wow
good write very informative. im glad i changed mine over to amsoil.
| LOST JEEPS http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/ |
|
| ATF+4 is not synthetic http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48055 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | dieselenthusiast [ Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | ATF+4 is not synthetic |
Supposedly this came from ALL PAR: “The use of Group III base oils is probably the leading cause for ATF+4 being a more expensive fluid than ATF+3 (which according to the paper uses a Group II base oil). Lubrizol developed a new shear-stable viscosity index (VI) improver specifically for ATF+. The initial tests of this VI improver in the MS9602 test fluids were so remarkable that Chrysler modified the then-current ATF+2 spec (MS7176D) to include it. Thus ATF+3 (MS7176E) fluid was born; it remained the factory fill until ATF+4. The goal in developing ATF+4 was to create a fluid that would match the performance characteristics of the current fluid (Type 7176D), but would retain those characteristics for at least 100,000 miles. The paper specifically notes that the anti-shudder properties of ATF+3 are usually degraded enough by 30,000 miles to cause noticeable shudder. The paper noted that one alternative was to use synthetic Group IV base stock, which are even more expensive than the ATF+4 solution. How oil is grouped: Group I base oils can have a mix of different hydrocarbon chains, with relatively little uniformity; these oils are the least refined. They are usually not used for autos. Group II are the most common base oils in “dino juice,” with good performance in most areas except cold temperature viscosity. Group III are called synthetic, and have high molecular uniformity and stability. Group III oil bases are used in most synthetic oils. Group IV are chemically engineered stocks, arguably with the highest performance and longevity.” |
|
| Author: | ls6jay [ Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
wow good write very informative. im glad i changed mine over to amsoil.
|
|
| Author: | tjkj2002 [ Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ls6jay wrote: wow To bad Amsoil is not recommended for your trans.
good write very informative. im glad i changed mine over to amsoil.Group III oils are considered synthetics,group IV is the "true" synthetic. Other Group III oils....... Mobil 1(not the extended performance,that is group IV) Pennzoil Platinum Castrol synthetics(besides 0w-30) Valvoline synpower Quaker Stater synthetics GM DEX IV ATF Redline ATF Lucus synthetic ATF Mobil 1 ATF Royal Purple(all) |
|
| Author: | dieselenthusiast [ Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
tjkj2002 wrote: To bad Amsoil is not recommended for your trans.
Troy, you deserve an arse whippin’........ 
APPLICATIONS AMSOIL AMSOIL Synthetic Universal ATF is recommended for transmissions, hydraulics, power steering and other applications requiring any of the following specifications: • GM DEXRON® III-H • Ford MERCON® & MERCON V • Chrysler ATF+4® • Toyota Type T-III and T-IV • Honda Z-1 (Not CVT) • Diamond SP II & III (Mitsubishi/Hyundai/Kia) • Mazda ATF-III, ATF-MV • Subaru ATF • Nissan Matic D, J & K • Idemitsu K-17 • BMW LA2634 • LT 71141 • Audi G-052-025-A2 & G-052-162-A1 • Volvo 97340 • MB 236.1, 236.2, 236.5, 236.6, 236.7, 236.9 & 236.10 • JWS 3309 • NAG 1 • ETL-7045E, ETL-8072B & N402 • Voith 55.6335.XX (G607, G1363) • ZF TE-ML 03D, 04D, 09, 14A, 14B, 14C, 16L, 17C • Allison C-4, TES 389 *Not for use with CVT or Ford Type F applications. SERVICE LIFE Recommended for 50,000 miles in severe service* and 100,000 miles in normal service;* or per vehicle manufacturer-recommended intervals, whichever is longer. |
|
| Author: | dieselenthusiast [ Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
As for light duty trucks, I do know that most “reputable” transmission shops say that you should change your ATF+4 transmission fluid at least every 25,000 miles for heavy duty use and 30,000 miles for light duty use. 
