When is it NOT ok to change the ATF?
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
First of all, I have personally visited almost every single service facility across 3 counties in Florida searching for the mythical "powered flush" trans machine.
It simply does not exist! All machines at over 100 different facilities were simply two containers in a fancy cabinet. Totally passive, no pumps or power at all. We even owned a B&G machine for years I bought at auction, it was so simple I replaced it with a 5 gallon bucket and a length of hose!
Second, you cannot 'back flush' an automatic trans. This is due to check valves and balls throughout the trans/valve body that are SPECIFICALLY designed to insure that fluid only goes one way. The right way!
Third, no flush is a replacement for a pan drop and filter change, especially in the first part of the trans' life, as most wear particles are released during this time.
The whole biz about a "flush" ruining a trans is just not true. I have rescued many an older car, imports and domestics, by replacing the fluid. A bottle of Lubegard red and you're as good as it gets.
Interesting....the Mazda dealer near us uses the BG machine. So how does it work?
First of all, I have personally visited almost every single service facility across 3 counties in Florida searching for the mythical "powered flush" trans machine.
It simply does not exist! All machines at over 100 different facilities were simply two containers in a fancy cabinet. Totally passive, no pumps or power at all. We even owned a B&G machine for years I bought at auction, it was so simple I replaced it with a 5 gallon bucket and a length of hose!
Second, you cannot 'back flush' an automatic trans. This is due to check valves and balls throughout the trans/valve body that are SPECIFICALLY designed to insure that fluid only goes one way. The right way!
Third, no flush is a replacement for a pan drop and filter change, especially in the first part of the trans' life, as most wear particles are released during this time.
The whole biz about a "flush" ruining a trans is just not true. I have rescued many an older car, imports and domestics, by replacing the fluid. A bottle of Lubegard red and you're as good as it gets.
Interesting....the Mazda dealer near us uses the BG machine. So how does it work?
Mine was a cool looking cabinet with a very impressive tray of adapters to fit almost any car's trans lines. Inside the cabinet was a bladder for new fluid and a can for old stuff.
Everything flowed through a sight glass so you could see the color change that indicates completion.
A big box o' nothing!
Everything flowed through a sight glass so you could see the color change that indicates completion.
A big box o' nothing!
In addition to any problems occuring after a fluid change:
Many times people who neglect their car's transmission will bring it in AFTER a problem ensues, hoping for a miracle.
Guess who still gets blamed?
Many times people who neglect their car's transmission will bring it in AFTER a problem ensues, hoping for a miracle.
Guess who still gets blamed?
Originally Posted By: buster
I disagree, the formulation has been improved.
If your application specifies Dexron VI, perhaps. "Old" MaxLife was not Dexron VI compatible.
Quote:
Also, Redline is just recommending their fluid, it has no approval.
And your source of information for that statement is ...?
Quote:
Also, I'm noticing an improvement with the current MaxLife over the OEM M-V fluid. Faster shifting into the right gear and no lugging at all.
You recently replaced worn-out fluid, correct? Are you comparing shifts with the new MaxLife against the shifts with the spent fluid?
Quote:
Update- Spoke with Thom Smith.
Valvoline MaxLife is compatible with the Mazda M-V spec and is perfectly fine to use in this application.
In large companies that manufacture a physical product, generally there is a sharp divide, often a wide gulf, between, on the one hand. "engineering," which develops the products, and, on the other hand, "sales," which markets the products that engineering has developed. Often, there is thinly disguised, or undisguised, contempt of each side of the company for the other side. I assume that Ashland Oil is typical in this regard, and that Thom Smith, based on the press releases of his that I have read, is firmly on the sales side of Valvoline.
A few years ago Valvoline reduced the low temperature viscosity of MaxLife in order to make MaxLife compatible with Dexron VI, and now the viscosity at low temperatures of current MaxLife DEX/MERC is what it is. Mazda, the manufacturer of my car, has warned against the use in the transmission of my car of ATFs that have Mercon V levels of viscosity at low temperatures. I think Mazda knows more about what the transmission requires than Valvoline's sales hack does. (I assume, also, that Valvoline's engineering side, which determines what applications are listed on the label of MaxLife, knows more about the ATF technical specifications than the sales side of Valvoline does.)
