What are the T-IV specs for Toyota's ATF (3309)?

[kschachn]

That's really something.

 

[Overfill]

Again, it's just wordplay of the legal world and bean counters... I'm a simple man and here is how I see it:
If a T-IV spec'd automatic transmission fails, and failure is somehow undeniably proven to be due to the use of Valvoline MaxLife, then Valvoline is going to be held accountable, regardless of the wordplay on the bottle. Because Valvoline openly claims that MaxLife is a suitable replacement for T-IV. (Per earlier referenced PDF, and every back of the MaxLife ATF bottle.) But, as you/me/and all other users found out - MaxLife does great in all applications it is recommended for. Must be able to meet the specs, right?
And when it is unable to meet the specs - Valvoline openly admits it:
- "Valvoline does not recommend MaxLife Multi-Vehicle ATF for use in most continuously variable transmissions (CVTs) and in dual clutch transmissions (DCTs) unless specifically noted, nor in automatic transmissions where Ford Type F fluids are recommended."
- Don't know if it is still the case (maybe a reformulation took place since then), but some time ago Valvoline advised against using MaxLife ATF in Aisin Warner TF-80SC automatic transmissions.

Back to T-IV. Logic tells me that MaxLife meets the specs, and Valvoline's recommendation of being suitable/compatible is just as good as a claim to meet those specs.

This is why it is important: Valvoline will not be lawfully held accountable for "recommended for." Meaning the person of the failure would not be able to pursue Valvoline as the culprit. [Valvoline might choose to compensate people for tangential reasons, such as public opinion.] If Valvoline (were able to) get/got a license of approval for the fluid and list such on the bottle, then they would be liable for the ensuing failure(s), and the person would be able to sue or open a suit against them.

Valvoline has no interest and has plenty of capability to navigate this by reaching out to the manufacturer for pertinent details on how to construct a competent fluid for the applications. Valvoline is interested in a widespread successful product, which I believe they do have.

The wording matters a lot.

 

[MolaKule]

Thanks molakule.

Since I don't have the specs in front of me, could you give me some understanding here--a lot of times with coolant and ATF, people argue that you can't make a multi vehicle product because to meet Spec A means you have to compromise and not meet Spec B.

Are those specs difficult for a multi-ATF to meet? I suppose they would be impossible if others had a significantly different viscosity (either higher or lower)...

You can make a Multi-Vehicle ATF, if that is your question.

Let's back up a bit as I think you missed some prior posts on this same topic.

Many vehicle manf. publish a specification sheet of needed tests that an ATF must pass in order to qualify as an approved replacement fluid for subsequent licensing.

Many Asian transmission manf. do not publish a specification sheet of needed tests for their ATFs.

What some DI manf. do is when a test specification is not published is to have an extensive forensics analysis done and then develop a set of formulations for testing in the actual hardware (transmissions). The formula that provides the best performance characteristics such as shifting and least wear is then selected for further testing. Once the selected formulation is decided upon, then the DI manf. will commercialize it.

The DI manf. then provides potential Blenders with the total formulation which includes, 1) the DI additive package percentage, 2) the amount of VII needed, and 3) the preferred base oil mix.

The DI manf. then gives to the Blender a list of transmissions that this specific formulation will 'cover' in terms of "Recommended For the Following:"

As I have stated before, 'coverage' or "Recommended For the Following" DOES NOT imply the exact same chemistry as the OEM chemistry, but what it does imply is the viscosity, dynamic friction (shifting) characteristics, and other performance items are commensurate with the OEM fluid.

 

[MolaKule]

Well that certainly answers my question. I expected to see it in the afton spec book but didn't.

You won't see it there because Afton does not make the DI package for the Valvoline MaxLife ATF.

 

[MolaKule]

Valvoline does say that their recommendations come from in-house testing, independent lab testing (third party?), and field testing.

The recommendation comes about as explained above. The DI manf. has it tested in-house and in third-party labs and in fleets. I am sure Valvoline financed all of part of the testing.

Or is their recommendation not considered a claim?

