What about Wolf's Head ATF?

[HawkeyeScott]

...Had the Jeep transmission flushed and it was re-filled with Wolf's Head synthetic ATF. (Not sure if it was their universal or another variety. Meant to ask for an empty bottle but forgot.)

Anyway, does anyone know much about this ATF? I've never used any Wolf's Head product before.

Also, there was a pretty decent 'stink' about the Jeep after the flush was done. I'll need to check gain to make sure, but I think it's the odor of the new fluid. Does this or any other synthetic ATF have an odd smell to it?

Much obliged...-Scott

 

[bmwtechguy]

Most of the newer spec ATFs have a pretty strong smell due to the additive types and the higher levels of additives vs older blends. The Wolf's Head brand was bought by a major blender a few years back. If it was synthetic, it was probably one of the universal fluid types that some shops like so that they don't have to stock so many fluid types.

How does it shift? I have not heard any bad things about that brand. I used it quite often while growing up and living in western PA which was home to the original Wolf's Head brand. Many people liked their products back then.

 

[hate2work]

Not sure about the WH brand, but the Amsoil Universal ATF smells just like the standard T-IV fluid. At least it does to me.

What kind of fluid does your Jeep call for? Is it shifting OK?

 

[HawkeyeScott]

It shifts fine. It was shifting fine before on the conventional, but it had been 5 years/60K miles since the last flush. He wanted to use synthetic, said these A/Ws do better with it. He gave me the option of whatever I wanted. I took his advice.

Without consulting my notes/manual, I believe I'd put regular old Dexron-Mercon in it when I'd do the 4 qt. drain and fill.

I just drove home from work - about 16 miles - and checked the fluid level to make sure he put enough back in. He did. But I noticed how relatively cool the fluid still was. Is that a good sign for its longevity? Since I pretty much only drive this vehicle to work and back, does that bode well for the fluid holding up? (It may say something about how good the old fluid still looked.)

 

[ctrcbob]

I use the Wolfs Head Universal Synthetic in my Continental. What I should say is that I've used it in the "Pump and Dump" that I do. No problems. I really purchased the Wolfs Head because it was less expensive than the Motorcraft Mercon-V.

This is the same as the Amalie Universal Synthetic.

 

[Rolf]

Originally Posted By: HawkeyeScott
...Had the Jeep transmission flushed and it was re-filled with Wolf's Head synthetic ATF. (Not sure if it was their universal or another variety. Meant to ask for an empty bottle but forgot.)

Anyway, does anyone know much about this ATF? I've never used any Wolf's Head product before.


"Wolf's Head" is an old brand, late 19th century and western Pennsylvania like many of the older brands, owned by Amalie Oil, who bought the brand from SOPUS (Shell) in 2006.

The contents of their bottles is pure Amalie. They're primarily motor oils and their market is centered in western Pennsylvania and surrounding states.

You can find the specs on their "Universal Synthetic ATF" here:

http://www.wolfshead.com/

and Amalie has an on-line store:

http://www.amaliestore.com/



.

 

[Allan_G]

Wolf's Head was a classic product. I am not sure of the new stuff, but I do belive from a previous post that Amalie blends decent products. I am starting to see Wolfs Head on the shelves again up here in Northwestern PA. For the longest time I had Drums of their ATF and 10W30

 

[Canawler]

Several people on this thread have asked questions about the Amalie/Wolf'sHead ATF. My advise is to call Amalie. The contact page on their website has a direct phone number to reach their Chief Chemist and Product Specialist.
I called about the ATF several months ago and spoke to him for about 1/2hr about ATFs and motor oil in general. Great guy who knew what he was talking about. It was a refreshing change from the marketing junk you normally get from the big oil companies.

 

[The Critic]

I will NOT use a product in my transmission that claims to be compatible with traditional stepped gear automatics and CVTs.

How is it possible to formulate a fluid that works in a CVT and an auto? Shows you how much the chemists at Amalie know...

 

[Whitewolf]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
I will NOT use a product in my transmission that claims to be compatible with traditional stepped gear automatics and CVTs.

How is it possible to formulate a fluid that works in a CVT and an auto? Shows you how much the chemists at Amalie know...


Since there are different designs of CVTs, how can somebody claim CVT performance without having tested every single one and gained the appropriate approval?

