Is Valvoline pushing Maxlife ATF too far?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
3,219
Location
Texas
It has been entirely too long since I've been active on this site! It's certainly changed since I first joined. But I digress...

For those of you that don't know, Mazda requires the use of FZ tansmission fluid. Not a lot is known about this fluid (from what I gather) other than it being an ultra-low viscosity fluid and that it's blue. According to the manual, our units are filled for life and don't need service. Seeing as how there is a fill hole, drain plug and a dipstick, I certainly plan on changing it out. For nothing more than purely simplistic reasons, I've decided to change the fluid in the trans, transfer case and rear diff at 60k miles. While mine is a little over half way there, my mom's '14 CX-5 is about 10k miles shy.

I decided to explore and see if anyone had started producing FZ fluid yet. Nope, no one really has. I did find one product that's in Europe but the site was crudely translated and I was unable to find purchasing/shipping information. From what I can find, purchasing the Mazda OE fluid is the only option. For giggles I decided to check out Maxlife as that's what I run in the Monte with great results. I'm not really a fan of "one size fits all" when it comes to automotive products, but the specs of Dex-VI and Maxlife are nearly identical which is why I decided to try it out. I've done two fluid changes in the Monte with it and it's been working beautifully. Much to my surprise, Valvoline is recommending Maxlife in FZ applications. I was also surprised to see that since the last time I viewed their PDS, it seems as though they've added quite a few specs that are now recommended.

I remember Valvoline's rebuttal when PQIA questioned them on their label claims, it was fairly straightforward and seemingly genuine. However, I find it a little hard to believe that this product can genuinely be recommended for all of these applications, is it truly that good, or is Valvoline playing a game of chance on possible payouts from failed transmissions? They still don't recommend the product for ATF +4 applications, so clearly there are some boundaries that they're not willing to push. The question still remains though.

For those curious, the newest PDS can be found here.
 
35.gif


I too would like to know some more about Maxlife ATF. I've been searching for a suitable replacement for the Hondas and eventually the Frontier (when out of warranty). It seems that Valvoline markets this stuff as suitable for everything.

It's strange to me that Nissan recommends Matic D in the T-case and Matic S for the transmission but Maxlife claims to meet the requirements for both...

BTW, I've never heard of a blue ATF. I'd stick with OEM just for that!
grin.gif
 
Manufacturer test a lot of corner cases (i.e. extreme heat, humidity, altitude, fuel trim, load, wear condition, fuel economy) that rarely happens in practice for most people.

Aftermarket usually are good enough for the non corner cases (i.e. moderate temperature, humidity, altitude, load, don't care for fuel economy) that they will work for 999/1000 customers, and if the 1/1000 fail, 1/10000 will ask for a warranty claim and the other 9/10000 just didn't know it was bad and keep driving until the car retires. Valvoline probably bought a couple Mazda with FZ ATF and use as their company car for 3 years, then tear it down to check for wear and tear, then "recommend" it if it wears about the same as the OEM fluid.

The usual problem I see is that if you have something else went bad the OEM will try to weasel out of a warranty claim. For the first 120k I'd stick with OEM to avoid this trouble.
 
So, the question here is as to the certification of Maxlife as a Mazda FZ replacement fluid?

The Maxlife that meets Mercon LV is a low viscosity fluid; unsure about ultra-low viscosity, but it does seem to do exceptionally well where the range of it is about the same.
 
Originally Posted By: OhOMG
So, the question here is as to the certification of Maxlife as a Mazda FZ replacement fluid?

The Maxlife that meets Mercon LV is a low viscosity fluid; unsure about ultra-low viscosity, but it does seem to do exceptionally well where the range of it is about the same.


I mean, if someone has data on Mazda FZ fluid so that we could do some comparative "analysis", then sure that would be great. That wasn't really the point of my post though. More of just a prompt for what hopefully could become constructive conversation between knowledgeable board members.
 
On an opieoil site above you can get PDS for (almost) all the oils they sell...just click on the individual oil...

