SAE Paper on Universal ATFs
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: The Critic
So far, I've come to the conclusion that it is possible to blend a product that satisfies the oxidation, corrosion, load carrying capability and shear stability requirements, but I'm not convinced that one product can truly satisfy the OEM frictional requirements of every application. Granted, as Whitewolf mentioned earlier, it's possible for some transmission to be more forgiving than others, thus frictional characteristics that deviate slightly from the approved service fill may not cause long-term damage.
That makes some intuitive sense to me. I'm pretty sure the OEM friction requirements are specified by giving both an optimal value and an acceptable range around that value (as opposed to only specifying a minimum or maximum acceptable value). While each particular ATF spec likely has a unique optimal value, it seems certain that there is considerable overlap amongst their accpetable ranges.
My guess is that multi-spec ATF's work by exploiting this overlap by having friction properties that while perhaps near optimal for only a few standards are within the acceptable range for many. The difference in spec listing amnong the various multi-spec ATF's is due to different choices on where to thread the properties through the various ranges.
Which brings to mind the old Russian saying of "'Better than' is the enemy of 'good enough'."
So far, I've come to the conclusion that it is possible to blend a product that satisfies the oxidation, corrosion, load carrying capability and shear stability requirements, but I'm not convinced that one product can truly satisfy the OEM frictional requirements of every application. Granted, as Whitewolf mentioned earlier, it's possible for some transmission to be more forgiving than others, thus frictional characteristics that deviate slightly from the approved service fill may not cause long-term damage.
That makes some intuitive sense to me. I'm pretty sure the OEM friction requirements are specified by giving both an optimal value and an acceptable range around that value (as opposed to only specifying a minimum or maximum acceptable value). While each particular ATF spec likely has a unique optimal value, it seems certain that there is considerable overlap amongst their accpetable ranges.
My guess is that multi-spec ATF's work by exploiting this overlap by having friction properties that while perhaps near optimal for only a few standards are within the acceptable range for many. The difference in spec listing amnong the various multi-spec ATF's is due to different choices on where to thread the properties through the various ranges.
Which brings to mind the old Russian saying of "'Better than' is the enemy of 'good enough'."
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Aren't the friction graphs enough evidence for you?
Your use of
implies what?
Two of the other OEM fluids failed the Dexron VI 85 Nm requirement. Why is this surprising? These fluids are made specifically for other transmissions. This is NOT proof that a universal fluid, or more specifically Amsoil ATF will fail this test, or will not work in the AT's claimed.
How are you certain that your ATF will behave correctly with every type of friction material?
Until I see proof that the fluid will perform identical( in terms of frition) to the OEM fluid when tested with the OEM friction material in each application, I'm not buying it.
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Aren't the friction graphs enough evidence for you?
Your use of
Two of the other OEM fluids failed the Dexron VI 85 Nm requirement. Why is this surprising? These fluids are made specifically for other transmissions. This is NOT proof that a universal fluid, or more specifically Amsoil ATF will fail this test, or will not work in the AT's claimed.
How are you certain that your ATF will behave correctly with every type of friction material?
Until I see proof that the fluid will perform identical( in terms of frition) to the OEM fluid when tested with the OEM friction material in each application, I'm not buying it.
Will someone provide a list of the aftermarket fluids that were tested?
No "aftermarket" fluids were tested. Only OEM fluids, or fluids supplied by OEM's.
GM's factory fill and service fill branded Dexron VI is made by Petro-Canada, and GM basically specs the base stocks and additive packages to a few different suppliers, so you take the base, add the additives, and you have Dexron VI. Petro-Canada developed the base with GM and Afton Chemical developed the additive packs.
I don't think people who have a trans with a "modern" ATF spec are worried about finding and using "Universals"(sans AMSoil). Universals are basicly upgrades for older style fluids. I can think of only a few apps where a Universal would be a prefered solution. Z-1 is the first to come to mind and is the first one listed on Castrol's HMMV. Nobody is suggesting to dump MercV, ATF+4, LT117XX or Dex6 for Universals.
Obviously, those newer oem fluids have rigourous testing and approvals and are 100% appropriate. This goes to the heart of the paper. I don't think it should be construed that noone should ever dump their DexIII for Universal, if that's the one that looks best to them.
Obviously, those newer oem fluids have rigourous testing and approvals and are 100% appropriate. This goes to the heart of the paper. I don't think it should be construed that noone should ever dump their DexIII for Universal, if that's the one that looks best to them.
Sorry if I was not clear. I'm just refering to oem used as oem being a self-validating construct. I'm sorta saying that the whole position of oem for oem's sake will always pass as real science while universals are seen as voodoo. This partly because their testing will begin with the premise of oem is best and they will test to affirm that.
Sorry that wasn't aimed at you, I was answering benjamming's question.
However in response to your comment I would say that one of the issues is that the OEMs spend millions in development and testing of fluids and in many cases publish their findings, in contrast it's difficult to say the least to get some of the 'universal' fluid producers to show even a shred of real data.
