DEX III compliant?
Again if changed, could there be changes which are truly positive in nature and actually do not detract from the original compliance?
How far could ACME 'stray' from the original 'ACME DEX III' formula yet continue to offer it as 'Works with DEX III Applications'?
Or asked differently: Is it possible to just dump all aspects of what made a DEX III and still achieve resonable performance?
Thanks in advance!!
It is understood that GM no longer acknowledges the existence of DEX III.
Assume ACME blenders had a previously GM licensed version of DEX III called 'ACME DEX III'.
Is there enough motivation (I'm taking $$$) to change the previously licensed formula of 'ACME DEX III'?
Wouldn't the add packs be cheaper to purchase now in that there is no license fees to worry about? Wouldn't ACME just continue to buy the add packs exactly as before and blend exactly as before?
If there is motivation to change, what would be the typical change, and how far would that change stray from the original formula that was DEX III compliant?
Again if changed, could there be changes which are truly positive in nature and actually do not detract from the original compliance?
How far could ACME 'stray' from the original 'ACME DEX III' formula yet continue to offer it as 'Works with DEX III Applications'?
Or asked differently: Is it possible to just dump all aspects of what made a DEX III and still achieve resonable performance?
Thanks in advance!!
Last edited:
Yes, there is motivation to change.
The reason why GM upgraded from 'G' to 'H' was that they observed that many service fill fluids were failing to meet their criteria for normal service and almost all failed to meet their crireria for severe service ~ published information. The upgrade meant that 'H' formulations needed better quality base oils (more expensive) and in many cases improvements to the additive (not necessarily the core chemistry but other embedded components). That is why since licensing of those products ceased there is an opportunity for companies to go backwards in quality and increase profit in the process.
Changes that could be positive mean, for instance, more durable FM systems, more shear stable VMs and better quality base oils, all of which cost more $. So basically, any positive change means more expense to the additive company, the oil company and the consumer. To give you some idea a Gp III base oil is typically at least double the cost of a Gp I. So the temptation is there and if no one is looking it's even greater. It's like speeding. Everyone speeds even though there are police out there looking to catch people, imagine what would happen if they were suddenly not there!
The way to upgrade costs money but buying licensed products means that there is some control of the formulations so you are far more likely to get what you are paying for.
Yes, it's possible to cobble together a formulation that will work for a while and many people would never notice, even if the transmission eventually failed.
Have I helped?
The reason why GM upgraded from 'G' to 'H' was that they observed that many service fill fluids were failing to meet their criteria for normal service and almost all failed to meet their crireria for severe service ~ published information. The upgrade meant that 'H' formulations needed better quality base oils (more expensive) and in many cases improvements to the additive (not necessarily the core chemistry but other embedded components). That is why since licensing of those products ceased there is an opportunity for companies to go backwards in quality and increase profit in the process.
Changes that could be positive mean, for instance, more durable FM systems, more shear stable VMs and better quality base oils, all of which cost more $. So basically, any positive change means more expense to the additive company, the oil company and the consumer. To give you some idea a Gp III base oil is typically at least double the cost of a Gp I. So the temptation is there and if no one is looking it's even greater. It's like speeding. Everyone speeds even though there are police out there looking to catch people, imagine what would happen if they were suddenly not there!
The way to upgrade costs money but buying licensed products means that there is some control of the formulations so you are far more likely to get what you are paying for.
Yes, it's possible to cobble together a formulation that will work for a while and many people would never notice, even if the transmission eventually failed.
Have I helped?
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
Yes, it's possible to cobble together a formulation that will work for a while and many people would never notice, even if the transmission eventually failed.
Have I helped?
Actually no. Those kind of words are just not proper without evidence, I guess because you qualify it with "even if" you are off the hook. "Cobble together"....sure whatever. I'm sure GM "Cobble(d) together" Dex VI and no one else can make anything better.
Please tell us what the fluids are A-G. Thanks.
