Schaeffer's #204S-ATF Blend or Full Synthetic?

[Lyondellic]

There seems to be conflicting information on the Scaeffer's site about whether #204S-AT is full synthetic or a synthetic blend. In one part of the site #204S-AT is listed as being a synthetic blend as follows:

http://www.schaefferoil.com/204_transmission_fluid.html

All Trans Supreme is a premium quality fully synthetic blend automatic transmission fluid

ALL TRANS Supreme™ is blended from solvent refined raffinate hydroconverted Group II and PAO synthetic base fluids.

But in another part of the site #204S-AT is listed as being full synthetic:

http://www.schaefferoil.com/datapdf/204SAT_r.pdf

All Trans Supreme is a premium quality fully synthetic multi-vehicle automatic transmission fluid

All Trans Supreme contains a special blend of synthetic base fluids

I may be a bit confused, but wouldn't Hydroconverted Group II base oil be considered Non-Synthetic?

 

[The Critic]

If it has part PAO, it's probably considered a blend.

With the Group II (and higher) base oils, oxidation is less of an issue than it used to be. You should really be more concerned about the additive package and the friction modifiers than the base stocks. This isn't to say that the base stock isn't important, but people often get too excited about the base stock and forget about the equally important (or more) additive package.

 

[Lyondellic]

I don't have an issue with anyone wanting to use Group II oil, but thought that the wording used to describe #204S-AT on the Schaeffer's Oil site was very confusing. Almost Double-Speak IMHO...

 

[Colt45ws]

I didnt notice that contradiction before. I would be interested in knowing as well. Note though that the picture of the bottle says "synthetic blend."

 

[dnewton3]

While I'll admit that "synthetic" to most of us BITOGERS means a group III or greater, the reality is that "synthetic" is just a marketing term.

To me, the performance of the fluid is a result of the whole chemistry package (base stocks, additives, treatment techniques, etc). And to me, the end result is most important. When you think about it, ANY lubricant is a blend of "this, that and the other".

It'd be nice if Scaeffers didn't contradict themselves, but that's what happens when you mix marketing people with tribologists.

There was a similar thread a few weeks ago about one of Penzoil's ATF products; confusion about how the web-page literature read in some of it's PDS versus the promotional text. Johnny helped, with some of his contacts, to clear that up.

 

[INDYMAC]

I nitced a similar contradiction when I first looked at #204SAT. The first web page I looked at had a label called "DEXIII Supreme" and described the product as a synthetic blend. The next page I looked at that listed the specs had a label called "ALL-TRANS Supreme". That page says the product is full synthetic. That's what the actual product says too.
Moral of the story? The old DEXIII Supreme was a syn blend;the new ALL-TRANS Supreme is full synthetic. The website needs updated.
Great ATF BTW if you're looking for one.

 

[Colt45ws]

Yes, I just used some #204 in my crown vic. It is indeed a Full Synth. Strange thing is...it smelled exactly like fish!

 

[Lyondellic]

Originally Posted By: Onmo'Eegusee
Yes, I just used some #204 in my crown vic. It is indeed a Full Synth. Strange thing is...it smelled exactly like fish!


How do you know this? The bottle is marked "Synthetic Blend" in the attached link and the product data states that it is made from a combination of Synthetic and Group II base oils. Sounds like a blend to me.

 

[INDYMAC]

Originally Posted By: Lyondellic
Originally Posted By: Onmo'Eegusee
Yes, I just used some #204 in my crown vic. It is indeed a Full Synth. Strange thing is...it smelled exactly like fish!


How do you know this? The bottle is marked "Synthetic Blend" in the attached link and the product data states that it is made from a combination of Synthetic and Group II base oils. Sounds like a blend to me.


It sounds like you've answerred your own question. So I'll just let you assume whatever you want.

 

[Lyondellic]

Originally Posted By: INDYMAC
Originally Posted By: Lyondellic
Originally Posted By: Onmo'Eegusee
Yes, I just used some #204 in my crown vic. It is indeed a Full Synth. Strange thing is...it smelled exactly like fish!


How do you know this? The bottle is marked "Synthetic Blend" in the attached link and the product data states that it is made from a combination of Synthetic and Group II base oils. Sounds like a blend to me.


It sounds like you've answerred your own question. So I'll just let you assume whatever you want.


I havn't asked and answered my question. I just want to know why the OP thinks that 204S-AT is full synthetic given the information that myself and others have provided.