However in response to your comment I would say that one of the issues is that the OEMs spend millions in development and testing of fluids and in many cases publish their findings, in contrast it's difficult to say the least to get some of the 'universal' fluid producers to show even a shred of real data.
DEX VI (GM)
Honda Z1 (Honda)
Mercon V (Ford)
ATF+4 (Chrysler)
Diamond Something... (Mitsubishi)
WS (Toyota)
... ... ??
Honda Z1 (Honda)
Mercon V (Ford)
ATF+4 (Chrysler)
Diamond Something... (Mitsubishi)
WS (Toyota)
... ... ??
T-IV (Toyota)
Red-1 (Kia)
M5 (Mazda)
Fluid for the 01M transmission, can't remember the name (VW)
Fluid for the 09A transmission, can't remember the name (VW)
DSG Fluid (VW)
Mercon SP (Ford)
Mercon LV (Ford)
Matic J (Nissan)
Matic K (Nissan)
Matic D (Nissan)
Honda CVT specific fluid (Honda)
NS-2 CVT fluid (Nissan)
DEX-CVT (GM)
SP-III (Hyundai/Kia)
Red-1 (Kia)
M5 (Mazda)
Fluid for the 01M transmission, can't remember the name (VW)
Fluid for the 09A transmission, can't remember the name (VW)
DSG Fluid (VW)
Mercon SP (Ford)
Mercon LV (Ford)
Matic J (Nissan)
Matic K (Nissan)
Matic D (Nissan)
Honda CVT specific fluid (Honda)
NS-2 CVT fluid (Nissan)
DEX-CVT (GM)
SP-III (Hyundai/Kia)
"Ok, Amsoil claims that their universal ATF is Z1 "compliant". Is this correct or should I stick with genuine Z1 for my Honda?"
Since Honda doesn't seem to release specifications for Z1 nor do they have a certification systems for outside suppliers I'm stumped as to how anyone could claim "compliance". Valvoline claims that they have tested some of their fluids in Honda Z1 applications and that they warrant it's use in those applications, but even Valvoline doesn't claim compliance with Z1 specifications. Is that really what Amsoil claims?
Since Honda doesn't seem to release specifications for Z1 nor do they have a certification systems for outside suppliers I'm stumped as to how anyone could claim "compliance". Valvoline claims that they have tested some of their fluids in Honda Z1 applications and that they warrant it's use in those applications, but even Valvoline doesn't claim compliance with Z1 specifications. Is that really what Amsoil claims?
While Honda may not release Z1 specifications to the general public, other oil companies may have access to it. Amsoil does test their ATF in Honda Z1 applications, as well as all the others listed, to make sure it performs correctly.
Originally Posted By: ConfederateTyrant
While Honda may not release Z1 specifications to the general public, other oil companies may have access to it.
They actually do not.
While Honda may not release Z1 specifications to the general public, other oil companies may have access to it.
They actually do not.
Originally Posted By: ConfederateTyrant
While Honda may not release Z1 specifications to the general public, other oil companies may have access to it. Amsoil does test their ATF in Honda Z1 applications, as well as all the others listed, to make sure it performs correctly.
Not true.
For a time there was a licensed offering of Honda's Power Steering fluid, I haven't seen this in a long time, but I have not looked for it either.
If I remember correctly, there was some sort of litigation which resulted in the offering of this PS fluid. This was due to the "Use ONLY Honda PS Fluid" statements in the owner's manuals.
My beloved 90 Accord called for DEX III ..... Newer Z1 applications OK'd the use of DEX III if Z1 was not available. I had asked in another thread if the newest Honda owner’s manuals still stated this since DEX III was no longer available.
Perhaps someone would be able to answer that question in this monster thread??????
It would be curious if the newest 08 models still had manuals which reference DEX III as suitable.
While Honda may not release Z1 specifications to the general public, other oil companies may have access to it. Amsoil does test their ATF in Honda Z1 applications, as well as all the others listed, to make sure it performs correctly.
Not true.
For a time there was a licensed offering of Honda's Power Steering fluid, I haven't seen this in a long time, but I have not looked for it either.
If I remember correctly, there was some sort of litigation which resulted in the offering of this PS fluid. This was due to the "Use ONLY Honda PS Fluid" statements in the owner's manuals.
My beloved 90 Accord called for DEX III ..... Newer Z1 applications OK'd the use of DEX III if Z1 was not available. I had asked in another thread if the newest Honda owner’s manuals still stated this since DEX III was no longer available.
Perhaps someone would be able to answer that question in this monster thread??????
It would be curious if the newest 08 models still had manuals which reference DEX III as suitable.
I veiw Honda Z1 as nothing but junk. I get it out of my HOndas right away when I get them. Honda claims that Z1 must be used, but look at all the transmission failures they have with this fluid (not saying it is the only problem). I would much rather try my luck with synthetic. That is why I use Amsoil. Shifts better too. Over 150k on the accord and 128k on the odyssey
- Status