Yes, it's possible to cobble together a formulation that will work for a while and many people would never notice, even if the transmission eventually failed.
Have I helped?
Actually no. Those kind of words are just not proper without evidence, I guess because you qualify it with "even if" you are off the hook. "Cobble together"....sure whatever. I'm sure GM "Cobble(d) together" Dex VI and no one else can make anything better.
Please tell us what the fluids are A-G. Thanks.
Pablo,
It is possible to do exactly that. I'm not saying that everyone would do it but there are a number of us that know how to do it if we wanted to.
There are some pretty horrible fluids out there. You must have seen some, so you know what I mean.
It is possible to do exactly that. I'm not saying that everyone would do it but there are a number of us that know how to do it if we wanted to.
There are some pretty horrible fluids out there. You must have seen some, so you know what I mean.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: salesrep
The oems have their fluids bid out to meet the minimum spec.
It stands to reason that boutiques, such as Schaeffers, build theirs with better base stocks and add packages designed to outperform.
As an example. Joey Chumlo's convenient store 5-30 meets the sae spec, but don't think for one second that it will outperform a quality name brand.
The newest OEM fluids have very, very strict controls over the additive package and basestock selection. The performance differences between brands has pretty much been eliminated.
So? Does that mean that they're the absolute best at achieving longevity and performance? I can strictly control the makings of an excellent (by my standard) anything. It doesn't mean that it's the best or superior way to do something ..especially if some bean counter is involved.
Originally Posted By: salesrep
The oems have their fluids bid out to meet the minimum spec.
It stands to reason that boutiques, such as Schaeffers, build theirs with better base stocks and add packages designed to outperform.
As an example. Joey Chumlo's convenient store 5-30 meets the sae spec, but don't think for one second that it will outperform a quality name brand.
The newest OEM fluids have very, very strict controls over the additive package and basestock selection. The performance differences between brands has pretty much been eliminated.
So? Does that mean that they're the absolute best at achieving longevity and performance? I can strictly control the makings of an excellent (by my standard) anything. It doesn't mean that it's the best or superior way to do something ..especially if some bean counter is involved.
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
The upgrade meant that 'H' formulations needed better quality base oils (more expensive) and in many cases improvements to the additive (not necessarily the core chemistry but other embedded components). That is why since licensing of those products ceased there is an opportunity for companies to go backwards in quality and increase profit in the process.
Have I helped?
Yes, this helps very much, and it makes sense. Thank you.
Whitewolf, can you speak of a core requirement of DEX VI that 'restricts' (many ways to phrase this) it from being a Universal ATF?
i.e. What is missing, or is there too much of an additive etc etc that would keep DEX VI from being a Universal ATF?
Or to ask one last way: Can a blender create a fluid that would absolutely meet DEX VI, but then do 'something' to make their fluid universal? (Assume the 'something' does not detract from any aspect of DEX VI)
Yes, somewhat loaded questions.
Yes, somewhat geared to wondering how a fluid like Amsoil ATF make it's statements.
Also geared to other companies like Redline who market separate versions of their fluid.
The upgrade meant that 'H' formulations needed better quality base oils (more expensive) and in many cases improvements to the additive (not necessarily the core chemistry but other embedded components). That is why since licensing of those products ceased there is an opportunity for companies to go backwards in quality and increase profit in the process.
Have I helped?
Yes, this helps very much, and it makes sense. Thank you.
Whitewolf, can you speak of a core requirement of DEX VI that 'restricts' (many ways to phrase this) it from being a Universal ATF?
i.e. What is missing, or is there too much of an additive etc etc that would keep DEX VI from being a Universal ATF?
Or to ask one last way: Can a blender create a fluid that would absolutely meet DEX VI, but then do 'something' to make their fluid universal? (Assume the 'something' does not detract from any aspect of DEX VI)
Yes, somewhat loaded questions.
Yes, somewhat geared to wondering how a fluid like Amsoil ATF make it's statements.
