What transmission Fluid is approved or safe for an Aisin

[ofelas]

I've drained & filled 3 Aisins with Amsoil Signature Series ATF; over 240,000 collective miles in the past couple years, no issues.

 

[Cummins12V98]

Here is some info from AMZ/OIL site.

 

[ofelas]

While the spec sheets & testing are certainly useful, I believe this incessant marketing is partly what turns some people off Amsoil before they even have the inclination to try the products.

I think it's more useful for others to try the products & see whether they like them, based on analyses & "user feel".

After all, we're not on a conversion drive targeted at the VPB/Delo/Schaeffer's faithful ;-)

 

[gsbrockman]

I've drained & filled 3 Aisins with Amsoil Signature Series ATF; over 240,000 collective miles in the past couple years, no issues.

IMO......the above means nothing. I’d almost bet ONE AS69RC could go 120,000 miles or more without the first fluid and filter change.

My 2014 3500 went 362k miles on ASRC and 3309 with regular [read : partial] @Cummins12V98 fluid and filter changes by the book.

 

[JR]

Here is some info from AMZ/OIL site.

View attachment 115150
View attachment 115149

Point proven. Self appointed testing with no certifications to back it up.

 

[ofelas]

You’re playing lowest common denominator with an emotional hypothesis.
Why “almost” bet?
I’ll take a solid bet. 250k on the ATF of choice, backed up with Terry Dyson’s neutral and industry standard analysis.
Care to play?

QUOTE="gsbrockman, post: 2603562, member: 369"]IMO......the above means nothing. I’d almost bet ONE AS69RC could go 120,000 miles or more without the first fluid and filter change.

My 2014 3500 went 362k miles on ASRC and 3309 with regular [read : partial] @Cummins12V98 fluid and filter changes by the book.[/QUOTE]

 

[gsbrockman]

You’re playing lowest common denominator with an emotional hypothesis.
Why “almost” bet?
I’ll take a solid bet. 250k on the ATF of choice, backed up with Terry Dyson’s neutral and industry standard analysis.
Care to play?

I’m now to skeeeeeeeert to play.

Since I’m an emotional WRECK..... I’ll just head off to my Cry Closet.

 

[Timd32]

AMZ/OIL ATF is listed Mopar ASRC on their cut sheet.

 

[JR]

Tim, email them back and ask them exactly which OEM recommends them.

Amsoil don't count.

 

[jhenderson]

No independent verification says it all. There’s no way it meets every spec they list in one fluid. If it was possible all the major players would offer a universal fluid.

 

[jhenderson]

Why would FCA care? Why would you be afraid to show them your maintenance records?

From the owners manual. "Only use Mopar ASRC Automatic Transmission Fluid or equivalent. Failure to use the proper fluid may affect the function or performance of your transmission."

Amsoil ATF meets that statement, no different than Mobil 3309.

Amsoil Makes the statement. Show me the proof of meeting spec. When FCA is looking at a $6K + reman trans they might not like “ because we say so”, which is about all amsoil ever offers. Then what? Mobil meets the spec because it’s the only JWS3309 single spec fluid ( an honest to God manufacturing spec) out there other than manufacturer branded options. Most likely because they make it for for the manufacturers, to that single spec.
Kinda like John Deere HyGuard. A lot of oils claim to meet that spec as well as many other manufacturers specs all in the same jug. Ask a JD mechanic how many transmissions he’s repaired that had someone else’s fluid in them vs the ones who only run JD hydraulic fluid.

 

[lpennock]

If you read the data sheet on Mobile 3309 it states it meets the following:
JWS 3309
GM 9986195
Ford WSS-M2C924-A
VW TL 52540-A
Audi G-055-025-A2
Saturn GM9986195
Toyota Type T-IV or T4, T-III or T3
VW G-055-025-A2

As long a fluid meets the spec it calls out it can also meet other specs without being contradictory.
Amsoil advertising of JWS3309 and ASRC are sufficient to defend a warranty claim. Showing you used a fluid that claimed to meet the spec is sufficient due diligence on a consumers part. The consumer is not required to verify the manufacture didn't false advertise.

BTW: Penzoil also says their PlatinumTM LV Multi-Vehicle ATF meets the ASRC spec. Does that mean they are false advertising also? It also meets most of the same specs AMSOIL does.

