SAE Paper on Universal ATFs

[Oilgal]

Originally Posted By: buster
Oilgal, you could be right. I'm just not a fan of any universal type product in general whether that be tv/dvd combo units or shampoo/conditioner all in one. LOL. If something is designed to use a specific fluid, I'd rather just use that. Has nothing to do with Amsoil's quality as they make excellent fluids and are my favorite boutique brand on the market.


That all makes good sense. I have been a bit grouchy lately. I apologize to all here present. Too much going on here right now.

Thanks for being patient with me.

 

[Oilgal]

Originally Posted By: Kestas
Originally Posted By: Oilgal
... I suspect the SAE paper, you must pay a freaking fee of $14 to even read, is business not science, and I wont buy it even at $14 USD.

The money is charged to recoup the administrative costs of SAE to manage the dissemination of information, just as government charges the individual for information and documents that are readily available to the public.


Very true. That was a bad day for me. Please pardon me.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Oilgal
Originally Posted By: buster
Oilgal, you could be right. I'm just not a fan of any universal type product in general whether that be tv/dvd combo units or shampoo/conditioner all in one. LOL. If something is designed to use a specific fluid, I'd rather just use that. Has nothing to do with Amsoil's quality as they make excellent fluids and are my favorite boutique brand on the market.


That all makes good sense. I have been a bit grouchy lately. I apologize to all here present. Too much going on here right now.

Thanks for being patient with me.

Oilgal, no need for an apology. You're entitled to your own opinion. I'm not an expert. I was just giving you my opinion.

 

[benjamming]

HondaMan & buster,

You both seemed to miss my point. WhiteWolf addressed my point in that the fluid is not very good, actually quite pathetic. For whatever reason, Honda is behind many of the other automakers in this area. I didn't make any correlation to preventing or causing the unit failures due to design flaws and/or material choices.

buster,
OEM engineers aren't gods. Remember, OEM engineers designed the faulty AT in those Honda cars just like OEM engineers designed the fluid. Some hit, some miss for a multitude of reasons.

 

[keith]

Originally Posted By: Oilgal

Looks to me like the Big Boys, who apparently have an undue influence upon the SAE, are targeting Amsoil, because their Universal ATF, which in my experience has outperformed DAIMLER/chrysler's ATF+3/+4 fluid, is cutting into their bottom line.



Amsoil is to The Big Boys as a grain of sand is to Daytona Beach.

By the way, ATF+4 works great in my 41TE, Amsoil Universal ATF does not - way too much slip on gear changes and drops out of lockup too easily. That's one more anecdotal data point.

I wouldn't necessarily conclude that Amsoil is slipperier than ATF+4 because the shift computer software is in control. What I can say is that the fluids are not 100% compatible and Universal won't work for everyone.

 

[jpr]

Count me in as a UATF skeptic and here's another datapoint for you:
In just between 199 and 2002, BMW specified no less than 5 different fluids for use in various AT's in their line up.
* DEXRON III
* TEXACO ETL 7045E
* TEXACO ETL 8072 B
* SHELL LA 2634
* ESSO ATF LT 71141
Just to be clear, this is a "use only this fluid spec, and not a "use any of these" fluid specs.

The way I see it, nobody would be more motivated than BMW to be able to use only one universal ATF. It would simplify their logistics, reduce inventory costs, simplify their technical database, and perhaps most importantly, reduce the risk of one of their dealership techs putting in the wrong fluid. The only they have to gain by maintaining 5 different fluid specs is function.

 

[salesrep]

Final thoughts and observations with regards to this thread.

Three years ago I stumbled upon the largest rebuild factory for transmissions of one of the big 3. There was an opportunity to bid for the factory refill of these warranty returned trans. Tanker loads. Needless to say, not your every day prospect.

Knowing that Schaeffers did not produce minimum spec oil I attempted to “sell” them on putting a superior fluid in these trans to no avail. MINIMUM SPEC OIL ONLY. Or to put it another way, whoever could bid the lowest with the minimum specifications gets the bid. There was not any incentive to put a better fluid in for the end user as that would effect their bottom line. Keep in mind these transmissions were returned due to failure.

Now on a side bar, I contacted one of the main men at Schaeffers home office with the idea that we could get this bid with a min spec oil. In about 32 seconds it was explained to me that we would not “dummy down” our own 204sat, but furthermore did not even have all the base stocks and additives in house to produce a min spec oil.

The very fact that Schaeffers or Amsoil could manufacture a universal fluid that would perform in dex III, atf 3, atf 4, mercon V etc. says that these specs were similar in nature.
These are just two companies that have produced superior trans fluids to the oems min spec oils for decades and have the testing to prove it. These fluids will continue to produce great results in the called for applications. Licensed or not. Keep in mind who determines the licensing procedures.

