ATF+4 - CEG Archives

Well I remember Demon using ATF+3 as a break-in fluid, and the ATF+4 supercedes the 3. So....

-tropictour

Originally posted by unisys12:

Originally posted by tropictour:
Yeah I guess Chrysler finally released the patent. We got two cases in today. I will be using it as a break-in fluid when my trans is done.
-tropictour

I might be wrong here, and I am sure that others will chime in if needed, but isn't using a "full" syn fluid as a break in fluid a bad idea?

I know it is for engines, but are trannys that different?

Big Jim - Great wealth of info, as normal. Thanks!

As long as it is still available ATF+3 might be preferred as a break-in oil only because it is cheaper.

So would being full syn be the disadvantage or the price? Should only a conventional be used for break-in?
-tropictour

Only the price would be a disadvantage. ATF+3 is about half the price and should work as well for break-in.

....break in 'bunk'.A new factory MTX75 comes in the
car with factory fill honey,what BS to apply the same
logic to a break in of the trans as an engine!,FWIW
many new cars come with synth in the engine from the
factory...all this break in ,no synth etc is old wives
bunk!!!!Why would you impregnate things like new
blockers etc with an ATF that is no longer spec for an
MTX....downright dumb!

I guess that I should have added that I don't feel that break in is needed, but if you do, use a quality oil without it being the most costly. Many seem to think that there is a need for break in is needed with a Torsen. I don't know, I have not invesitgated it.

It may be true that Ford Honey is current factory spec for the MTX-75 but I'm not convinced that it is the only appropriate fluid. Sorry, but I don't worship at the alter of Ford Engineering. I'm also convinced that I will stay away from Red Line MTL since it has shown to be questionable.

Lets not go down the road of that "everlasting" thread again about which is best. There are many that should work great. Red Line is very questionable. There have been no complaints about many others, such as Royal Purple, Pennzoil, Torco, and Specialty Formulations.

I know Jim, that is not the direction I intended the thread to go. I'll just contact TH directly and see which he recommends. Thanks.
-tropictour

He recommends Ford Honey. Preferably without added friction modifier. Add 2 oz of Ford Friction Modifier on an as needed basis.

I know this works as that is what I have in my car at the moment (with friction modifier). I'm continuing to look for reasonable alternatives that don't cost $20.00 a quart.

'There have been no complaints about many others,
such as Royal Purple, Pennzoil, Torco, and Specialty
Formulations. .....
.....and no lab tests to compare them with Ford fluid
either.....!!!!!

Here we go again.

How is a lab report comparing it to Ford Honey going to help? The lab report came back showing that Red Line MTL was "more of a gear oil".

During the everlasting thread Royal Purple changed their recommended fluid for the MTX-75 from a GL4 gear oil to synthetic motor oil. Even if that is Royal Purple's recommendation, I can't bring myself to use engine oil in a trans.

I did my own research and found that when the appropriate additives are used, there is no harm (in fact, a benefit) in using GL4 or even an appropriate GL5 fluid in a trans that may not need it. The additives that elevate it into GL4 or GL5 territory don't have to be the ones that lead to break down.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying that Ford Honey (or the Castrol equilevant that is not available in the US) is the only fluid for this trans. I'm also reasonably sure that it may not even be the best. I will grant that it has been an excellent product in my own car, but it is not worth $20.00 a quart.

Don't forget that Ford speced Mercon ATF for this trans for SEVERAL YEARS.

'Gear Oil Bunk'

