Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
What makes Chrysler's ATF+4 "superior" to any other lube simply due to some additive dump?
I never said ATF+4 is a superior fluid. I said the license requirement is superior and the reasoning should be self evident. If you've validated a particular "recipe" based on performance specs and every single blender has to follow that recipe, then every ATF+4 made will meet those performance specs. It's the simplest and most effective way of ensuring that only fluid that meets Chrysler's performance specs winds up in Chrysler transmissions (so long as the consumer actually uses ATF+4).
The old way of licensing, still used for Mercon LV and Dexron VI, allows each lubricant company to self-validate their own recipes. Absent a total tear down of the transmission, the evacuation of the factory fill fluid is nearly impossible. Thus, with a transmission that uses Dexron or Mercon, once a service is performed, there is the potential to always have different chemistries in the transmission. Of course, this has always been the case and has never seemed to cause any performance issues in GM, Ford, and Chrysler transmissions that spec'd either Dexron or Mercon fluid. But once Chrysler felt like it was a potential problem for their transmissions, they instituted a unique approach to licensing their approved fluid. The ATF+4 license absolutely ensures no chance of competing chemistries in a Chrysler transmission so long as licensed ATF+4 is used for the service fill. This absolutely ensures that the OEM performance specs are maintained with each service fill.
Again more rhetoric?
I asked for proof; please post links, cite sources. I ask for clear information and you give me your iterpretation of corporate directives, with no data or facts to back it up. I understand the difference you are trying to distinguish; that I get. But it still does not asnwer the fundemental questions I have, and show evidence of your claims.
Please provide the clear evidence of the licensing criteria for the ATF+4, as well as the other inferior (the non-"superior") ATF requirements of other brands.
For the record, some specs such as some from Allison are often performance and chemistry and wear rate specific. And they are validated by
independent sources; not the lube makers. Therefore, your claim that the Chrysler process "is vastly superior to everyone else's" is false the way I see it.
And let me give you an example of what I consider to be "proof" the way I see it:
from this site page:
http://www.allisontransmission.com/service/autoapp/172/viewpage.jsp?ThisPage=9
having this application process:
https://fdlrd.swri.org/Allison/ApplicationForm.aspx?Id=2
With this quote:
"
Thanks for your anticipated participation in the new Allison Transmission "Schedule One TES-389" specification. We look forward to testing your fine product(s). You may submit candidate samples to either of the two independent test laboratories listed in the specification."
Note that Allison specifically says that they will perfom testing via two independent labs; this is NOT self-certification. Further, they have specific chemistry they look for, each depending upon particular applications unqiue to each licensed product. When you open the application link for TES-389, you have to submit not only the chemitry additive info, but also the base stock info; there are several tabs to input data. Therefore, Allison is NOT ONLY looking for performance that would comply with their criteria, but they also are looking for chemistry validation. It's not that they mandate a specific chemistry package; they are looking for competing issues. Allision created TES-389 for three reasons:
1) to have a fluid that would have been equivilant to the former DEX III specs
2) to assure no seal compatibility issues (as expereinced with DEX VI)
3) to provide a lower-cost alternative to TES-295 fluids
As you might see, they don't care about a need for any one chemistry package to be present; they want to assure that certain chemistries do not interfere with older seal materials.
As for the Allison TES-295, I submit this for review:
http://www.allisontransmission.com/servlet/DownloadOnDemand?ApplicationID=172&DownloadID=16
It specifically speaks to the independent lab testing (no self-validation). Etc, etc. Here is the spec:
http://www.allisontransmission.com/servlet/DownloadOnDemand?ApplicationID=172&DownloadID=17
You'll even note that they call for physical inspection of parts (teardown measurements) looking for evidence of wear in certain components.
TES-295 fluids are some of the most robust, heavy duty ATFs I know of on the market. To be licensed, a company must produce a VERY stout fluid that meets extreme performance critera, exhibits certain specific chemical properties, and even results in actual wear within acceptable measurable ranges. I would agree that TES-295 fluids are not suitable for all applications, but in those that they are, I submit that they are beyond reproach, and offer the Allision specs as my proof.
I do not see any evidence you have put forth that shows how Chrysler's ATF+4 spec is "superior" to Allison's specs, simply because the ATF+4 is chemically specific. It is my contention that ATF+4 is a very specific license ONLY in that it makes sure that there is no competing chemical reactions. I would agree that is not a bad thing to have. But that does not, however, make it "superior" to other testing and validation methods. Different? Yes. Superior? No! From what you've told me (yet to be proven with any data, facts, links ...), ATF+4 simply assures chemical compatibilty, and nothing more. Am I wrong in my interpretaion of your claim?
So, why is ATF+4 chemical validation "superior" to everyone else again? Can you give me information that supports your claims? (I don't want to hear about your interpretations; please cite independent sources that would echo your postion, and link the site pages, that give detailed information and criteria, etc).
You said this of Chrysler's license validation "
... because the ATF+4 license requirement is vastly superior to everyone else's." So, as one example, show me how Chrysler's license requirement is superior to Allison's license spec's please.
Again - I understand what you're saying, but it's all just you regurgitating your interpretations at this point. I want to see direct links to back up your claims; show me information that directly supports your position. In short, I don't need you to explain it to me; I ask that you show it to me! Please lnik the Chrysler process documents that you use to infer their superiority to other ATF spec's, and then back that up with independent information that would address chemical validation versus other methods.
Your statement claims that Chrysler ATF+4 has the most critical license spec, being "
vastly superior" to any other competitor. I disagree; it may be different, but I don't see anything to show it's superiority. It seems to me that some Allison spec's are AT LEAST as critical, if not more so ... And I have linked my proof to back it up.
