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

Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
2,430
Location
CA, USA
I realize that Toyota has a spec for ATF (more than one spec), but I'm interested in what it involves. Is it merely a viscosity min and max? Does it cover wear on parts?

I searched in the afton spec handbook for 2019 for "T-IV" and didn't get any results. I also searched for "3309," which is probably the actual specification title, and I didn't get any results for that, either.
 
Last edited:
I realize that Toyota has a spec for ATF (more than one spec), but I'm interested in what it involves. Is it merely a viscosity min and max? Does it cover wear on parts?

I searched in the afton spec handbook for 2019 for "T-IV" and didn't get any results. I also searched for "3309," which is probably the actual specification title, and I didn't get any results for that, either.
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 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).

I'd rather not mention any particular multi-vehicle atf, because there would be inevitable posts about how they tried that one and it thrashed their trans, or how it works great in theirs. I'm just trying to get some idea of how hard it would be for a multivehicle ATF to meet these specs, and several others at the same time.
 
Last edited:
I get what you mean. When I first got the Lexus, I found a lot of recommendations outside of T-IV/JWS-3309.

In order to stick with whatever JWS-3309 specs are, I just ended up with a case of Edimitsu-TLS (Toyota/Lexus/Scion) which is labeled T-IV only.

Years later, I was browsing the fluids at an independent auto supply place in town. I was floored that they had both Mobil-3309 and Aisin T-IV.
 
I remember trying to hair-split the differences on the same topic, when I first joined BITOG. But then I learned that Valvoline MaxLife is a good multi-spec ATF. And since then it's been performing better than OE Toyota T-IV fluid in all my Lexus/Scion/Toyota vehicles. As well as Nissan/Infiniti/Huyndai/Chevrolet. Have seen many theories on why it can't work as good as it does, but real world practice always confirms Valvoline's claims. So far so good.
 
Nobody here is disputing that MaxLife is a good ATF. There are plenty of threads here where people give their opinions and experiences on it.

My question is really more a matter of, can a multi-vehicle ATF meet the T-IV specs or can't it?

I remember trying to hair-split the differences on the same topic, when I first joined BITOG. But then I learned that Valvoline MaxLife is a good multi-spec ATF. And since then it's been performing better than OE Toyota T-IV fluid in all my Lexus/Scion/Toyota vehicles. As well as Nissan/Infiniti/Huyndai/Chevrolet. Have seen many theories on why it can't work as good as it does, but real world practice always confirms Valvoline's claims. So far so good.
 
Nobody here is disputing that MaxLife is a good ATF. There are plenty of threads here where people give their opinions and experiences on it.

My question is really more a matter of, can a multi-vehicle ATF meet the T-IV specs or can't it?
It would be highly unlikely that anyone here has the details of Type T-IV test requirements. Most Asian manufacturers do not publish their specification requirements since they do not license them.
 
Nobody here is disputing that MaxLife is a good ATF. There are plenty of threads here where people give their opinions and experiences on it.

My question is really more a matter of, can a multi-vehicle ATF meet the T-IV specs or can't it?
I guess it can, judging by the success rate of 10+ T-IV spec'ed transmissions I've used it in, and hundreds of success stories here where BITOGers saw improvements in both high temp and cold shifting performance after switching to MaxLife from OEM T-IV fluid. If it couldn't meet the specs, then why would Valvoline put themselves in jeopardy of expensive lawsuits by claiming that it does?
 
I guess it can, judging by the success rate of 10+ T-IV spec'ed transmissions I've used it in, and hundreds of success stories here where BITOGers saw improvements in both high temp and cold shifting performance after switching to MaxLife from OEM T-IV fluid. If it couldn't meet the specs, then why would Valvoline put themselves in jeopardy of expensive lawsuits by claiming that it does?
Valvoline does not claim that.
 
Well that certainly answers my question. I expected to see it in the afton spec book but didn't.

It would be highly unlikely that anyone here has the details of Type T-IV test requirements. Most Asian manufacturers do not publish their specification requirements since they do not license them.
 