In fact, Valvoline's sales side recommends not only MaxLife, but equally the Valvoline Mercon V ATF, for my Mazda, contrary to Mazda's recommendation: This is Valvoline's application chart; see page 3.
I choose to follow Mazda's advice.
I disagree, the formulation has been improved.
If your application specifies Dexron VI, perhaps. "Old" MaxLife was not Dexron VI compatible.
Quote:
Also, Redline is just recommending their fluid, it has no approval.
And your source of information for that statement is ...?
Quote:
Also, I'm noticing an improvement with the current MaxLife over the OEM M-V fluid. Faster shifting into the right gear and no lugging at all.
You recently replaced worn-out fluid, correct? Are you comparing shifts with the new MaxLife against the shifts with the spent fluid?
Quote:
Update- Spoke with Thom Smith.
Valvoline MaxLife is compatible with the Mazda M-V spec and is perfectly fine to use in this application.
In large companies that manufacture a physical product, generally there is a sharp divide, often a wide gulf, between, on the one hand. "engineering," which develops the products, and, on the other hand, "sales," which markets the products that engineering has developed. Often, there is thinly disguised, or undisguised, contempt of each side of the company for the other side. I assume that Ashland Oil is typical in this regard, and that Thom Smith, based on the press releases of his that I have read, is firmly on the sales side of Valvoline.
A few years ago Valvoline reduced the low temperature viscosity of MaxLife in order to make MaxLife compatible with Dexron VI, and now the viscosity at low temperatures of current MaxLife DEX/MERC is what it is. Mazda, the manufacturer of my car, has warned against the use in the transmission of my car of ATFs that have Mercon V levels of viscosity at low temperatures. I think Mazda knows more about what the transmission requires than Valvoline's sales hack does. (I assume, also, that Valvoline's engineering side, which determines what applications are listed on the label of MaxLife, knows more about the ATF technical specifications than the sales side of Valvoline does.)
In fact, Valvoline's sales side recommends not only MaxLife, but equally the Valvoline Mercon V ATF, for my Mazda, contrary to Mazda's recommendation: This is Valvoline's application chart; see page 3.
I choose to follow Mazda's advice.
Quote:
If your application specifies Dexron VI, perhaps. "Old" MaxLife was not Dexron VI compatible.
My application specifies M-V.
Quote:
And your source of information for that statement is ...?
Conversation with the owner of Redline, Roy Howell and Dave Granquist.
Quote:
You recently replaced worn-out fluid, correct? Are you comparing shifts with the new MaxLife against the shifts with the spent fluid?
I would say "used" fluid, not worn. I did not have the fluid tested. The car now has 70,000 miles on it. Transmission fluid has been fully changed 4x so far. M-V, M1 briefly, M-V and now MaxLife. Shifting quality has been best on M-V and MaxLife.
Quote:
In large companies that manufacture a physical product, generally there is a sharp divide, often a wide gulf, between, on the one hand. "engineering," which develops the products, and, on the other hand, "sales," which markets the products that engineering has developed. Often, there is thinly disguised, or undisguised, contempt of each side of the company for the other side. I assume that Ashland Oil is typical in this regard, and that Thom Smith, based on the press releases of his that I have read, is firmly on the sales side of Valvoline.
Quote:
Valvoline has at its disposal, Group III, Group III+, Group IV (PAO) and various Group V base oils and we use these as appropriate to meet our high standards. Valvoline is free to choose whatever base oils and additives we desire to meet our performance goals. Many of our competitors, due to corporate affiliations may not have this freedom.
Small companies often can't afford to test their products as thoroughly, avoiding certification and outsourcing their R&D to the additive and base oil suppliers.
Valvoline's R&D center is qualified to licence API oils.
If your application specifies Dexron VI, perhaps. "Old" MaxLife was not Dexron VI compatible.
My application specifies M-V.
Quote:
And your source of information for that statement is ...?
