Supertech ATF+4

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Both ATF's, AT+4 and DexronVI, certainly represented a significant improvement in viscosity retention, shear stability, and oxidation resistance.

This is certainly true but I still think ATF+4 is well behind the times.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
This is certainly true but I still think ATF+4 is well behind the times.


WHY?

The date of development has nothing to do with it's performance.

 

[G-MAN]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Chrysler's ATF+4 required a specific GroupIII base oil, Texaco's XVHI with an additive package from Lubrizol with an elemental analysis of approx 460 ppm of Phosphorus (AW), Calcium of approx. 690 ppm (dispersant/AW) and Boron (AW) of 130ppm.

Lubrizol also developed a special methacrylate polymer for improved Viscosity Index retention, the proprietary friction modifiers for the TCC's anti-shudder performance, and improved anti-oxidants.


Just to add to what Molakule said, keep in mind that when ATF+4 was being developed, Texaco was part of SOPUS. XHVI base oil is a shell product.

Also, ATF+2 (MS7176D) was the factory fill when Lubrizol started development on Chrysler's next ATF spec (MS9602). Chrysler was so impressed with the shear stable VI improver that Lubrizol developed for the new spec, that they decided to improve the MS7176 spec by using the new VI improver in the MS7176 blend until ATF+4 (MS9602) was validated. This new spec, MS7176E, was ATF+3.

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
WHY?
The date of development has nothing to do with it's performance.

There certainly seems to be a connection though don't you think?

Just about every transmission application has (or will be moving to) a high-durability synthetic fluid with post-shear viscosity around 5.5cSt, longer drain intervals AND better wear and friction characteristics. Older specs list a 7.xcSt viscosity but this is really false advertising as they quickly shear-down drastically. These specs are either obsolete or perhaps soon to be discontinued. The 7.x was not spec'd because of a performance requirement but because it was known that the viscosity modifiers of the time were not durable.
DexIII, Mercon, Mercon V, ATF+4, T-IV, SP-III, Matic J, Z1, SP-III, etc.

I admit that ATF+4 (and probably MercV) stands out a bit in this group but the restrictions placed on it by Chrysler make it a stick-in-the-mud type of spec. Performance is irrelevant and if you have a licensed ATF+4 product you are legally gag'd from suggesting any other product as 'suitable' based on performance.

Recently developed specs are slowly (or have completely) surpassed the implementation of older ones and their performance is superior in every way. Lower shear, better anti-wear, better thermal handling and conduction, better flow, etc.
DexVI, WS, Mercon LV/SP, Pentosin FFL, Matic S, SP-IV, M-V, etc.

So because of this I see these fluids as two fairly-similar groupings. The old (which are out) and the new (which are better). I think it's time to let ATF+4 be supplanted by something better (up to date). I don't see the sense in dragging those chains any more, but then ... I'm not making $$$ off the license.

My ONLY concerns are performance and value. I don't see the performance of ATF+4 (or Mercon V) as especially bad but I do not see them as desirable either.

 

[doitmyself]

G-Man and Molakule, the last time I talked to someone at the Center for Quality Assurance, she indicated that there might be VERY slight differences between different blenders of ATF+4 and I "thought" she said it was because they can use several different base oil stocks.

It IS a moot point, but I got the impression that blenders were not locked into one base oil, as Molakule indicated above. Again, a MOOT point for all practical purposes.

http://www.centerforqa.com/licensingprogram.html "The ATF+4® specification requires a unique additive system supplied by Lubrizol and extra high viscosity index base oils."

No mention here of a specific base oil. Just stirring the pot, because I can.

 

[G-MAN]

Originally Posted By: doitmyself
G-Man and Molakule, the last time I talked to someone at the Center for Quality Assurance, she indicated that there might be VERY slight differences between different blenders of ATF+4 and I "thought" she said it was because they can use several different base oil stocks.


There is a list of approved base oils in the ATF+4 license formula. They are all Group III.

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: doitmyself
last time I talked to someone at the Center for Quality Assurance, she indicated that there might be VERY slight differences between different blenders of ATF+4 and I "thought" she said it was because they can use several different base oil stocks.

This sounds correct and any differences wouldn't be significant.

 

[G-MAN]

Originally Posted By: martinq
Originally Posted By: doitmyself
last time I talked to someone at the Center for Quality Assurance, she indicated that there might be VERY slight differences between different blenders of ATF+4 and I "thought" she said it was because they can use several different base oil stocks.

