2015 Duramax factory fill - 986 miles on oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: stockrex
Dave, so we have fake ally trans in our dmaxs? ;-)


Mmmmmmmm .... sort of ... but not really.
Consider them more like step-siblings.


Here's how this all went down.

The Allision 1000 series was designed here in Indy many years ago. GM owned Allison outright. Not only does the Allison 1000 series go into all manner of light-commercial applications, it also fit into the HD GM trucks at the time. There was a redesign for the CK series truck; the "new" (at the time) body change in not only brought in new engines such as the 5.3L, etc but also the Dmax and Allison.

Due to volume demands, GM's Baltimore plant produced Allision 1000s for the GM light-duty Dmax/Alli vehicle, whereas the Indy plant made 1000s for the other commercial applications. All was hunky-dorey when GM owned Allison. All Baltimore trannies came with (then current) Dexron III(H) and the Indy trannies came with TES-295 (Transynd).

Late in the game, GM was in the process of phasing out DEX III in favor of the "new" DEX VI. Because GM owned Allison, they forced Allison to accept the DEV VI into their corporate records. While the DEX VI is an excellent fluid, it does have a specific and proprietary chem package. That package has a unique chemical that can actually degrade the seals that were in use at the time in the Allison 1000 series at both plants. As much as Allison did not want to accept DEX VI as a viable fluid in their documentation, they were forced to by GM. Indy was still filling with TES-295; Baltimore started filling with DEX VI.

Allison then came out with a new spec; TES389 was born. This is because once GM stopped licensing the DEX III, Allison needed a lesser cost alternative to TES-295 for it's customers. So, TES389 is essentially the former DEX III specs with the addition of an assurance of seal compatibility for the chem package. So, Allison actually had three acceptable fluids: TES-295, TES-389 and DEX VI. Allison also established new seals to be compatible with the DEX VI around that same time. Allison then also established a serieal number cut-off for 2006 MY trucks that would indicate which ones had the "new" seals.

Then right about this very same time, GM decided to sell off Allison. When the split was made, GM realized they still wanted the marketing hype to be able to sell Duramax/Allison trucks, so they negotiated to keep the naming rights and design/manufacturing abilities for the 1000 series after the split off. You see, when you own a company outright, you get to deterime exactly what you sell and what you keep, when negotiating with the potential buyer. Finally, the deal was done and Allison was sold out of GM.

Now free from GM, Allison continued to make the 1000 series at Indy. And Allison was now able to self-define what fluids were acceptable in their trannies, rather than have it dictated to them by GM from the bully-pulpit. They promptly dumped the DEX VI from the approved fluids list. However, that did not stop GM from offering it in the Baltimore trannies, but Allison would no longer accept it's use in the Indy trannies. To this day, there are only two approved fluids for true Allison-Indy made 1000/2000 series trannies; that being TES-295 and TES-389. Also, you need to understand that the TES-295 fluids are super-duper high end PAOs with a great add-pack; and they are expensive. They are required by Allison, if and only if, you are in an extended service warranty contract with Allison for your Allison built tranny; if not, they are not required and the TES-389 lubes would be fine. There is no document that I know of that suggests or states TES-295 is required for all apps. It is only their recommended fluid for extended OCIs or severe duty (using their definition; not yours) and a requirement for use if you are in a warranty/maintenance contract with Allison.

GM still makes their version of the Allison 1000 at Baltimore. They fill those with DEX VI. Now, DEX VI is a great fluid; it's MUCH better than the former DEX III in terms of vis retention and oxidation resistance. It's a good fluid to use, as long as you don't have an older one (MY2001-2006) that has the affected seals.

So, when we speak of fluids for the Allison 1000 series, we have to understand what the application is, to know who built and will warrant the tranny. In the light-duty D/A applications, GM built and warrants that trans; you'll want to follow the (often confusing) GM guidelines. If you have a commercial vehicle it's likely that you have an Indy built Ally, and you'll want to follow the Allison guidelines.

They are essentially siblings seperated by a bitter divorce, but the genetics are the same. It's just that each parent now has a different idea what to feed them.



To the OP - you have an Baltimore/GM build tranny. Follow the GM guidelines. The reality is that DEX VI (for MY2007 and later) is perfectly safe and will do a great job. Or, you can put any DEX/Merc type fluid in there. You can use TES-295 or TES-389 licensed fluids, but they are uber expensive and you'll not likely have a "need" for such. If you want a syn fluid, just pick one that is marketed for the former DEX/Merc applications and it will be fine.

It is my opinion that the 1000 series tranny will actually function on a reasonably wide spectrum of fluids, but if you want warranty coverage, you need to stick to the warranty that came with your vehicle, because it is specific to who made it and who will pay should a problem arise. So fluid and filter changes are going to vary a bit, but it will generally be OK regardless of which path you choose.

Not that anyone really wanted the history lesson, but it does help understand why you see different recommendations from Alli and GM.

.
 
Last edited:
The oil may contain more wear metals than the
UOA indicates, because large particles are
not included or seen by the test.

This would be especially true with motorcycles.
The large metallic particles and sometimes
flakes from the transmission are not included
in the UOA.
The oil may look good, but is it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top