Valvoline ATF Dexron VI/Mercon LV & Ultra1Plus

[garageman402]

Valvoline fluid says "Officially licensed and GM* approved DEXRON*-VI Fluid", but there is no license number on the label. Also "recommended" for Mercon LV applications. Why would they not publish the license number on the label? I have a list of GM Dexron VI licensees, Valvoline has 2 US license numbers (J-60151 & J-60319) and one Australia number (J-60313). I always look for the license number, but this is such a good price I can't pass it up.

Ultra1Plus is similarly priced, but no mention of licensing, only "suitable for use" and "Exceeds Performance Requirements" for about every spec, except extended drain heavy duty diesel, Type F, CVT or DCT applications.

Any thoughts on either of these? Valvoline is in quarts, Ultra in 5 gal. pails. Price point similar with Valvoline slightly cheaper.

 

[slacktide_bitog]

If the Valvoline is licensed, it's licensed

Get the Valvoline

 

[wpod]

iIwould place my bet on a major oil company's oil being the best choice.

 

[slacktide_bitog]

Also, I don't trust Ultra1plus after I got a VOA done on their GL4 gear oil.

 

[garageman402]

I was in a chat on Valvoline.com, and even they couldn’t answer what the license number was. He recommended sending an email to them and they would forward to the lab in the morning.

I’ll update when I get a reply.

 

[garageman402]

Also, I don't trust Ultra1plus after I got a VOA done on their GL4 gear oil.

Did you post the VOA here?

 

[slacktide_bitog]

Did you post the VOA here?

Yes, it's in the transmission/gear oil section

 

[garageman402]

I was in a chat on Valvoline.com, and even they couldn’t answer what the license number was. He recommended sending an email to them and they would forward to the lab in the morning.

I’ll update when I get a reply.

Well, here it is, almost 3 months later. I did receive numerous email replies from, it turns out, the same person who I was chatting with. His replies never included my most recent reply, only my initial letter was quoted at the bottom, so I couldn't attach the chain. I have to separate my replies from his replies and include them chronologically as best I can. My apologies for the delay.

I have a picture attached of the product I received with a confirmed legitimate GM license number, albeit old.

All times are PDT, included to keep the chronology in order.

Sent 4/5/21 14:56:
Hi,

Your chat personnel referred me to you to confirm the GM license number on the above mentioned part. The label says officially licensed and approved by GM, but you don’t post the license number.

Can you give me the actual license number?

Received 4/5/21 13:17:
Robert, thank you for contacting Valvoline Product Support


According to the formulator, the GM License number for Valvoline Dexron VI/Mercon LV is J-60207. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us via phone at 800 TEAM VAL or by email at [email protected] for assistance.

Thank you and have a great day.

Brett
Valvoline Product Support

Sent 4/6/21 22:54:
Re: Part No. 822405

Thank you Brett,

I received the oil I am inquiring about. The stamp around the bar code shows a different number:



Also the E2819 C1, would that happen to be a date code? With 0854 as the time? J-62104 is Owned by Ashland, I believe.

Any comments would be appreciated, thanks.

Received 4/7/21 08:01:
Robert, thank you for contacting Valvoline Product Support

Yes, the number you provided is a date code. That particular date code is production date May 28, 2019. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us via phone at 800 TEAM VAL or by email at [email protected] for assistance.

Thank you and have a great day.

Brett
Valvoline Product Support

Sent 4/7/21 08:16:
Thanks Brett,

Thank you for clarifying the date code, are the months coded A-L, or are some letters not used? Is 0854 the time? Is C1 the shift and/or location?

Did you not get the picture I sent? Maybe I didn’t have the correct extension in the label, it is now corrected and labelled as .jpg and attached.

Why does the license number on the bottle differ from the number you gave me?

Valvoline Label.jpg

Thank you for your help,

Received 4/7/21 08:25:
Robert, thank you for contacting Valvoline Product Support

Yes, A-L are the months and the 0854 is the time. C1 refers to the facility the product is produced in. Valvoline is a different company from Ashland now and have different license numbers. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us via phone at 800 TEAM VAL or by email at [email protected] for assistance.

Thank you and have a great day.

Brett
Valvoline Product Support

Sent 4/7/21 08:42:
Thanks again Brett,

So to clarify, the product in the picture I purchased was manufactured by Ashland, and rebranded as Valvoline? It is still a licensed product? Moving forward, your product is now manufactured by another company under a different license number, correct?

Thank you again for the clarification!!