Valvoline does not claim that.
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...
Screenshot (31).png
 
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.
View attachment 112621
Well sure you can be sorry, but what you said first was Valvoline claimed to meet the spec. As I noted and as you changed in your second post, Valvoline does not claim they meet the spec. Valvoline does not claim they meet any of the specifications, licenses or approvals on that sheet. Which is significant since that directly relates to what the OP was asking.

None of which means I don't or wouldn't use it, as I do. In fact I use it in all the vehicles I maintain that have an automatic transmission.
 
When you say that they don't publish their specs, you mean that they don't make them publicly available to folks like us here? Or do you mean that other automotive fluid manufacturers don't know those specs either?


It would be highly unlikely that anyone here has the details of Type T-IV test requirements. Most Asian manufacturers do not publish their specification requirements since they do not license them.
 
Well sure you can be sorry, but what you said first was Valvoline claimed to meet the spec. As I noted and as you changed in your second post, Valvoline does not claim they meet the spec. Valvoline does not claim they meet any of the specifications, licenses or approvals on that sheet. Which is significant since that directly relates to what the OP was asking.

None of which means I don't or wouldn't use it, as I do. In fact I use it in all the vehicles I maintain that have an automatic transmission.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Hardly word play. It’s an important difference.

You stated something that wasn’t true.

Valvoline “recommends it for use”.

This is very different than “meets specifications”, which is what you said.

Read further, @kschachn said that he uses Maxlife in everything he maintains. So, go ahead and use, just be clear on what a specification actually means.
 
Hardly word play. It’s an important difference.

You stated something that wasn’t true.

Valvoline “recommends it for use”.

This is very different than “meets specifications”, which is what you said.

Read further, @kschachn said that he uses Maxlife in everything he maintains. So, go ahead and use, just be clear on what a specification actually means.
If it's not a word play, but an important difference, then how does that difference translate to real world performance of the product?
 
If it's not a word play, but an important difference, then how does that difference translate to real world performance of the product?
No one said it does. But there is a difference in some company saying they meet the requirements of something and when they say it is suitable for an application. In fact, given the plethora of specifications and approvals on that sheet it is impossible for them to meet all of them at once. Some of the Mercedes-Benz ones have competing requirements that one fluid won’t meet. Does that make it unusable? No.

Again Valvoline does not say they meet all the requirements. Only you seem to keep trying to say that. Or make some point which I’m not clear about.
 
When you say that they don't publish their specs, you mean that they don't make them publicly available to folks like us here? Or do you mean that other automotive fluid manufacturers don't know those specs either?
They clearly aren’t public knowledge but obviously they are given to the blender or manufacturer that makes the branded fluid.
 
No one said it does. But there is a difference in some company saying they meet the requirements of something and when they say it is suitable for an application. In fact, given the plethora of specifications and approvals on that sheet it is impossible for them to meet all of them at once. Some of the Mercedes-Benz ones have competing requirements that one fluid won’t meet. Does that make it unusable? No.

Again Valvoline does not say they meet all the requirements. Only you seem to keep trying to say that. Or make some point which I’m not clear about.

- If it doesn't make a difference in performance, then it's just legal word play to keep lawyers happy and lawsuits (against OEM or end users) to a minimum. Just the world we live in.
- My unclear point is that if Valvoline put "Toyota T-IV" on the bottle of MaxLife ATF, and on all related spec sheets, then they probably didn't pull that recommendation out of thin air. Is it wrong to assume that some testing has been done? Something that satisfies the requirements of T-IV, and other more stringent certifications? And to test it against the T-IV spec they would probably have to know the spec and its requirements? And if these assumptions are correct, and fluid passes all of that, and MaxLife puts T-IV on their "recommended for" list, then is it not fair to say that Valvoline claims to meet the specs of T-IV? Valvoline does say that their recommendations come from in-house testing, independent lab testing (third party?), and field testing. (Whether they wish to pay the ransom to OEM for being on official approved lists is another can of worms.) Is my point any clearer now?
- Lastly, I apologize for the rant. But help me understand what's the point of your nitpicking on my wording (unless post #10 isn't that), when product says what it does and does what it says? Valvoline says MaxLife works in T-IV applications (which is my main point all along), and that claim of theirs matches real world experiences of us, the end users. Or is their recommendation not considered a claim?
 
Back
Top