Going forward.
The car manufacturers are creating specs that are much more specific to their transmissions making it difficult if not impossible to create universal trans fluids.
They are both market driven and performance driven with better anti-wear and oxidation abilities vs. THEIR old min specs. The newer fluids do have better base stocks and are superior to their forefathers. The boutiques will continue to produce fluids within the criteria provided and make em better. That is what we do. Sure there will be some crossovers, but not as many. The car co.s, yes want their trans to perform as manufactured, but also recognize the vast opportunity to lock in customers to their own fluids, ie make more money. This also will bring customers back to the dealership for fluid changes. Service and parts departments are a BIG part of the profit picture. Just as big oil has convinced the public for years to change engine oil every 3k, they will propaganda the public in to using their fluids.
Gone

 

[buster]

I think you covered it well.


Quote:
Going forward.
The car manufacturers are creating specs that are much more specific to their transmissions making it difficult if not impossible to create universal trans fluids.
They are both market driven and performance driven with better anti-wear and oxidation abilities vs. THEIR old min specs. The newer fluids do have better base stocks and are superior to their forefathers. The boutiques will continue to produce fluids within the criteria provided and make em better. That is what we do.


In some instances boutique brands are better, in some cases they are not. I'm not convinced that Royal Purple, Torco, Redline, and other boutique brands offer any performance advantages over the synthetics from the big oil companies. Schaeffer's and Amsoil are IMHO the two best boutique brands and I do use their products.

XOM for years has made M1 it's flagship product and while it maybe not be the "best", it's always up near the top.

Fwiw, Mobil does not pay companies to use their oils nor do they formulate to meet a "minimum" spec. I think that is true with some brands, but not Mobil 1 or PP.

 

[HondaMan]

My only disagreement is that I highly doubt that a GM Engineer or a Honda Engineer (I'm talking full P.E, PHD) would have a sticky note on their desk saying "REMEMBER: Only use our fluid so we can make extra money!"

Having worked in academia, I can say that there is probably a lot of reuse going on in terms of how different principles are applied while designing an in fact 'new' transmission.

The re-application of base-lined established principles would lead the designers to match their designs accordingly.
I.e. they know how 'their' fluid will behave given a, b, c and continue from that point. No need to re-invent everything.

Should they go out of the 'box' .... new fluid time.

 

[jpr]

So puzzle me this -
Just looking at Castrol's ATF line up, they've got 7 products:
Castrol High Mileage ATF - For use in most transmissions with over 75,000 miles.
Castrol DEXRON®–VI ATF - For use in General Motors vehicles.
Castrol Domestic Multi–Vehicle ATF - For use in older Ford & General Motors vehicles.
Castrol Import Multi–Vehicle ATF - For use in most Honda, Toyota, Nissan and other imported vehicles.
Castrol MERCON® V ATF - For use in Ford vehicles.
Castrol ATF+4® - For use in Chrysler vehicles.
Castrol Type F ATF - For use in Ford vehicles that require Type F.

By comparison, AMSOIL offers 2 oils, ATF and ATD; Royal Purple offers 2, Max ATF and Synchromax; and Redline offers 6 flavors of ATF.

Surely there must be some relevant functional differences amongst these oils. It would seem like either Amsoil and Royal Purple have decided not to enter certain segments of the ATF market or that they can somehow do in 2 oils what it takes Redline and Castrol to do in 6 and 7 oils respectively.

I don't have enough information or knowledge on the subject to explain this, but hopefully someone here can offer some technical enlightenment on what's going on.

 

[Pablo]

Actually Amsoil has ART as well. Racing ATF and Type F.

 

[HondaMan]

Originally Posted By: jpr
So puzzle me this -
Just looking at Castrol's ATF line up, they've got 7 products:
Castrol High Mileage ATF - For use in most transmissions with over 75,000 miles.
Castrol DEXRON®–VI ATF - For use in General Motors vehicles.
Castrol Domestic Multi–Vehicle ATF - For use in older Ford & General Motors vehicles.
Castrol Import Multi–Vehicle ATF - For use in most Honda, Toyota, Nissan and other imported vehicles.
Castrol MERCON® V ATF - For use in Ford vehicles.
Castrol ATF+4® - For use in Chrysler vehicles.
Castrol Type F ATF - For use in Ford vehicles that require Type F.


It is even trickier than that .... the Import Mulit can be used anywhere the Domestic Multi can be used etc, and so on and so on. The Import Muliti is a syn blend, Dom Multi is not.