Conversation with the owner of Redline, Roy Howell and Dave Granquist.
Quote:
You recently replaced worn-out fluid, correct? Are you comparing shifts with the new MaxLife against the shifts with the spent fluid?
I would say "used" fluid, not worn. I did not have the fluid tested. The car now has 70,000 miles on it. Transmission fluid has been fully changed 4x so far. M-V, M1 briefly, M-V and now MaxLife. Shifting quality has been best on M-V and MaxLife.
Quote:
In large companies that manufacture a physical product, generally there is a sharp divide, often a wide gulf, between, on the one hand. "engineering," which develops the products, and, on the other hand, "sales," which markets the products that engineering has developed. Often, there is thinly disguised, or undisguised, contempt of each side of the company for the other side. I assume that Ashland Oil is typical in this regard, and that Thom Smith, based on the press releases of his that I have read, is firmly on the sales side of Valvoline.
Quote:
Valvoline has at its disposal, Group III, Group III+, Group IV (PAO) and various Group V base oils and we use these as appropriate to meet our high standards. Valvoline is free to choose whatever base oils and additives we desire to meet our performance goals. Many of our competitors, due to corporate affiliations may not have this freedom.
Small companies often can't afford to test their products as thoroughly, avoiding certification and outsourcing their R&D to the additive and base oil suppliers.
Valvoline's R&D center is qualified to licence API oils.
Quote:
A few years ago Valvoline reduced the low temperature viscosity of MaxLife in order to make MaxLife compatible with Dexron VI, and now the viscosity at low temperatures of current MaxLife DEX/MERC is what it is. Mazda, the manufacturer of my car, has warned against the use in the transmission of my car of ATFs that have Mercon V levels of viscosity at low temperatures. I think Mazda knows more about what the transmission requires than Valvoline's sales hack does. (I assume, also, that Valvoline's engineering side, which determines what applications are listed on the label of MaxLife, knows more about the ATF technical specifications than the sales side of Valvoline does.)
In fact, Valvoline's sales side recommends not only MaxLife, but equally the Valvoline Mercon V ATF, for my Mazda, contrary to Mazda's recommendation: This is Valvoline's application chart; see page 3.
I choose to follow Mazda's advice.
I don't blame you for following Mazda's advice. I generally prefer to follow the OEM's advice. Choosing Redline and then criticizing Valvoline MaxLife is laughable though. You're using a fluid from a company that is extremely small and not known to "officially" test and approve anything.
A few years ago Valvoline reduced the low temperature viscosity of MaxLife in order to make MaxLife compatible with Dexron VI, and now the viscosity at low temperatures of current MaxLife DEX/MERC is what it is. Mazda, the manufacturer of my car, has warned against the use in the transmission of my car of ATFs that have Mercon V levels of viscosity at low temperatures. I think Mazda knows more about what the transmission requires than Valvoline's sales hack does. (I assume, also, that Valvoline's engineering side, which determines what applications are listed on the label of MaxLife, knows more about the ATF technical specifications than the sales side of Valvoline does.)
In fact, Valvoline's sales side recommends not only MaxLife, but equally the Valvoline Mercon V ATF, for my Mazda, contrary to Mazda's recommendation: This is Valvoline's application chart; see page 3.
I choose to follow Mazda's advice.
I don't blame you for following Mazda's advice. I generally prefer to follow the OEM's advice. Choosing Redline and then criticizing Valvoline MaxLife is laughable though. You're using a fluid from a company that is extremely small and not known to "officially" test and approve anything.
Originally Posted By: buster
Conversation with the owner of Redline, Roy Howell and Dave Granquist.
Please share what you asked them, and what they told you. See the specifications of Red Line D4 here, which clearly and unambiguously state that Red Line D4 is a "suitable replacement" for Mazda M-V applications.
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: -moi-
You recently replaced worn-out fluid, correct? Are you comparing shifts with the new MaxLife against the shifts with the spent fluid?
I would say "used" fluid, not worn. I did not have the fluid tested. The car now has 70,000 miles on it. Transmission fluid has been fully changed 4x so far.