The constant reference to 'gear oil' with the MTX75 is
a myth.The first consideration of what type of lube a
trans/gears need is dependant firstly on one thing,the
gear 'cut'.That is the type and angle the gear teeth
are cut at.In the 'stoc' unmodded MTX75 there are only
two types of gear cut,helical on all the gears and
straight cut bevel on the diff gears.The selection of
a lube is based on the cut which in turn tells you the
amount of tooth to tooth load/pressure.The gear cut
that has the lowest tooth to tooth load is the helical
cut,as in the MTX75.If you have a Torsen or Quaife
diff the gears in that type of diff are also helical
cut so you have removed the higher tooth pressure
straight cut gears found in a stock diff .From lowest
tooth pressure to highest the cuts go Low> Helical/
Semi-Helical/Straight/Hypoid>Highest.
The MTX75 does not need lubes for high tooth pressure
so why the hang up on 'gear lube'? An automatic trans
has 'gears' and most all are helical cut gears!!!! For
the sake of history almost all manual
transmissions,the gearbox not the rear end,have for
many years used normal straight or multi-grade engine
oils.If you re read the lab info on Ford honey you
will see that its base is a synth,multi-grade diesel
engine oil....this alone tells you the type of lube an
MTX needs.Why 'diesel'?....Because diesel engine oils
have high resistance to oxide formation and high
detergent propities.....both of which an MTX75
needs.Get off the 'gear oil' hype ,an MTX does not
need 'gear oils' and the main reason ATF was deleted
was due to its effect on the shift fork
bushes....making them tight on the shafts.The only
place for true 'gear oils' is in transmission with
high tooth loads which are set buy the cut of the
teeth,as an example check the lube that should be used
in a Quaife 'straight cut' gearset.Bottom
line....forget the 'gear lube' bunk spouted
around.....A close lube would be a synth ,multi-grade
diesel engine oil!!!!

I'm not going to go through this again. It was discussed ad nausium during the "everlasting thread".

Yes, the cut of the gear makes a difference on how much pressure the gear teeth are subjected to. The most severe is hypoid gears, which the MTX75 doesn't have.

But as I said before, using the correct EP (extreme pressure) additives does not harm the lubricant and provides better protection.

Differential gear oil is seldom appropriate for manual transmissions. It is the overall characteristics of the fluid that must be kept in balance.

If a vendor can provide a full synthetic that has the characteristics you described plus they can build in better gear load protection and improved friction modification in a package that is intended for manual transmission use and costs less than Ford Honey, why not use it?

So tell me, what full synthetic heavy duty diesel engine oil is priced at $20.00 a quart? If it is so critical to use Ford Honey, why doesn't Ford allow others to supply it? Also, why was ordinary ATF considered OK for several years?

I started this thread to show that there is another alternative. Still other alternatives include Torco and Specialty Formulations, and I actually feel that either of these would be an improvement over Ford Honey.

This will be my last post on this thread.

All any supplier has to do is submit lube to Ford with
proven test results that show that it meets
spec...WSD-M2C200-C......none have bothered!

I googled the spec and look what Royal Purple recommends ... surprisingly, it's NOT Synchromax ... it's straight 10W40 motor oil???

http://www.royalpurple.com/techa/tranxref.html

We know this. It's actually up to you what to run.

Todd
The website was updated and should read Synchromax or RP 10w40/ Racing 41. We are giving you an option.

Apparently the person doing the update did not understand and removed Synchromax as the recommended fluid.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Looks like the site was never changed though.

From TH
....ENGINE OIL!....is what Amsoil spec for the MTX!!
www.amsoil.com/storefront/afl.aspx
So 2 suppliers spec an engine oil...well no s**t! A synth engine oil is the base for honey, well well....no gear oil
huh!!!!

I have been researching the ATF4 for my dodge truck and from what I found the Amsoil ATF has been used successfully in the dodge automatic transmission meeting their ATF4 spec. I just took a quick look at the specs at the bottom of the page for the 5W-40 Amsoil and the ATF and they have very different Kinematic Viscosities. Does this mean anything you tell me I really don't know? But from what I have read there are a lot of, or special friction modifiers in the ATF4 lubricants.
Both my cars had the original ATF changed in the first 5000 miles to mobil1 trans fluid with no friction modifier it was then changed out around 70000 miles for redline. There was a little easier shifts in the cold with the redline. I will probably change the fluid in one of the cars soon and I will report if I find anything unusual. But I really don't know what fluid to change to.
Something interesting to think about Honda Specs synthetic motor oil for their manual transmission.

...lets try this again!....ATF fluid is NOT the correct spec lube for ANY MTX75.....not any more!!!LOOK at the current Motorcraft/Ford Powertrain lube sheet...ATF is dead, gone, finished.....the hand books are wrong so ignore them!

Originally posted by svtavino:

Something interesting to think about Honda Specs synthetic motor oil for their manual transmission.

So it seems Honda are as crazy as Ford & TH...no 'gear
oil' here either...tut tut!!!

Originally posted by todras:
From TH
....ENGINE OIL!....is what Amsoil spec for the MTX!!
www.amsoil.com/storefront/afl.aspx
So 2 suppliers spec an engine oil...well no s**t! A synth engine oil is the base for honey, well well....no gear oil
huh!!!!

