AMSOIL..... LOve the shift

[roperteacher]

My G-56 shifted good before, but with the AMSOIL ATF+4. . EVEN SMOOTHER... Put the Severe Gear in the Rear diff so we will see, but all is well so far. Very happy! And thanks to TDR member Duluth Diesel for getting me a very good price on the fluid! Ps Trans noise has already been reduced by about 50% after 30 miles of driving.

 

[CContreras]

What was your reason for changing your fluid and how many qts. did it take?

 

[roperteacher]

My main Reason for changing was to see if I could quiet down this "Little" noise I had in Neutral with the clutch out. Dealer said it was normal and I trust these guys. After doing quite a bit of research on here the AMSOIL is a class 5 synthetic and the Mopar is a class III. I don't know really what it means personally but I know that it is a higher quality fluid. I tow pretty heavy on the weekends and with the new 6. 7 I am not sure I can trade off my trucks every 2 years anymore. I have always been a stickler on Maintanence but I want the best of the best from the very beginning.



The book calls for 6 qts in the G-56. After reading on here some said they could fill to 5 qts before it runs out the fill hole and they had to jack up the passenger side to get 6 in. THat was NOT my experience. I put in the full 6 quarts and it didn't even run out the hole yet. On level ground. So I kept putting it in slowly until it ran out. It started to run at the 6 and a half quart mark so I plugged it up!



This was actually the 2nd change on the fluid. I changed it at 200 miles because my truck sat on the lot for a LONG time before I bought it, now again at 5600 miles. . Oo.

 

[DerekW]

wow I just might have to try it in my rearends, transfer case, and transmission. I like my low ash shell rotella in the engine until I find something better.

 

[DerekW]

Oh and I forgot to mention i like the waterproof marine grease for boat trailers and such in my ball joints, tie rod ends, drag link and such on my highly modded jeep and where I can on my 2004. 5 ram. I do alot of driving in the sand and mud composed mainly of sand. The sand is just plain hard on stuff. I have never had to replace the balljoints as long as I owned the truck (30K) the previous owner did change the ball joints.

 

[roperteacher]

Well, Don't put the ATF 4 in your rear diff. I put the AMSOIL 75/90 Severe gear in the diff. I tow a lot yes, but not in what I would consider to be off road or severe conditions...

 

[Regcabguy]

Atf+4?

:-{} Isn't ATF+4 a fully synthetic product licensed out by D/C? What could be the difference between Mopar,Valvoline,Amsoil or any other brand besides price?

 

[DPKetchum]

The lower class(group 3 stuff)are semi synthetic. Actually until a lawsuit a few years ago the word synthetic on that group of lubes/oils was not allowed I believe. Mobil and Castrol had a fight about such and Mobil lost. Anyway group 5 synthetics are a REAL synthetic. Not sure where group 4 falls in. I read all that stuff on www.bobistheoilguy.com and don't remember fully. I found that the PRICE usualy reflects if its a TRUE synthetic or a semi. I was told ATF+4 was a SEMI syn. Just because it has the word Synthetic in it does not mean its a TRUE synthetic. Like Castrol Syntec motor oil. Its NOT a true synthetic. Thats kinda what started the Mobil x Castrol war.

 

[amsoilman]

:-{} Isn't ATF+4 a fully synthetic product licensed out by D/C? What could be the difference between Mopar,Valvoline,Amsoil or any other brand besides price?

There is HUGE differences between synthetics, as some are using a (XHVI) Xtra High Viscosity base oil, which is a Group III. Also as someone mentioned earlier, there was a law suite between Mobil1 and Castrol on their "SYNTHETIC" oils, and Mobil1 lost. Simply because the SAE and the API had never diferentiated between a "Synthetic" and a Petrolium oil.



In essence, the term “synthetic” was determined to not be a scientific term, but was judged to be a marketing term. The definition of synthetic lubricants was broadened to the use of the term “synthetic” in referring to motor oil that had the ability to provide synthetic performance, but without defining synthetic performance. In other words, beauty is now in the eye of the beholder – but without full disclosure!



Here's a little info from an SAE paper written on transmission fluid. Keep in mind this was written a couple of years ago.



The initial development was done using Shell's (XHVI) Xtra High Viscosity Index base oil. Much later other Group III base oils were approved. (Currently, SK in Korea and Petro Canada are the only additional approved base oil suppliers. ) 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+4. 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 the introduction of ATF+4.

In testing done during development of ATF+4, Chrysler noted the following viscosity loss from shearing for the following Automatic Transmission Fluids (20 hour KRL Shear Test):

Dexron III - 40% loss

Mercon V - 19% loss

Type 7176D - 32% loss

Type 7176E - 14% loss

Type 9602 - 10% loss



You can see what a significant impact the new viscosity improver had on ATF+3 when you compare the 7176D and 7176E numbers. From the standpoint of viscosity loss alone you can see why Dexron III should not be used in transmissions that require ATF+3 or ATF+4. In terms of other basic performance parameters, ATF+3 (7176E) comes the closest to ATF+4, with Ford’s Mercon V a close second. [Which doesn’t mean that Mercon is acceptable.



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.



Contrary to popular myth, one of the stated goals of Type 9602/ATF+4 fluids was that it would have the same frictional characteristics as ATF+3. The paper explicitly states that this was because new clutch materials would not be introduced for this fluid and it had to be backwards compatible with ATF+3. Graphs in the paper show that the friction coefficient of fresh ATF+3 and ATF+4 is essentially identical, but as the fluid ages ATF+4 retains the “as new” coefficient while ATF+3 degrades.



The paper noted that one alternative was to use synthetic Group IV base stock, which are even more expensive than the ATF+4 solution, which provided Group IV style performance from Group III stock.



ATF+4 meets strict low-temperature, oxidation, and volatility performance requirements.



Amsoil’s ATF+4 uses the Group IV base fluid.









Wayne