 

[INDYMAC]

Originally Posted By: Onmo'Eegusee
Yes, I just used some #204 in my crown vic. It is indeed a Full Synth. Strange thing is...it smelled exactly like fish!


I know. It's not fresh fish either!

 

[INDYMAC]

Originally Posted By: Lyondellic
Originally Posted By: INDYMAC
Originally Posted By: Lyondellic
Originally Posted By: Onmo'Eegusee
Yes, I just used some #204 in my crown vic. It is indeed a Full Synth. Strange thing is...it smelled exactly like fish!


How do you know this? The bottle is marked "Synthetic Blend" in the attached link and the product data states that it is made from a combination of Synthetic and Group II base oils. Sounds like a blend to me.


It sounds like you've answerred your own question. So I'll just let you assume whatever you want.


I havn't asked and answered my question. I just want to know why the OP thinks that 204S-AT is full synthetic given the information that myself and others have provided.


Here is the latest technical data sheet for #204 All Trans. It is full synthetic:
http://www.schaefferoil.com/datapdf/204SAT_r.pdf

The #204 DEX III Supreme (synblend) no longer exists. I hope this helps.

The Schaeffers website needs updated. That's not unusual for some of these oil companies.

 

[Whitewolf]

Here we go again!

Most, no all, of the confusion is due to the decision about what lubricants can legally be described as synthetic in the USA. This subject has been beaten to death on a number of other threads so I'm not going to bore everyone by repeating the story.
However, I think that it would be a good thing for many people on this site if the terms 'blend' and 'synthetic' were used more realistically.
Let's start with 'synthetic'. Synthetic can be PAO/Ester, which is what I think that most people think of as synthetic. The fact is that Group III based formulations can also be described as synthetic (at least in the USA). Do we Care? Not really since it is now possible to formulate a Group III based formulation to be generally much better than a PAO based formulation (before anyone says anything this is not an opinion, it's published fact).
Next let's go to the term 'blend'. These fluids are all blends of something. Blends of basestocks, blends of additives in basestocks or usually both these days. So the term 'blend' at least the way that many people on BITOG use it is simply incorrect. Let me give you an example. If I 'blend' a 2cSt PAO with a 6cST PAO to create an equivilant to a 4cSt PAO is someone here seriously going to tell me that that isn't a blend? Of course it's a blend!
I hope I've helped, I don't want to cause more controversy ... just improve understanding of what the lubricant industry considers a blend to be.

 

[Colt45ws]

It says "Full synthetic" right on the bottle. Thats how I know. I will take a picture tomorrow.

 

[Whitewolf]

You have missed my point. I'm not disputing what it says on the bottle, I'm just trying to explain what the wording may or may not actually mean.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
Here we go again!

....... The fact is that Group III based formulations can also be described as synthetic (at least in the USA). Do we Care? Not really since it is now possible to formulate a Group III based formulation to be generally much better than a PAO based formulation (before anyone says anything this is not an opinion, it's published fact).


Please do post links to these publications.

 

[Whitewolf]

I've already posted references to SAE papers that contain this information but many people don't seem to like them.

 

[Colt45ws]

I dont really care if its all GIII, all PAO, or a blend of the two. It would be interesting to know. But as long as the performance is good, I doesn't really matter. I was talking to lyondellic in my last post. He was asking how I knew it was a full synth when that old web page says its a blend.

 

[salesrep]

204sat is a full synthetic. The confusion lies herein. The link that states blend, is an old picture with old specs, as this was indeed a blend up until 2 years ago. The link that takes you directly to the tech data sheet is the current spec. http://www.schaefferoil.com/datapdf/204SAT_r.pdf
I would agree that Schaeffers needs to update the “marketing” link which would have been developed a 3-4 years ago. Our marketing fault lies in upgrading our product….. which would be the opposite of over marketing double talk.
I’ll make Schaeffers aware of the inconsistency.

 

[Lyondellic]

Originally Posted By: salesrep
204sat is a full synthetic. The confusion lies herein. The link that states blend, is an old picture with old specs, as this was indeed a blend up until 2 years ago. The link that takes you directly to the tech data sheet is the current spec. http://www.schaefferoil.com/datapdf/204SAT_r.pdf
I would agree that Schaeffers needs to update the “marketing” link which would have been developed a 3-4 years ago. Our marketing fault lies in upgrading our product….. which would be the opposite of over marketing double talk.
I’ll make Schaeffers aware of the inconsistency.


Thanks for clearing this up! Now for the next interesting question: Why does #204S-AT smell like dead fish....

Just Joking!