Whats funny is that the Redline Oil representative was the very first to point this out in one of our emails after the first oil analysis; which I posted in the everlasting thread.
I can't imagine now why everyone else acts like this is now "obvious"!

It is very obvious that there is no "one solution" to this problem. Taste has as much to do with it.

well, I am about to leave to go get tranny fluid to change. I will be good with just getting any full synthetic 5w40?

Originally posted by Hunt:
well, I am about to leave to go get tranny fluid to change. I will be good with just getting any full synthetic 5w40?

Did you read anything?

Royal Purple doesn't even advise that weight. They also have a special formulation of a 10 w/40. That's the last thing I'd run. Synchromax is the only thing I'd run besides the Ford Honey.

Well, my personal take on this everlasting headache of a topic is this:

Ford is a company out to make money. I feel that this "spec" is more an accounting decision than an engineering one. By specing a fluid that only they make, they can VERY easily deny warranty claims, thus boosting profits as warranty claims eat into profits and compound losses. Now, as if that's not enough, they have effectivly forced you to buy the "honey" at $20/quart (cost them at most $4-$5) or run the risk of a warranty denial.

Remember, an engineer calls for a stud, an accountant calls for a bolt. Tally up the number of bolts vs. studs in our drivelines and you can see who is winning the engineer vs. accountant battle. Bottom line is this ... the bottom line is what's most important for Ford and specing "honey" is good for the bottom line.

Originally posted by fastcougar:
Well, my personal take on this everlasting headache of a topic is this:

Ford is a company out to make money. I feel that this "spec" is more an accounting decision than an engineering one. By specing a fluid that only they make, they can VERY easily deny warranty claims, thus boosting profits as warranty claims eat into profits and compound losses. Now, as if that's not enough, they have effectivly forced you to buy the "honey" at $20/quart (cost them at most $4-$5) or run the risk of a warranty denial.

Remember, an engineer calls for a stud, an accountant calls for a bolt. Tally up the number of bolts vs. studs in our drivelines and you can see who is winning the engineer vs. accountant battle. Bottom line is this ... the bottom line is what's most important for Ford and specing "honey" is good for the bottom line.

I'm sorry but that's the funniest thing I've ever read on the lube subject. Do you have any idea of what it cost ford to develop the honey? They had ATX fluid spec'd. It's not the greatest but it worked fine. Some where along the line they discovered it was a sub par lubricant for the transmission so they had Castrol in Germany develop a better fluid. I'm sure that cost Ford quite a bit. Remember the honey came as factory fill on later transmissions and a TSB was put out to put it in early trans. with shifting issues. I don't think a few gallons of oil a year in the USA(almost all auto's!) is going to put up the Ford share prices that much!

You just made my point for me ... Ford spent money to respec the fluild to stop the warranty claims, which cost them far more than the respecing process. Do you truely believe that "honey" cost 3 times more to produce than other similarly speced synthetic fluids out there? No, it doesn't ...

And you made my point. LOL! To keep warranty costs down they developed a better fluid. Was probably cheaper in the long run. How are they making all this $ on Honey?

..if Ford has already written the spec of the oil
and charging us for that 'development' why then
doesn't another lube producer 'match' that spec, via
testing etc, which is part of the spec, and produce an
oil that is cheaper? This is not a Ford issue it's the
other lubes that won't take the time to read the
spec, formulate what oil they have, test it & match
'honey'....You could just roll the dice and ignore
Ford's specs, but then Ford have specs for ALL lubes
etc, as do all mfg's..

Originally posted by todras:
..if Ford has already written the spec of the oil
and charging us for that 'development' why then
doesn't another lube producer 'match' that spec, via
testing etc, which is part of the spec, and produce an
oil that is cheaper? This is not a Ford issue it's the
other lubes that won't take the time to read the
spec, formulate what oil they have, test it & match
'honey'....You could just roll the dice and ignore
Ford's specs, but then Ford have specs for ALL lubes
etc, as do all mfg's..

I know I said I would not continue posting on this thread, but sometimes the bait is just too compelling to keep from responding.

And just how is another lube company going to get that information from Ford? From what Terry said, that information is confidential.

