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

[kschachn]

That's really something.

 

[Brian553]

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