My goodness. IIRC, the service manual for our Mazda says to "check" (not replace) the fluid every 30,000 miles; if my memory is correct (and it may be in error), apparently, you are changing the fluid at twice the rate that Mazda recommends checking it. We flushed and replaed at 30,000 miles (with "old" Valvoline MaxLife, when Valvoline still was specifying on the label -- which it no longer does -- that MaxLife was suitable for Mazda M-V applications), and we have run that fluid without any problems or hard shifts for 55,000 miles. However, as the fluid's color has degraded over time, we decided to perform a 3x drain-and-fill at 85,000 miles with Red Line D4.
Originally Posted By: buster
M-V, M1 briefly, M-V and now MaxLife. Shifting quality has been best on M-V and MaxLife.
Originally Posted By: anonymous Valvoline marketing person
Valvoline has at its disposal, Group III, Group III+, Group IV (PAO) and various Group V base oils and we use these as appropriate to meet our high standards. Valvoline is free to choose whatever base oils and additives we desire to meet our performance goals. Many of our competitors, due to corporate affiliations may not have this freedom.
And -- in fact (I have not personally verified) -- Valvoline apparently DOES make an ATF (different from MaxLife) that is suitable for, and which Valvoline recommends and labels for, Mazda M-V applications. See this thread in a Mazda forum.
Conversation with the owner of Redline, Roy Howell and Dave Granquist.
Please share what you asked them, and what they told you. See the specifications of Red Line D4 here, which clearly and unambiguously state that Red Line D4 is a "suitable replacement" for Mazda M-V applications.
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: -moi-
You recently replaced worn-out fluid, correct? Are you comparing shifts with the new MaxLife against the shifts with the spent fluid?
I would say "used" fluid, not worn. I did not have the fluid tested. The car now has 70,000 miles on it. Transmission fluid has been fully changed 4x so far.
My goodness. IIRC, the service manual for our Mazda says to "check" (not replace) the fluid every 30,000 miles; if my memory is correct (and it may be in error), apparently, you are changing the fluid at twice the rate that Mazda recommends checking it. We flushed and replaed at 30,000 miles (with "old" Valvoline MaxLife, when Valvoline still was specifying on the label -- which it no longer does -- that MaxLife was suitable for Mazda M-V applications), and we have run that fluid without any problems or hard shifts for 55,000 miles. However, as the fluid's color has degraded over time, we decided to perform a 3x drain-and-fill at 85,000 miles with Red Line D4.
Originally Posted By: buster
M-V, M1 briefly, M-V and now MaxLife. Shifting quality has been best on M-V and MaxLife.
Originally Posted By: anonymous Valvoline marketing person
Valvoline has at its disposal, Group III, Group III+, Group IV (PAO) and various Group V base oils and we use these as appropriate to meet our high standards. Valvoline is free to choose whatever base oils and additives we desire to meet our performance goals. Many of our competitors, due to corporate affiliations may not have this freedom.
And -- in fact (I have not personally verified) -- Valvoline apparently DOES make an ATF (different from MaxLife) that is suitable for, and which Valvoline recommends and labels for, Mazda M-V applications. See this thread in a Mazda forum.
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: -moi-
A few years ago Valvoline reduced the low temperature viscosity of MaxLife in order to make MaxLife compatible with Dexron VI, and now the viscosity at low temperatures of current MaxLife DEX/MERC is what it is. Mazda, the manufacturer of my car, has warned against the use in the transmission of my car of ATFs that have Mercon V levels of viscosity at low temperatures. I think Mazda knows more about what the transmission requires than Valvoline's sales hack does. (I assume, also, that Valvoline's engineering side, which determines what applications are listed on the label of MaxLife, knows more about the ATF technical specifications than the sales side of Valvoline does.)
In fact, Valvoline's sales side recommends not only MaxLife, but equally the Valvoline Mercon V ATF, for my Mazda, contrary to Mazda's recommendation: This is Valvoline's application chart; see page 3.
I choose to follow Mazda's advice.
I don't blame you for following Mazda's advice. I generally prefer to follow the OEM's advice. Choosing Redline and then criticizing Valvoline MaxLife is laughable though.