Received 4/7/21 08:55:
Robert, thank you for contacting Valvoline Product Support

Valvoline split from Ashland in 2016 and became a separate company. The product you have was produced by Valvoline and is licensed by GM under the license number previously supplied to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us via phone at 800 TEAM VAL or by email at [email protected] for assistance.

Thank you and have a great day.

Brett
Valvoline Product Support

Sent 4/7/21 09:33:
Thanks Brett,

Thanks for the info, but I still don’t understand why the product I have, albeit 2 years old, has the Ashland license number on it. You said: “The product you have was produced by Valvoline and is licensed by GM under the license number previously supplied to you.“. The number previously supplied to me is not the same number stamped on the bottle.

So when that bottle was produced in 2019, it was manufactured by Ashland and re branded as Valvoline? I presume currently produced product has the license number previously supplied?

Thanks for the help,

Received 4/7/21 10:37:
Robert, thank you for contacting Valvoline Product Support

We reached back out to the formulator regarding the license number on the bottle you have. At the time that bottle was produced, J-62104 was our license number. Since then the additive company used to formulate this product, updated the additive which resulted in the need for a new license number which is J-60207.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us via phone at 800 TEAM VAL or by email at [email protected] for assistance.

Thank you and have a great day.

Brett
Valvoline Product Support

Sent 4/8/21 10:48:
Brett, thank you for your support

License J-62104 is registered to Ashland, I can’t find J-60207 on any listing, it must be brand new? As of 02/21/2019 Licenses did not include a J-602xx series.

Thank you for your help, I now have more information about the date code, still a little fuzzy on the licensing.

Do you know what update was done to the additive package?

Thanks,

Received 4/11/21 06;09:
Robert, thank you for contacting Valvoline Product Support

Any information regarding changes to the additives is considered proprietary and further details cannot be shared. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us via phone at 800 TEAM VAL or by email at [email protected] for assistance.

Thank you and have a great day.

Brett
Valvoline Product Support

 

[Blinker]

I purchased Valvoline DexVi a few weeks ago. The Dexron license is on the back of the bottle, not on the label, but actually imprinted on the bottle itself. It appears to be blue ink. It is difficult to see since the bottle itself is also blue. Perhaps your eyes can’t see it.

 

[garageman402]

Here is the latest (2/21/19) Dexron VI license holder list I could find. Apparently, according to Valvoline, there is a later list.

 

[garageman402]

I purchased Valvoline DexVi a few weeks ago. The Dexron license is on the back of the bottle, not on the label, but actually imprinted on the bottle itself. It appears to be blue ink. It is difficult to see since the bottle itself is also blue. Perhaps your eyes can’t see it.

I got these bottles from Walmart.com at a very good price. Now I know why the price was so good, it's old stock. But it was a licensed product, so must be acceptable, just a shorter shelf life now.

Yes, I've seen black AC Delco bottles with black printing on them, you really have to look for it, some in a yellow ink, semi covered by the label.

 

[MolaKule]

The additive package is a Lubrizol 96XX DI ATF package. When an additive company changes the formulation a new test is required.

For example if I, as the additive supplier, wants to update the base oil from Yubase Group III to a PAO base oil or a PAO base oil mix, or if I update the friction modification chemistry, I need to retest and get a new license number.

The latest US GM license that Valvoline held as of last year was J-60319.

There could be an updated GM list on the way with new license numbers, and that is not unusual.

If you want to qualify for a license here are the minimum tests an ATF must pass for licensure.

https://gmtdc.org/ftp/docs/DexronTestUploadManual.pdf

 

[garageman402]

The additive package is a Lubrizol 96XX DI ATF package. When an additive company changes the formulation a new test is required.

For example if I, as the additive supplier, wants to update the base oil from Yubase Group III to a PAO base oil or a PAO base oil mix, or if I update the friction modification chemistry, I need to retest and get a new license number.

The latest US GM license that Valvoline held as of last year was J-60319.

There could be an updated GM list on the way with new license numbers, and that is not unusual.

If you want to qualify for a license here are the minimum tests an ATF must pass for licensure.

https://gmtdc.org/ftp/docs/DexronTestUploadManual.pdf

Thanks MolaKule,

So a change (any change) in the formulation, not necessarily for the better, maybe for lower cost, requires re-testing and a new license. Makes sense.

When Brett said "update" I automatically thought "new and improved", which could actually be cheaper, but meets specs....... So my bargain 5/28/2019 oil meets the licensing requirements!! As long as I use it by 5/28/2024 I should be good.....

Does GM ever update the requirements, i.e. make them stricter? Thereby necessitating all blenders to renew their licenses?