SERVICE LIFE Recommended for 50,000 miles in severe service* and 100,000 miles in normal service;* or per vehicle manufacturer-recommended intervals, whichever is longer. |
|
| Author: | tjkj2002 [ Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
dieselenthusiast wrote: tjkj2002 wrote: To bad Amsoil is not recommended for your trans. Troy, you deserve an arse whippin’........ APPLICATIONS AMSOIL AMSOIL Synthetic Universal ATF is recommended for transmissions, hydraulics, power steering and other applications requiring any of the following specifications: • GM DEXRON® III-H • Ford MERCON® & MERCON V • Chrysler ATF+4® • Toyota Type T-III and T-IV • Honda Z-1 (Not CVT) • Diamond SP II & III (Mitsubishi/Hyundai/Kia) • Mazda ATF-III, ATF-MV • Subaru ATF • Nissan Matic D, J & K • Idemitsu K-17 • BMW LA2634 • LT 71141 • Audi G-052-025-A2 & G-052-162-A1 • Volvo 97340 • MB 236.1, 236.2, 236.5, 236.6, 236.7, 236.9 & 236.10 • JWS 3309 • NAG 1 • ETL-7045E, ETL-8072B & N402 • Voith 55.6335.XX (G607, G1363) • ZF TE-ML 03D, 04D, 09, 14A, 14B, 14C, 16L, 17C • Allison C-4, TES 389 *Not for use with CVT or Ford Type F applications. SERVICE LIFE Recommended for 50,000 miles in severe service* and 100,000 miles in normal service;* or per vehicle manufacturer-recommended intervals, whichever is longer. 
http://centerforqa.com/licensedatf4brands.html If you have a warranty use from the above list(in link). |
|
| Author: | dieselenthusiast [ Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
tjkj2002 wrote: Yeah http://centerforqa.com/licensedatf4brands.html If you have a warranty use from the above list(in link). Silly people who don't like to include the best...............
|
|
| Author: | tjkj2002 [ Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
dieselenthusiast wrote: tjkj2002 wrote: Yeah http://centerforqa.com/licensedatf4brands.html If you have a warranty use from the above list(in link). Silly people who don't like to include the best............... |
|
| Author: | Jeepjeepster [ Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Where would one go to see what group a certain oil falls under? |
|
| Author: | hooperswish [ Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Often times group III oils are out performing the IV's as far as minimum wear goes. The only way to tell for sure is to do a used oil analysis. Check out bobistheoilguy forums and you can find out anything there is to know about oil. People post their uoa results in a link. As an example, penzoil platinum seems to show very impressive uoa results even though it is a group III. So, find what works for you. Also, Mobil 1 has group IV in all of its oils according to mobil reps- unless they are being less than truthful.... |
|
| Author: | dieselenthusiast [ Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
hooperswish wrote: Often times group III oils are out performing the IV's as far as minimum wear goes. The only way to tell for sure is to do a used oil analysis. Check out bobistheoilguy forums and you can find out anything there is to know about oil.
People post their uoa results in a link. As an example, penzoil platinum seems to show very impressive uoa results even though it is a group III. So, find what works for you. Also, Mobil 1 has group IV in all of its oils according to mobil reps- unless they are being less than truthful.... 