The DEX VI is made in Canada btw... I just purchased a qt... $ 5.99 .... not cheap.

 

[jpr]

My bad, I should have been more specific. The idea that there are only two Amsoil ATF's came from this product guide - http://www.amsoil.com/products/transmission/transfluid_rec.aspx

I do agree though that for the sake of the question it's necessary to ake sure we are comparing apples-to-apples. To that en, I suggest limiting it to just general use car and light truck ATF, no heavy trucks, no racing, and we might as well toss out the Type F and CVT applications which appear to be pretty unique.

That leaves us with:
Castrol - 6 products (High Mileage, DEXRON®–VI, Domestic Multi–Vehicle,Import Multi–Vehicle, MERCON® V, ATF+4)
Redline - 4 products (synthetic, D4, D6, C+)
Royal Purple - 1 product (Max ATF)
Amsoil - 1 product (ATF)

Another issue that makes the question interesting, is just looking at the "universals", the list of applicable specifications don't match between brands. Just looking at one spec for example, the Amsoil is listed as ZF 14A, 14B, and 14C; Royal Purple is listed as ZF 14B, 16L, and 17C; the Castrol Import Multi is listed as ZF 03D, 04D, 14A, 14B, 16L, and 17C. for products ostensibly meant to fill the same niche, one would think they would have more comparable specs.

 

[Pablo]

Have you read the paper?

 

[jpr]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Have you read the paper?
No I have not. But it would appear that the first post had the money shot - " Based on the results, one can conclude that each ATF is uniquely formulated to specific OEM requirements. In addition, the results show that a customer should not deviate from the automatic transmission fluid specified in the vehicle's owners manual" I was hoping that those who have the read the paper could chime in with a more detailed explanation.

 

[Pablo]

Despite that statement from GM, and M. Wan's statements, there is nothing in the paper that positively concludes via scientific proof that Amsoil ATF will not work in the transmissions it is recommended for.

Of course Amsoil was not one of the ATF's tested, so that makes that statement fairly conclusive. All in all the paper is not worth $14, although I don't mind supporting SAE in the least.

The film thickness part is excellent (Z-1 does terrible). The one synthetic fluid does well and of course no surprise, Dexron VI does great.

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Despite that statement from GM, and M. Wan's statements, there is nothing in the paper that positively concludes via scientific proof that Amsoil ATF will not work in the transmissions it is recommended for.

Of course Amsoil was not one of the ATF's tested, so that makes that statement fairly conclusive. All in all the paper is not worth $14, although I don't mind supporting SAE in the least.

The film thickness part is excellent (Z-1 does terrible). The one synthetic fluid does well and of course no surprise, Dexron VI does great.

Aren't the friction graphs enough evidence for you?

 

[jpr]

It was not my intent to question the performance on any one particular product, Amsoil or otherwise.

What I was curious about is that there seem to be two broad categories of ATF - single spec and multi-spec. Some company's product line ups seem to both several single spec oils plus one or more multi-specs. Other companies seem to offer a more limited selection of single specs and in some cases only a mulit-spec. It also seems to be universally true that every company offering ATF has a multi-spec product.

The gist of the SAE paper seems to be that of the oils tested, the single spec offerings worked better in their specific transmissions than the multi-spec oils. Which makes sense if blending a multi-spec oil requires some compromises to be made amongst competing demands of various transmissions. It does not make as much sense if multi-grade oils work by exceeding requirements across the board.

Which I guess is the question in the end, how does a multi-spec ATF work to be compatible with so many competing demands?

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: jpr
It was not my intent to question the performance on any one particular product, Amsoil or otherwise.

What I was curious about is that there seem to be two broad categories of ATF - single spec and multi-spec. Some company's product line ups seem to both several single spec oils plus one or more multi-specs. Other companies seem to offer a more limited selection of single specs and in some cases only a mulit-spec. It also seems to be universally true that every company offering ATF has a multi-spec product.

The gist of the SAE paper seems to be that of the oils tested, the single spec offerings worked better in their specific transmissions than the multi-spec oils. Which makes sense if blending a multi-spec oil requires some compromises to be made amongst competing demands of various transmissions. It does not make as much sense if multi-grade oils work by exceeding requirements across the board.

Which I guess is the question in the end, how does a multi-spec ATF work to be compatible with so many competing demands?

First, some companies have line of OEM approved products but also an universal product for professionals who don't feel like stocking multiple fluids. For example, Pennzoil sells OEM approved Dexron-VI, Mercon V and ATF+4 products. They also have a multi-vehicle product that covers all of those specs and more.

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. Of course, it's impossible to test that as many Asian manufacturers don't even release any info on their fluid to the public.

 

[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.