How does one acquire the latest updated GM list? I actually had to subscribe to that site (just the trial, then canceled) to get the 2 year old list I posted.

Thanks again, MolaKule!!

 

[MolaKule]

Thanks MolaKule,

So a change (any change) in the formulation, not necessarily for the better, maybe for lower cost, requires re-testing and a new license. Makes sense.

When Brett said "update" I automatically thought "new and improved", which could actually be cheaper, but meets specs....... So my bargain 5/28/2019 oil meets the licensing requirements!! As long as I use it by 5/28/2024 I should be good.....

Does GM ever update the requirements, i.e. make them stricter? Thereby necessitating all blenders to renew their licenses?

How does one acquire the latest updated GM list? I actually had to subscribe to that site (just the trial, then canceled) to get the 2 year old list I posted.

Thanks again, MolaKule!!

Newer formulations usually means one or more improved friction modification chemistry's were placed into the updated formulation OR they decided to include PAO and possibly some ester or AN in the base oils to improve oxidation resistance, etc., or both. But improved DI additive packages and Group IV and V base oils are not cheaper.

The updated GM lists may simply be additions to the list as new blenders qualify for new licenses. This does not mean Blenders already on the list have to re-qualify.

As long as your ATF has the DEXRON XX license then it is good to go, even if two or more years old.

 

[garageman402]

Newer formulations usually means one or more improved chemistry's were placed into the updated formulation OR they decided to include PAO and possibly some ester or AN in the base oils to improve oxidation resistance, friction modification chemistry, etc., or both. But improved DI additive packages and Group IV and V base oils are not cheaper.

The updated GM lists may simply be additions to the list as new blenders qualify for new licenses. This does not mean Blenders already on the list have to re-qualify.

As long as your ATF has the DEXRON XX license then it is good to go, even if two or more years old.

So the license requirement is more or less a baseline, formulations can be superior and still be licensed? I guess "superior" is a subjective term?

Would the incentive for improved additives be a selling point to charge more for the improved product, even tho you can buy a licensed product cheaper, as I did? Why would a blender use more expensive improved DI additives if the license requirements can be met using less expensive materials?

My question about GM updating lists wasn't about meeting current requirements, I was asking if GM would "raise the bar" and make the requirement higher quality (superior, if you will)? I suppose I could answer my own question by saying: Then they would create Dexron VII.

Shelf life is usually around 5 years, correct?

Thanks MoleKule, I appreciate your input!!

 

[MolaKule]

Thanks MolaKule,

So a change (any change) in the formulation, not necessarily for the better, maybe for lower cost, requires re-testing and a new license. Makes sense.

When Brett said "update" I automatically thought "new and improved", which could actually be cheaper, but meets specs....... So my bargain 5/28/2019 oil meets the licensing requirements!! As long as I use it by 5/28/2024 I should be good.....

Does GM ever update the requirements, i.e. make them stricter? Thereby necessitating all blenders to renew their licenses?

How does one acquire the latest updated GM list? I actually had to subscribe to that site (just the trial, then canceled) to get the 2 year old list I posted.

Thanks again, MolaKule!!

A Hypothetical but somewhat realistic situation. Let's say I am an additive supplier and one of my products are ATF Dexron VI additives.

And say I decide to improve oxidation resistance by going from a set of Group III base oils to PAOs and AN's. I do some instrumented tests with actual hardware on the new formulation and find that because the Mu(v) friction curves have changed, I need to slightly modify the friction modification chemistry. I change the formulation and retest with sufficient documentation to show that it meets or exceeds all the test requirements. I then submit my test results to GM. If my documentation is sufficient, GM may not generate a new license for me because the new documentation provides proof of an equivalent Dex XX fluid as meeting or exceeding the same requirements the older formulation.

In the case of say Lubrizol, Infineum, and Afton, GM knows that my testing was done on actual "instrumented" hardware (real transmissions with oodles of sensors).

 

[rob1715]

Just use Dex VI or MERCON LV. Both are great fluids and are not much more than Maxlife. Why so many spend hours perseverating, thinking, contemplating, counseling, praying, and fasting over such an easy decision is beyond the scope of rationality.

 

[MolaKule]

So the license requirement is more or less a baseline, formulations can be superior and still be licensed? I guess "superior" is a subjective term?

Would the incentive for improved additives be a selling point to charge more for the improved product, even tho you can buy a licensed product cheaper, as I did? Why would a blender use more expensive improved DI additives if the license requirements can be met using less expensive materials?