|
|
| Author: | tjkj2002 [ Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
dieselenthusiast wrote: |
|
| Author: | JJsTJ [ Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: ASTM D4172
Significance and Use This test method can be used to determine the relative wear preventive properties of lubricating fluids in sliding contact under the prescribed test conditions. No attempt has been made to correlate this test with balls in rolling contact. The user of this test method should determine to his own satisfaction whether results of this test procedure correlate with field performance or other bench test machines. 1. Scope 1.1 This test method covers a procedure for making a preliminary evaluation of the anti-wear properties of fluid lubricants in sliding contact by means of the Four-Ball Wear Test Machine. Evaluation of lubricating grease using the same machine is detailed in Test Method D 2266. 1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only. This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. 4 ball test is not for ball bearing lubricant testing. Having a good pour point and not so good volatility doesn't make it as good. Pretty sure those tests were all done on 0w and 5w oils. |
|
| Author: | Boiler [ Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm not advocating one way or the other, but at first I was nervous at first to use Amsoil because of everything that's been stated about them not submitting testing, etc. Their oil comparisons mean nothing to me. Had they been published by a third party that would be a different story. Any links to reputable 3rd party comparison testing? |
|
| Author: | JeepinJarhead03 [ Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ive read on several sources as to why they didn't submit to SAE testing, i'm sure i'll get blasted if i dribble incorrectly, but i believe you have to pay for SAE testing and that it isn't necessarily an "Independent" test by independent, meaning testing done by a lab that has no monetary interest other than the cost of the test in the companies that are involved in the testing also remember reading somewhere (more than likely on this forum the last time this was brought up) that independent labs compared ATF+4 and Amsoil ATF and could tell no molecular difference in the two fluids I don't know, I've ran penzoil in everything ive ever had and had plenty of occasions when doin builds to pull engines apart and the only thing i can absolutely say for my personal experience is don't run quaker state dino , 65k mi in a I-6 4.0 in a wrangler, guy never missed a oil change and I had to use a friggin spoon to scoop the sludge off the head which had taken the shape of the inside of the valve cover 
anyone got links to the reading im talkin about regarding the testing? pretty sure it was on the forum, or linked on the forum, but i can't find it at the moment |
|
| Author: | LIV42DY [ Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Oil Advertising unbeleivable.. My dad sait it retired engineer and I will say it. thre brand of oil proven thru years of use and abuse, Vavoline. Penzoil, and Mobil 1. Why use anything else ? But its your engine and trans use whatever you want. 
|
|
| Author: | JJsTJ [ Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
(API testing is what I think you meant there JeepinJarhead.) API testing of motor oils is only to meet a minimum standard. Funny thing is there are recycled motor oils on the market that pass the minimum standards the same as the rest of the API oils. Does that mean they are as good? Amsoil uses formulations that are not API compliant but they are engineered to meet the needs of an application, not some across the board API standard. Amsoil engineers oil to perform better than the competition in most regards w/out being tied to API's requirements. Amsoil guarantees their oil regardless of API and will warranty any oil related failures, (which are extremely rare for any oil anyway) And then file suit against any MFG or dealer that denied claims, forcing Them to prove that a failure was oil related. This goes for Amsoils API certed and non-certed oils. To date, since 1972, Amsoil has not lost a case related to their warranty. (same goes for all their products, not just engine oil) oil arguments, its all a pissin' match really. use whatever turns your crank. chances of oil related failure are small regardless of brand used. However, if you want peace of mind using one of the best oils, want to take advantage of extended service intervals, great filtration products, etc, etc. then use Amsoil. If not then don't. |
|
| Author: | Inc [ Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
JJsKJ wrote: oil arguments, its all a pissin' match really. use whatever turns your crank. chances of oil related failure are small regardless of brand used. However, if you want peace of mind using one of the best oils, want to take advantage of extended service intervals, great filtration products, etc, etc. then use Amsoil. If not then don't.
|
|
| Author: | dieselenthusiast [ Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Boiler wrote: I'm not advocating one way or the other, but at first I was nervous at first to use Amsoil because of everything that's been stated about them not submitting testing, etc. Their oil comparisons mean nothing to me. Had they been published by a third party that would be a different story.
Any links to reputable 3rd party comparison testing? All the graphs/charts that I posted above are from Independent labs, those are not the test results by Amsoil |
|
| Author: | oddball [ Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Inc wrote: JJsKJ wrote: oil arguments, its all a pissin' match really. use whatever turns your crank. chances of oil related failure are small regardless of brand used. However, if you want peace of mind using one of the best oils, want to take advantage of extended service intervals, great filtration products, etc, etc. then use Amsoil. If not then don't. Agreed. However, there's no pissin' match when it comes to Amsoil filters (especially air), K&N suck compared to Amsoil. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|