I have not criticized MaxLife; I have questioned its appropriateness, after the formulation was modified, to specific applications for which formerly it was appropriate. And I have intimated that the marketing people at Valvoline to whom you have spoken are motivated by their positions within the company that issues their paychecks to tell you that the product is appropriate even though they previously have demonstrated (in a document that I posted a link to earlier in this thread in which Valvoline recommended plain old Mercon V for the same application) that they are unfamiliar with the Mazda M-V application for which they assure you that the new and different MaxLife is appropriate.
Originally Posted By: buster
You're using a fluid from a company that is extremely small and not known to "officially" test and approve anything.
Red Line D4 is widely used by many, many very careful and very demanding performance enthusiasts, including Mazda enthusiasts, and it is universally praised. Never is heard a discouraging word of Red Line D4. It has a track record.
Originally Posted By: -moi-
A few years ago Valvoline reduced the low temperature viscosity of MaxLife in order to make MaxLife compatible with Dexron VI, and now the viscosity at low temperatures of current MaxLife DEX/MERC is what it is. Mazda, the manufacturer of my car, has warned against the use in the transmission of my car of ATFs that have Mercon V levels of viscosity at low temperatures. I think Mazda knows more about what the transmission requires than Valvoline's sales hack does. (I assume, also, that Valvoline's engineering side, which determines what applications are listed on the label of MaxLife, knows more about the ATF technical specifications than the sales side of Valvoline does.)
In fact, Valvoline's sales side recommends not only MaxLife, but equally the Valvoline Mercon V ATF, for my Mazda, contrary to Mazda's recommendation: This is Valvoline's application chart; see page 3.
I choose to follow Mazda's advice.
I don't blame you for following Mazda's advice. I generally prefer to follow the OEM's advice. Choosing Redline and then criticizing Valvoline MaxLife is laughable though.
I have not criticized MaxLife; I have questioned its appropriateness, after the formulation was modified, to specific applications for which formerly it was appropriate. And I have intimated that the marketing people at Valvoline to whom you have spoken are motivated by their positions within the company that issues their paychecks to tell you that the product is appropriate even though they previously have demonstrated (in a document that I posted a link to earlier in this thread in which Valvoline recommended plain old Mercon V for the same application) that they are unfamiliar with the Mazda M-V application for which they assure you that the new and different MaxLife is appropriate.
Originally Posted By: buster
You're using a fluid from a company that is extremely small and not known to "officially" test and approve anything.
Red Line D4 is widely used by many, many very careful and very demanding performance enthusiasts, including Mazda enthusiasts, and it is universally praised. Never is heard a discouraging word of Red Line D4. It has a track record.
The bottom line is the both of us are speculating. I'm taking Valvoline's word, you're taking Redline's Product Data sheet.
I trust Valvoline as much or more so than Redline.
As far as intervals go, you should know that these transmissions are often considered the weak link in these cars, and tend to be hard on the fluid. It's cheap insurance in the long run.
I have no problems spending money getting it changed every 2 years. $160 over two years? "My goodness". Spare me the drama.
I trust Valvoline as much or more so than Redline.
As far as intervals go, you should know that these transmissions are often considered the weak link in these cars, and tend to be hard on the fluid. It's cheap insurance in the long run.
I have no problems spending money getting it changed every 2 years. $160 over two years? "My goodness". Spare me the drama.
The smaller "boutique" oils like Redline have a distinct lack of real certifications that could cause trouble if you experience a problem.
Smaller can mean good things for specialization, as it applies to niches in the marketplace.
But bigger can mean credibility if you get into a scrap over a warranty. It's a choice...
Smaller can mean good things for specialization, as it applies to niches in the marketplace.
But bigger can mean credibility if you get into a scrap over a warranty. It's a choice...
Originally Posted By: buster
The bottom line is the both of us are speculating. I'm taking Valvoline's word, you're taking Redline's Product Data sheet.
I trust Valvoline as much or more so than Redline.
Actually, what you have posted here repeatedly is that you trust a marketing guy at Valvoline who has gone against his own company's recommendations.