My question about GM updating lists wasn't about meeting current requirements, I was asking if GM would "raise the bar" and make the requirement higher quality (superior, if you will)? I suppose I could answer my own question by saying: Then they would create Dexron VII.

Shelf life is usually around 5 years, correct?

Thanks MoleKule, I appreciate your input!!

If you want to qualify for a GM ATF license here are the minimum tests an ATF must pass for licensure.
https://gmtdc.org/ftp/docs/DexronTestUploadManual.pdf

If your formulation meets or exceeds the tests noted above, then you will be able to obtain a license number that you can affix to your containers as they pass through the bottling line.

As to your second paragraph, the Blender can now claim an improved product in his marketing literature and possibly raise his prices as well. Di additives never get cheaper.

As to your third paragraph, if a new GM transmission design comes down the pike, and say Dexron VI cannot meet its requirements, then they (in GM's case) will go to Afton, give them the new transmission's requirements, and have Afton formulate a new fluid, say Dexron HP.

GM's driveline division will then take the Afton formulation and retest it in house. GM may have Afton make formulation tweaks until all performance specifications have been met.

 

[MolaKule]

Here is another scenario on how the industry operates. Let's say my additive company is named "KULE Additives." Customer X (a Blender) wants to competitively market an LV ATF and add this ATF into his portfolio of products.

I suggest he use KULE additive 777 which meets and exceeds the ATF requirements for a series of Transmissions across various OEMs. Here is the formula documentation I send him:

Chevron PAO 2.5 51%
Chevron PAO 8 29.7%
KULE DI 777 17.5%
Red Dye 250ppm
KV@100C 5.9 cSt
Brookfield -20C 1,000 cPs
Brookfield -40C 10,000 cPs
Brookfield -40C after NOACK 1,200 cPs

He MUST use this exact formulation to meet those transmission requirements over the range of OEM transmissions listed, and MUST use this exact formulation to qualify for a license.

Why? Because I have tested this exact formulation on those various transmissions and I know it meets or exceeds the testing required by those OEM's.

If the Blender deviates from this formulation, then all qualification bets are off.

 

[garageman402]

Here is another scenario on how the industry operates. Let's say my additive company is named "KULE Additives." Customer X (a Blender) wants to competitively market an LV ATF and add this ATF into his portfolio of products.

I suggest he use KULE additive 777 which meets and exceeds the ATF requirements for a series of Transmissions across various OEMs. Here is the formula documentation I send him:

Chevron PAO 2.5 51%
Chevron PAO 8 29.7%
KULE DI 777 17.5%
Red Dye 250ppm
KV@100C 5.9 cSt
Brookfield -20C 1,000 cPs
Brookfield -40C 10,000 cPs
Brookfield -40C after NOACK 1,200 cPs

He MUST use this exact formulation to meet those transmission requirements over the range of OEM transmissions listed, and MUST use this exact formulation to qualify for a license.

Why? Because I have tested this exact formulation on those various transmissions and I know it meets or exceeds the testing required by those OEM's.

If the Blender deviates from this formulation, then all qualification bets are off.

So basically the additive company calls the shots. The blender follows the formula to the letter, brand specific and all, and gets a license number? Or you (KULE Additives) get the license and they blend it under your license?

So the values in the Dexron Test Upload Manual are minimum? An additive can do a superior job and still qualify for the license. Which begs the question, why would you do that? I guess supplies of the 2 year old (apparently) outdated, licensed product that I bought will soon be depleted, and only higher priced options left? But why wouldn't some blenders stick with the minimum, charge a lower price, and outsell the competition? Contemporary thought is that if it's a licensed product, it's just as good as any other licensed product. Maybe the numerical value of the license number would indicate it's developmental stage? E.g. Chevron Products Reblender's License number J-60171 (with a tbd trade name) would be a predecessor to the new J-62103 marketed as Havoline Synthetic......DEXRON@VI. So the latest License number would indicate a more advanced formula?

On this subject, I have encountered products (e.g. Redline) who say the licensing process is too costly, and they don't get the license in the interests of cost savings for you (me) the consumer. I know their motor oil is ZDDP rich, so it wouldn't qualify for any OEM spec. Their products are also priced 5 times higher than what I paid for my licensed Valvoline. As you said, PAOs are expensive.

A transmission would have to require a fluid that Dexron VI cannot satisfy in order to advance to a new licensing standard? Dexos1 had to be upgraded almost immediately to Gen2 to address low-speed detonation, would it take something of that magnitude to prompt GM to create a new license requirement for Dexron?

Thanks again, always appreciate your knowledge base.