"...Valvoline has conducted extensive bench testing and chassis dynamometer trials to support MaxLife Multi-Vehicle ATF performance in the broadest range of transmissions; however, it should be noted that MaxLife Multi-Vehicle ATF is not an OEM licensed product. The respective vehicle manufacturers have neither evaluated nor endorsed MaxLife Multi-Vehicle ATF in these applications. If an OEM licensed product is preferred, we recommend Valvoline DEXRON® VI, Valvoline ATF+4® and Valvoline MERCON®V for the corresponding applications..."

I see no specific claims being made for MaxLife, only that MaxLife will perform satisfactorily in the "Recommended for the following applications:."

US_Val_MLMultiVehicle_ATF_EN.pdf - DocuSign CLM

sharena21.springcm.com

 

[Samik8377]

Great question. I also looked around but never got a concrete definition of JWS 3309 specs. We keep hearing about many ATF specs, but NEVER get to know building blocks that make up a specification.

The ATF they suggest covers: viscosity "stay-in-grade," minimum wear over the life of the ATF, and stability of Mu(v), the dynamic friction coefficient.

Thanks for this ! Can you please detail out a little?

 

[MolaKule]

The ATF they suggest covers: viscosity "stay-in-grade," minimum wear over the life of the ATF, and stability of Mu(v), the dynamic friction coefficient.

Oh, post #3 was responding to a comment by paulri in the context of Toyota T-IV ATF. "Stay-in-Grade" means the viscosity will stay within a certain range of viscosity over its life. "Grade" relates to the viscosity range of the fluid over a temperature range; such as for the specs of a 0W30 engine oil. The Dynamic Friction Coefficient (Mu(v)) will remain stable over the fluid's life as well.

Here is some background info:

"Let's start with the definition of Static Friction since friction is an often misunderstood topic.

As with any definition of friction we must remember that friction is surface (interfacial) dependent, that is, friction is dependent on the types of surfaces under consideration for the surfaces in the system AND any fluid present at or in the surfaces. (In wet clutch systems, the fluid does diffuse into the porous clutch material).

Coefficients of Friction (u or Mu in the literature) are dimensionless values and are determined experimentally.

Static friction is that force that opposes movement, i.e., there is no movement and the static friction force holds an object motionless unless a greater force is applied to overcome it which then results in Dynamic Friction (friction due to motion). Every system has a Static COF.

Dynamic Friction = Kinetic Friction = Sliding Friction which is a force opposing, but not preventing, the actual movement of objects between two surfaces. Every system has a Dynamic COF.

Dry surfaces (no lubricant present) means we will have high Coefficients of Friction (COF) Mu's which are determined experimentally.

For example, a rectangular wood crate weighing 20 kg. on a wood floor will have to have a force greater than 70.8 N to move it horizontally since the opposing Friction force = u*Normal force= (0.3)*236 N = 70.8 N; where the Normal force is that force acting vertically down and Mu (or u)is the COF. Apply 71.8 N of force horizontally and the crate will begin to move.

Wet lubrication is the application of a substance known to reduce friction between two objects in motion, either sliding or rotating. Lubricated Friction results in motion of the crate with greater ease since the lubricant reduces the COF. Apply some liquid floor wax to the floor and the COF may be reduced to say 0.1, so now we can move the crate (from another room and a rope) with only 23.6 Newtons of force. Grandma may not appreciate the experiment or she may have you wax the whole floor. LOL!

In Step-Shift automatic transmissions and in limited-slip differentials with clutches, we want a wet lubrication Dynamic Coefficient of friction Mu(V) to overcome stick-slip phenomenon and it is Velocity and Force dependent.

"Stick" means an opposing static force whereas "Slip" means an opposing dynamic force. Friction Modifiers in ATF and in limited-slip differentials with clutches provides a "compromise" between those two frictional forces. How they do this at the molecular level involves precise shearing forces of the FM chemistry and is beyond the scope of this short note.

It should be noted that Friction Modifier chemistry's are different for Engine Oils, LS differentials, ATF's, Transfer Cases, Manual Transmissions, and other fluids.