Quote:
As far as intervals go, you should know that these transmissions are often considered the weak link in these cars, and tend to be hard on the fluid. It's cheap insurance in the long run.
The model that we own (the station wagon variant of the Mazda6) is the only non-'Speed Mazda of which I am aware that came fitted from the factory with a transmission fluid cooler; aware that that may signal that the transmission is prone to overheating, I have monitored the color of the ATF -- which from 30,000 miles on the odometer until 85,000 miles on the odometer was old-formulation Valvoline Maxlife -- for signs of failure; the shifting remained fine through 85,000 miles. But when the color degraded, I had my mechanic perform a 3x drain-and-fill with Red Line D4, an ester-based ATF for which MolaKule and other very knowledgable members of BITOG have expressed respect and admiration over the years, and which has publically published more detailed specifications than Valvoline has published for MaxLife (though Schaeffer's 204SAT is blessed with even more detailed published specifications).
Red Line recommends D4 for Mazda M-V applications; Valvoline no longer recommends MaxLife for Mazda M-V applications. For me, that makes it easy to choose between the products for my Mazda M-V application
The bottom line is the both of us are speculating. I'm taking Valvoline's word, you're taking Redline's Product Data sheet.
I trust Valvoline as much or more so than Redline.
Actually, what you have posted here repeatedly is that you trust a marketing guy at Valvoline who has gone against his own company's recommendations.
- Valvoline knows how to recommend Maxlife for Mazda M-V applications; before 2008, the back label on MaxLife listed the applications for which MaxLife was recommended (using that specific word), and Mazda M-V was on the list, and its Product Data Sheet at the time also stated that Mazda M-V was a recommended application;
- Valvoline knows how to recommend a current Valvoline ATF for Mazda M-V applications; earlier in this thread, I pointed you to a photo of the back label of a current (blue bottle) Valvoline that says "Recommended for ... Mazda M-V";
- In 2005, Mazda issued a Technical Service Bulletin stating that regular Mercon V should not be used in place of Mazda M-V rated ATF, partially because Mazda M-V applications require an ATF with a higher viscosity at low temperatures than the Mercon V specification provides;
- In 2008, Valvoline modified the formulation of MaxLife to give it a lower viscosity, in order that Valvoline could recommend Dexron VI on the back label; at the same time, Valvoline dropped the Mazda M-V application both from the MaxLife back label and from the MaxLife Product Data Sheet. You say that you trust Valvoline, and yet you do not trust that Valvoline knew what it was doing when it removed Mazda M-V from its list of recommended MaxLife applications in 2008?
- Thom Smith, a marketing executive at Valvoline, wrote and circulated a very slippery and cagey letter that states that Valvoline "supports" the use of MaxLife in applications that Valvoline has "recommended." The letter very conspicuously does not say that Mazda M-V is a "recommended" application. If "supports" means "recommends" then the statement that Valvoline supports what it recommends is circular and redundant.
Quote:
As far as intervals go, you should know that these transmissions are often considered the weak link in these cars, and tend to be hard on the fluid. It's cheap insurance in the long run.
The model that we own (the station wagon variant of the Mazda6) is the only non-'Speed Mazda of which I am aware that came fitted from the factory with a transmission fluid cooler; aware that that may signal that the transmission is prone to overheating, I have monitored the color of the ATF -- which from 30,000 miles on the odometer until 85,000 miles on the odometer was old-formulation Valvoline Maxlife -- for signs of failure; the shifting remained fine through 85,000 miles. But when the color degraded, I had my mechanic perform a 3x drain-and-fill with Red Line D4, an ester-based ATF for which MolaKule and other very knowledgable members of BITOG have expressed respect and admiration over the years, and which has publically published more detailed specifications than Valvoline has published for MaxLife (though Schaeffer's 204SAT is blessed with even more detailed published specifications).
Red Line recommends D4 for Mazda M-V applications; Valvoline no longer recommends MaxLife for Mazda M-V applications. For me, that makes it easy to choose between the products for my Mazda M-V application
- Status
Similar threads