You will discover pretty soon that standards from different manufacturers overlap...

And that you dont have to google ilusive Mazda FZ spec. when you have other bigger players here as Toxota... Vw... GM etc
smile.gif


Its the same with a car oils....all you have to look at are BMW-MB-VW standards...everything else is not important
smile.gif


Use your common sense!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: fenixguy
35.gif


I too would like to know some more about Maxlife ATF. I've been searching for a suitable replacement for the Hondas and eventually the Frontier (when out of warranty). It seems that Valvoline markets this stuff as suitable for everything.

It's strange to me that Nissan recommends Matic D in the T-case and Matic S for the transmission but Maxlife claims to meet the requirements for both...

BTW, I've never heard of a blue ATF. I'd stick with OEM just for that!
grin.gif


I use it in our 08 CRV. Works just fine. I even use it in my Tacoma.
 
Go to your Mazda dealer and ask them what ATF they use. Good chance it's not "FZ".
 
I'll say flat out I don't know about Mazda FZ. I suppose if I didn't believe the ML PDS, I simply wouldn't use it for that application.

And since the PQIA warning/alert for ML Dex/Merc broached, explanation made sense to me. And apparently to PQIA too as they amended the alert. Dex/Merc an old spec and now with synthetic ATFs, lower initial/starting viscosity is the norm. And while Synthetic ATF like ML start lower, they have much greater shear stability than mineral based ATF with higher starting viscosity like older Dex/Merc. MolaKule has thread in technical papers sub forum about the topic.

It's true ML has added some additional 'suitable for' applications, including Honda DW1. Currently using ML in a couple Hondas specing Z1 and a Tacoma specing Dex ll/lll, out of vehicle warranty I'd use it for a DW1 application too if I had one. I say out of warranty as CYA with a nod to potential warranty denial.
 
ML ATF just seems like a great value. I’m shopping ATF and Castrol was a semi at $8/qt … Valvoline Dex syn about that … ML $19/gallon and I needed exactly a gallon jug to D&F … (jug to collect used oil)
 
Originally Posted By: RamFan
...They still don't recommend the product for ATF +4 applications, so clearly there are some boundaries that they're not willing to push. The question still remains though.


What question is that (just trying to understand you core question)?
smile.gif


Valvoline doesn't cover the ATF +4 because the ATF +4 spec has a different dynamic coefficient of friction spec than does the DexronIII/Mercon series of dynamic coefficient of friction specs.

The reason Valvoline is recommending the Mazda coverage is because the additive supplier is confident its testing can support that coverage.

If the color is Blue, that simply means they are using a "tag" for warranty purposes.

BTW, I think the Mazda 60k OCI for the tranny is simply a CYA type of thing that gets you up to the warranty period but not beyond. Most driving habits today falls into the Severe Duty category.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Sayjac


...And since the PQIA warning/alert for ML Dex/Merc broached, explanation made sense to me. And apparently to PQIA too as they amended the alert. Dex/Merc an old spec and now with synthetic ATFs, lower initial/starting viscosity is the norm...



The PQIA history and the California statement are non sequitur.
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: RamFan
...They still don't recommend the product for ATF +4 applications, so clearly there are some boundaries that they're not willing to push. The question still remains though.


What question is that (just trying to understand you core question)?
smile.gif


Valvoline doesn't cover the ATF +4 because the ATF +4 spec has a different dynamic coefficient of friction spec than does the DexronIII/Mercon series of dynamic coefficient of friction specs.

The reason Valvoline is recommending the Mazda coverage is because the additive supplier is confident its testing can support that coverage.

If the color is Blue, that simply means they are using a "tag" for warranty purposes.

BTW, I think the Mazda 60k OCI for the tranny is simply a CYA type of thing that gets you up to the warranty period but not beyond. Most driving habits today falls into the Severe Duty category.


Are you saying that the applications that Valvoline is recommending this fluid for all come filled from the factory with a fluid which falls under or close to the Dex/Merc "class" of fluids?
 