 

[Samik8377]

Oh, post #3 was responding to a comment by paulri in the context of Toyota T-IV ATF. "Stay-in-Grade" means the viscosity will stay within a certain range of viscosity over its life. "Grade" relates to the viscosity range of the fluid over a temperature range; such as for the specs of a 0W30 engine oil. The Dynamic Friction Coefficient (Mu(v)) will remain stable over the fluid's life as well.

Thanks for the detailed reply MolaKule. As we know T-IV follows JWS3309 specifications.

Do you know the details of specs of JWS3309? The actual values of different parameters in the specification I mean.

Also , we see different viscosities in different brands supplying ATFs with JWS3309 specs: Eg, Mobil ATF 3309, Mannol 8218 etc. How does ATF viscosity affect milage and shifting smoothness/shudder?

 

[MolaKule]

Thanks for the detailed reply MolaKule. As we know T-IV follows JWS3309 specifications.

Do you know the details of specs of JWS3309? The actual values of different parameters in the specification I mean.

To which parameters are you referring?

I have not seen any published JWS3309 specifications.

My information comes from a detailed analysis on an NDA contract.

Also , we see different viscosities in different brands supplying ATFs with JWS3309 specs: Eg, Mobil ATF 3309, Mannol 8218 etc. How does ATF viscosity affect milage and shifting smoothness/shudder?

Most of the fluids I have seen purporting to meet JWS3309 are all hovering around 7.0 cSt@100C.

 

[MolaKule]

Sorry, I'm not too interested in the whole wordplay argument of "meet & exceed" vs "recommended for" vs "approved/specified" vs etc... So I'll keep it short - Valvoline recommends it in Toyota T-IV applications, updated 6/19/22. See Valvoline document here. Something that official does tend to stand out like a claim to meet the specs, at least to me...
View attachment 112621

Please read post #23 again.

I think we need a terminology/definition clarification in this thread.

Approvals (Industry Term) – A document from the OEM, or an OEM's testing representative, stating that a lubricant meets original OEM specifications. The approval License number should be stated on the label, bottle, or in marketing literature.

Coverage (Industrial, Marketing) - the extent to which this product applies. No licensure or approval from the OEM is inferred or assumed.

Recommended (Industrial, Marketing) – This lubricant is not licensed by an OEM for the recommended listed coverage, but the manufacturer or blender believes it is appropriate because of internal or external testing, or the listed coverage is supported by the additive manufacturer who has tested the DI formulation in actual hardware.

"Recommended for the Following" DOES NOT imply the exact same chemistry as the OEM chemistry, but what it does imply is the viscosity, dynamic friction (shifting) characteristics, and other performance items are commensurate with the OEM fluid.

Specification (Industry Term)- a precise description of a material entity stating precise requirements. In ATF terms, an OEM document that details the multitude of necessary tests the fluid must pass in order to receive the proper Type identification and labeling.

Requirement (Industry/Engineering Term) - A statement in a specification document essential to the meeting of one or more of the specifications contained therein. One such set of requirements may define the base oils to be used, the manufacturer of those base oils, their viscosity, a suggested VII chemistry, and the DI package to be used.

 

[Samik8377]

To which parameters are you referring?

By specifications I meant performance specifications in which the fluid is required to: resist shear and oxidation for a minimum period, and to provide and retain dynamic friction coefficient for a number of hours or miles.

My information comes from a detailed analysis on an NDA contract.

Great. Can you share some JWS 3309 specs as defined above?

 

[MolaKule]

By specifications I meant performance specifications in which the fluid is required to: resist shear and oxidation for a minimum period, and to provide and retain dynamic friction coefficient for a number of hours or miles.

The requirements for those performance items are similar to those in the public domain for GM's later Dexron series, Ford's ATF series, and Chrysler's series of ATFs.

Great. Can you share some JWS 3309 specs as defined above?

No. An NDA means a Non-Disclosure Agreement between two parties.

 

[MolaKule]

The requirements for those performance items are similar to those in the public domain for GM's later Dexron series, Ford's ATF series, and Chrysler's series of ATFs.

Do a public domain search (Google or whathaveyou) for "DEXRON®Test File Upload Manual" by the GM Test Data Center. It has about 60 tests for the various Dexron Types.