I'm becoming increasingly irritated by these companies who CLAIM to have enormous performance credentials with absolutely NO data or OEM approvals to back them up.

It appears that some of these companies are reluctant to release the information they purport to have generated to support these claims ... I wonder why that might be!

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, I imagine that they just don't slap a new label on something and put it on the market either. One would think that some risk analysis pencil necked geek in the front office would sound some alarm

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Well, I imagine that they just don't slap a new label on something and put it on the market either. One would think that some risk analysis pencil necked geek in the front office would sound some alarm

It's a small company. They could be out to make a quick buck.

 

[Gary Allan]

They've also been in business for over 100 years.

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
They've also been in business for over 100 years.

That doesn't mean much to me. Transmissions are far more complex nowadays than they were decades ago.

 

[Whitewolf]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Well, I imagine that they just don't slap a new label on something and put it on the market either. One would think that some risk analysis pencil necked geek in the front office would sound some alarm

Of course Gary, I fully understand that no reputable company would make performance claims without data to substantiate those claims, and be willing to reveal the information in the absence of an OEM approved licence!

 

[HawkeyeScott]

I guess that's why they call him The Critic.

I tend to think more like Gary on this one. I'd imagine they did plenty of testing before putting the product out. Otherwise, a fast buck would soon turn into their last buck. And why can't this type of fluid be the next era of ATFs? We do things with oil, grease and coolant that were once unthinkable. (Kendall once had the audacity to claim its oil could run for 2000 miles. 2000 miles?!? I'm sure more than a few people thought that was absurd.)

 

[Whitewolf]

Originally Posted By: HawkeyeScott
I guess that's why they call him The Critic.

I tend to think more like Gary on this one. I'd imagine they did plenty of testing before putting the product out. Otherwise, a fast buck would soon turn into their last buck. And why can't this type of fluid be the next era of ATFs? We do things with oil, grease and coolant that were once unthinkable. (Kendall once had the audacity to claim its oil could run for 2000 miles. 2000 miles?!? I'm sure more than a few people thought that was absurd.)


So where is the proof is my question? Anyone can make big claims! Have you seen their list of claims? It is quite ridiculous.

 

[Canawler]

Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
So where is the proof is my question? Anyone can make big claims! Have you seen their list of claims? It is quite ridiculous.


Don't take this as being argumentative but in every universal ATF thread you talk about claims and lack of proof. What exactly are you looking for as proof? The additive companies formulate a universal ATF add pack and claim it can be run in vehicles requiring x, y, and z fluid. Specifically what type of data would prove to you that this fluid will or will not work in a given application?

 

[Whitewolf]

Originally Posted By: Canawler
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
So where is the proof is my question? Anyone can make big claims! Have you seen their list of claims? It is quite ridiculous.


Don't take this as being argumentative but in every universal ATF thread you talk about claims and lack of proof. What exactly are you looking for as proof? The additive companies formulate a universal ATF add pack and claim it can be run in vehicles requiring x, y, and z fluid. Specifically what type of data would prove to you that this fluid will or will not work in a given application?


In order to make legitimate claims that are backed up by OEM approvals, licensed or not, there are specific requirements which have to be met. When an approval is listed and licensed, that is proof that the requirements have been met. Those requirements are published in most cases by the OEMs concerned. Anyone who cares to read that collection of requirements can clearly see that ONE fluid cannot meet them all, it's a physical impossibility.

Now, the question is, when companies that don't bother to obtain formal approvals from the OEMs and make claims, what's the value of them? Who approved what? Actually, in most cases nobody worth talking about approved anything!

I know I go on about this a lot, but I disapprove of misleading information and I believe the more people who are made aware of these discrepancies in some of these 'claims', the better.

 

[Pablo]

The thing is, Whitewolf simply can't prove the good universal ATF's don't work as claimed. He can't do it. I understand his viewpoint, but when he claims these fluids don't work he has absolutely zero proof of that - so it's disingenuous on his part to make claims with no backing while asking for more proof from ATF suppliers. In fact it's funny.

Of course many of us have read the silly SAE paper and have seen it proves nothing. But it makes for a good talking point. I just wish it was written scientifically and actually more real world.

As for CVT usage, Amsoil does not make that claim.