Let's state this another way:

Valvoline covers those transmissions that have a wet clutch, dynamic coefficient of friction spec closest to the DexronIII/Mercon series of dynamic coefficient of friction specs.

Most of the Chrysler transmissions have a different dynamic coefficient of friction spec.

Quote:
In an engine, we want to reduce kinetic friction, but in an Automatic Transmission, we want a specific type of static/kinetic friction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_friction

discusses static and kinetic friction. The frictional characteristics we are discussing here is dynamic friction, a special kind of 'static/kinetic' friction. Dynamic friction is a friction that changes its "coefficient of friction" as two surfaces come in contact and are in relative motion, such as in AT clutch plates.

Recall that clutch plates have alternating layers of clutch friction material and steel plates. The friction material is splined on the inside, where it locks to one of the gears. The steel plate is splined on the outside, where it locks to the clutch housing.

The pressure for the clutches is fed through passageways in the shafts. The hydraulic system controls which clutches are energized at any given moment.

In AT's we want the fluid to create a specific dynamic friction coefficient (dependent upon the clutch materials used) such that we have smooth engagement and disengagement, so we don't have shudder or slippage. Shudder and slippage cause increased frictional material wear and increased heat.

It is this complex package of frictional modifier chemical compounds found in ATF that is important for smooth operation.

Remember, a friction modifier can be a friction reducer, a friction increaser, or one that controls friction in a specified manner.

In an engine, we primarily want friction reduction. In an AT, we want controlled friction modification often called Mu(V) in the literature. The fluid must provide a specific friction versus velocity relationship.

There is a phenomenon commonly called "stick-slip" or "dynamic frictional vibration" and manifests itself as "shudder" or low speed vibration in the vehicle. Using friction modifiers in the ATF prevents this shudder.


https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthr...ion#Post1111352


Quote:
ATF + 4 has a slightly different Mu(v) (static/dynamic COF) curve verses DexronIII/Merc, and a low Brookfield viscosity spec.


https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/729268/3

and

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/729051/Brief_History_of_ATFs#Post729051
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: RamFan
It has been entirely too long since I've been active on this site! It's certainly changed since I first joined. But I digress...

For those of you that don't know, Mazda requires the use of FZ tansmission fluid. Not a lot is known about this fluid (from what I gather) other than it being an ultra-low viscosity fluid and that it's blue. According to the manual, our units are filled for life and don't need service. Seeing as how there is a fill hole, drain plug and a dipstick, I certainly plan on changing it out. For nothing more than purely simplistic reasons, I've decided to change the fluid in the trans, transfer case and rear diff at 60k miles. While mine is a little over half way there, my mom's '14 CX-5 is about 10k miles shy.

I decided to explore and see if anyone had started producing FZ fluid yet. Nope, no one really has. I did find one product that's in Europe but the site was crudely translated and I was unable to find purchasing/shipping information. From what I can find, purchasing the Mazda OE fluid is the only option. For giggles I decided to check out Maxlife as that's what I run in the Monte with great results. I'm not really a fan of "one size fits all" when it comes to automotive products, but the specs of Dex-VI and Maxlife are nearly identical which is why I decided to try it out. I've done two fluid changes in the Monte with it and it's been working beautifully. Much to my surprise, Valvoline is recommending Maxlife in FZ applications. I was also surprised to see that since the last time I viewed their PDS, it seems as though they've added quite a few specs that are now recommended.

I remember Valvoline's rebuttal when PQIA questioned them on their label claims, it was fairly straightforward and seemingly genuine. However, I find it a little hard to believe that this product can genuinely be recommended for all of these applications, is it truly that good, or is Valvoline playing a game of chance on possible payouts from failed transmissions? They still don't recommend the product for ATF +4 applications, so clearly there are some boundaries that they're not willing to push. The question still remains though.

For those curious, the newest PDS can be found here.


Not an endorsement but Ravenol seems to be producing a fluid as a replacement for Mazda FZ. Not sure if you can get any cheaper than the Mazda Fluid.
Ravenol FZ or Ravenol FZ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top