This sounds correct and any differences wouldn't be significant.


Your ignorance on this subject is astounding.

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Your ignorance on this subject is astounding.

Please explain? Your comment makes no sense and is somewhat offensive.

 

[G-MAN]

Originally Posted By: martinq
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Your ignorance on this subject is astounding.

Please explain? Your comment makes no sense and is somewhat offensive.


Please accept my apology. For some reason, I read your statement above as "any differences would be significant."

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Please accept my apology.

You got it Chief. No harm done.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
...she said it was because they can use several different base oil stocks.

It IS a moot point, but I got the impression that blenders were not locked into one base oil...


I think she might have said, or should have said, "not locked into one supplier." They are locked into a specific API base oil - GroupIII.


Like G-MAN stated, the base oils have to be supplied by a list of approved base oil suppliers of GroupIII.

In defense of ATF+4, the GroupIII base oil performance has risen to the point of becoming so close in performance to PAO that it is becoming a moot point as to the time of birth of either specification.

 

[Kruse]

Originally Posted By: G-MAN

There is a list of approved base oils in the ATF+4 license formula. They are all Group III.


I had to buy some ATF+4 from O'Reillys a couple of months ago because WM didn't have any on their shelves. The O'Reilly-branded ATF+4 said it was full synthetic. I know the term "synthetic" really means nothing anymore, but they seem to do a play on words where other suppliers are not.

 

[MolaKule]

Another thing to consider is that new generation transmission and ATF development/testing may take four to six year to complete and it is done under cloak.

So who's to say Chrysler isn't already working on an ATF+X

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
So who's to say Chrysler isn't already working on an ATF+X

I'm guessing that might be the case but I hope it's a more open 'performance spec' and not a restrictive gag-order like they currently have.

 

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted By: martinq
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
So who's to say Chrysler isn't already working on an ATF+X

I'm guessing that might be the case but I hope it's a more open 'performance spec' and not a restrictive gag-order like they currently have.


To be honest, I kinda like the current ATF+4 licensing method. It's nice not having to worry about which fluid is better and simply being able to get the cheapest one, knowing that they're all functionally identical (they allow multiple equivalent base stocks and require the specific Lubrizol add pack).

 

[RiceCake]

Originally Posted By: rslifkin
Originally Posted By: martinq
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
So who's to say Chrysler isn't already working on an ATF+X

I'm guessing that might be the case but I hope it's a more open 'performance spec' and not a restrictive gag-order like they currently have.


To be honest, I kinda like the current ATF+4 licensing method. It's nice not having to worry about which fluid is better and simply being able to get the cheapest one, knowing that they're all functionally identical (they allow multiple equivalent base stocks and require the specific Lubrizol add pack).


With the issues Chrysler had it is honestly awesome they put their foot down and decided to license a specification with specifically rugged requirements so they know, always, that it will perform in a transmission the same way it performs in a lab.

The people here who tout that ATF+4 specification is evil because it somehow encourages inferior fluids know nothing about what they're speaking of. Its the same people who trust blindly that AMSOIL -has- to be better then everything else out there because "they say so".

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: rslifkin
To be honest, I kinda like the current ATF+4 licensing method. It's nice not having to worry about which fluid is better and simply being able to get the cheapest one ...

That's one of the problems with the current spec, you can't buy 'the cheapest one' because of the extra costs and overhead involved. If the spec simply covered the performance aspect then you'd have more freedom to choose a cheaper fluid (knowing that performance isn't an issue) and, most likely, the performance would get better as things progressed over time. As it is, you can't get either of these benefits.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
That's one of the problems with the current spec, you can't buy 'the cheapest one' because of the extra costs and overhead involved. If the spec simply covered the performance aspect then you'd have more freedom to choose a cheaper fluid (knowing that performance isn't an issue) and, most likely, the performance would get better as things progressed over time.


We see your point but I don't quite agree.

Let's say that a performance specification is issued and that the specification is so stringent that it requires a formulator to use some exotic and costly additives and base fluids. This would not necessarily mean a large number of suppliers competing with lower costs.

 

[threeputtpar]

I just love watching MolaKule take someone behind the woodshed and pummel them with the facts! It really makes my day.

I just hope that one day he decides that he just doesn't want to do it anymore and leaves, like Johnny did. MolaKule, thank you for all that you contribute.