Also geared to other companies like Redline who market separate versions of their fluid.
Last edited:
Perhaps this will shed some light.
Traditional universal tran fluids
Standard Viscosity (>6.8 cSt)
Chrysler ATF+4
Ford MERCON
Ford MERCON V
GM DEXRON-III
Honda Z-1
Nissan Matic-J
Hyundai SP-III
Toyota Type T-IV
TES 389
Newer specs (sp exception)
Low Viscosity (5.5 – 6.5 cSt)
MB NAG-2
Ford MERCON SP
GM DEXRON VI -
Toyota WS
Ford NGF
JWS3309
JWS 3324
Traditional universal tran fluids
Standard Viscosity (>6.8 cSt)
Chrysler ATF+4
Ford MERCON
Ford MERCON V
GM DEXRON-III
Honda Z-1
Nissan Matic-J
Hyundai SP-III
Toyota Type T-IV
TES 389
Newer specs (sp exception)
Low Viscosity (5.5 – 6.5 cSt)
MB NAG-2
Ford MERCON SP
GM DEXRON VI -
Toyota WS
Ford NGF
JWS3309
JWS 3324
Each new ATF specification imposes more stringent requirements on the fluid.
75% to 90% Base oil
- Requires use of high quality base stocks
- Has a dramatic effect on the performance of the fluid
- Effects viscosity, especially low temperature fluidity,
oxidation and thermal stability, foaming tendencies and
flash point.
10% to 25% Performance additive package
- Dispersants for control of sludge and varnish
- Corrosion inhibitors to prevent corrosion of transmission
parts
- Anti-wear additives to prevent wear
- Friction Modifiers to improve frictional characteristics
- Pour Point Depressants to lower the pour point
- Foam Inhibitors to reduce foaming tendencies
- VI Improvers to enhance the fluid’s viscometric properties
- Seal Swell Additives to control elastomer swell and hardness.
Schaeffers Tech dept. doct.
75% to 90% Base oil
- Requires use of high quality base stocks
- Has a dramatic effect on the performance of the fluid
- Effects viscosity, especially low temperature fluidity,
oxidation and thermal stability, foaming tendencies and
flash point.
10% to 25% Performance additive package
- Dispersants for control of sludge and varnish
- Corrosion inhibitors to prevent corrosion of transmission
parts
- Anti-wear additives to prevent wear
- Friction Modifiers to improve frictional characteristics
- Pour Point Depressants to lower the pour point
- Foam Inhibitors to reduce foaming tendencies
- VI Improvers to enhance the fluid’s viscometric properties
- Seal Swell Additives to control elastomer swell and hardness.
Schaeffers Tech dept. doct.
I don't know how they do it. They most definitely do it right though.
I have one of those infamous, persnickety, touchy A604 electronic 4 speeds in my Dodge minivan. I had a complete flush and filter change done, with a fill of Amsoil UATF. It made an immediate improvement in shift quality, and my trans temp gage shows that it runs cooler. I have done anything but baby that thing ever since, and no problems at all.
I don't care what the theory is or what the SAE says. It is great stuff in actual practice.
I have one of those infamous, persnickety, touchy A604 electronic 4 speeds in my Dodge minivan. I had a complete flush and filter change done, with a fill of Amsoil UATF. It made an immediate improvement in shift quality, and my trans temp gage shows that it runs cooler. I have done anything but baby that thing ever since, and no problems at all.
I don't care what the theory is or what the SAE says. It is great stuff in actual practice.
Quote:
I don't care what the theory is or what the SAE says. It is great stuff in actual practice.
For your particular vehicle, sure that maybe the case. But I wouldn't assume that all multi veh atf's would be the best option for every specific trans/application out there.
I don't care what the theory is or what the SAE says. It is great stuff in actual practice.
For your particular vehicle, sure that maybe the case. But I wouldn't assume that all multi veh atf's would be the best option for every specific trans/application out there.
- Status