If they are serious at becoming a supplier for the
lube they should touch base with the Ford buyer who
covers lube.FWIW this will NOT tell them the chemistry
of the lube only the specs it has to meet Re wear
rates on blockers,number of shifts,test rig set
up,duty cycles of gears,bearings etc...The operational
and conditions that the lube must meet....not what
goes into it.THAT is up to the potential supplier to
formulate to meet or exceed the testing.(FWIW,I have
my own copies of the spec and background info,NOT for
public debate/release)My 'brother ' engineers and I
,on a worldwide basis,are very tight with our
info.Sorry,welcome to the 'darkside'.....have to be a
'member'!!!!

So then does this come down to the old concern about "Licensed by (fill in the automaker)" (such as in Mercon, Dexron, ATF+4), or "recommended for use where (Mercon, Dexron, ATF+4) is specified by (fill in the automaker), by (fill in the name of the lube supplier)?

For example, Chrysler did not until recently release the specs or make available the licenseing of ATF+4. Mobil specifies on their packaging that their Mercon V "is recommended by Mobil for use in Chrysler products where ATF+4 is specified" or words to that effect.

We had a similar thing with engine oil after the huricanes in the gulf coast where many oil refineries were temperarly shut down. Because of the shortage of critical ingredients the oil that some blenders supplied for a few weeks did not meet API or ISLAC specs and their labeling said something like "recommended for use where API SM is specified". Basically they used alternative blends that they did not have time to certify due to the emergency nature of the problem. Suposidly the alternative blends were "equilivant or better".

Even Ford with the Ford Honey somewhat did that on their literature saying that something like it was "appropriate for use where GL4 manual transmission fluid is specified".

When Ford decided to promote 5W20 engine oil, they proactively sought out Wal Mart to retail their 5W20 oil. As was explained on a national broadcast to dealer employees that it was done so that Ford could not be accused of requiring an oil that only they could supply.

Why have they not done something similar with Ford Honey? Did they feel that the likelyhood of a lawsuit or bad publicity was so small for this fluid for manual transmissions for Contour and Focus models only that no one would notice. Did they notice that Chrysler was getting away with the same thing on ATF+4 as well as Volvo, Toyota, and others that have hard to find transmission fluids?

It is outragous that Ford specifies an engine oil is a special labeled bottle for their transmission and commands $20.00 a quart for it.

I would wrlite more, but I have a plane to catch.

Luckily, there are blenders that are willing to provide a product that is "recommended" for our cars. Now we need to ferrett out which ones of the alternatives are the best. We know that Red Line MTL isn't one of them.

Big Jim-

I appreciate your candor and I think you are on the right track.

I have tried: factory fill, Ford Honey, Redline MTL, ATF+3 (on your suggestion) and Royal Purple Synchromax. See my thread just below this one "... observations" for full details, but in summary:

I feel the best fluid, regardless of price, is the Synchromax. Considering price, the ATF+3 was almost as good as the Synchromax till it broke down with use. I am curious how the ATF+4 will compare to the older ARF+3. If the Synchromax is robust and outlasts ATF+3 (as it should) then I'll stick to it. If shift feel drops substantially in a couple years I may go back.

Brian
99 SVT

Originally posted by bxd20:
Big Jim-

I appreciate your candor and I think you are on the right track.

I have tried: factory fill, Ford Honey, Redline MTL, ATF+3 (on your suggestion) and Royal Purple Synchromax. See my thread just below this one "... observations" for full details, but in summary:

I feel the best fluid, regardless of price, is the Synchromax. Considering price, the ATF+3 was almost as good as the Synchromax till it broke down with use. I am curious how the ATF+4 will compare to the older ARF+3. If the Synchromax is robust and outlasts ATF+3 (as it should) then I'll stick to it. If shift feel drops substantially in a couple years I may go back.

Brian
99 SVT

Glad you like the Royal Purple, but you haven't tried Torco RTF yet....then again I haven't tried the synchromax either.

Still, the fully synthetic RTF has been the best all around shifting fluid I put in so far. I really really was impressed with how it performed cold and hot, there was no difference between cold (25-45F) shifts and hot (75-85F) shifts when I had my car.

You'll all have to wait for Ray to come online again and do a long term report on it though. I fully specified I had no idea how good it would be over the long run on both shift feel, protection, and and wear. I have a feeling it will turn out to be real good though.