Update: Schaeffer's #205A, Havoline Multi-Vehicle ATF and Peak Multi-vehicle ATF all claim JWS3309 compatibility.

 

[Cummins12V98]

Humorous to see how worked up some get over AMZ/OIL. FACT IS the Synthetic world would look much different if it weren’t for AMZ/OIL. Don’t like it don’t buy it.

Why spend big $$$ on API when you can do independent testing that will backup your claims.

 

[JR]

FACT IS the Synthetic world would look much different if it weren’t for AMZ/OIL. Don’t like it don’t buy it.

Two things.
This Might actually be meaningful if the fluids in question were synthetic. The vast majority of OE specd fluids are conventional.
Second, I wouldn't be so quick to give credit where it isn't due. Companies like Mobil and Shell have done more to advance the oil industry as a whole than a boutique company like Amsoil ever has or will.
That's not meant to be condenscending, biased or emotional. It's just fact.

 

[AH64ID]

The vast majority of OE specd fluids are conventional.
.

Not sure this is true anymore, or has been for a while.

These CTD's come with synthetic engine oil, gear lube, and the vast majority of them come with synthetic ATF since most have the 68RFE. I haven't researched the BW xcase fluid to know if its synthetic or not.

 

[jhenderson]

If you read the data sheet on Mobile 3309 it states it meets the following:
JWS 3309
GM 9986195
Ford WSS-M2C924-A
VW TL 52540-A
Audi G-055-025-A2
Saturn GM9986195
Toyota Type T-IV or T4, T-III or T3
VW G-055-025-A2

As long a fluid meets the spec it calls out it can also meet other specs without being contradictory.
Amsoil advertising of JWS3309 and ASRC are sufficient to defend a warranty claim. Showing you used a fluid that claimed to meet the spec is sufficient due diligence on a consumers part. The consumer is not required to verify the manufacture didn't false advertise.

You got your law degree from where? FCA can deny any warranty claim they choose . Are your pockets deep enough to go through years of wrangling. I’ll just choose not to give them any reason to question.

 

[lpennock]

You got your law degree from where? FCA can deny any warranty claim they choose . Are your pockets deep enough to go through years of wrangling. I’ll just choose not to give them any reason to question.

It is in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Section 1 02( c) of the Act provides that: No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission [upon an affirmative showing by the party requesting the waiver.] 15 U .S.C. § 2302(c).

Was clarified by congress
"no automobile manufacturer may condition his warranty of an automobile on the use of a named motor oil or on the use of its own automobile parts unless he shows that any other motor oil or automobile parts which are available will not function properly and will not give equivalent performance[.]" H.R. Rep. No 93-1107 at 36-37 (1974).

In addition under the act if they require the use of their branded oil they are required to provide it free of charge. Since the owners manual specifies ATF meeting JWS 3309 are acceptable they cannot deny the claim.

Your choice on paying a premium of Mopar brand Oil. Nothing wrong with doing that. I just isn't required under the law.

 

[JR]

Not sure this is true anymore, or has been for a while.

These CTD's come with synthetic engine oil, gear lube, and the vast majority of them come with synthetic ATF since most have the 68RFE. I haven't researched the BW xcase fluid to know if its synthetic or not.

They come with 5w40 because the destination is unknown. It is not required unless temperature dictates. Nor is It is a requirement in any industrial engine I am aware of. Even most fleet spec10w30 CK4 - which is what most of the world uses - is a blend at best. As is ATF+4 - it is achieved using mineral base stocks. Not a true synthetic oil.

 

[NIsaacs]

[QUOTE="jhenderson,
Kinda like John Deere HyGuard. A lot of oils claim to meet that spec as well as many other manufacturers specs all in the same jug. Ask a JD mechanic how many transmissions he’s repaired that had someone else’s fluid in them vs the ones who only run JD hydraulic fluid.[/QUOTE]

I am pretty sure John Deere's jug says the same thing as everyone else's jug. I use this in my John Deere's, Case/IH and customers tractors and don't look back.

 

[jhenderson]

It is in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Section 1 02( c) of the Act provides that: No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission [upon an affirmative showing by the party requesting the waiver.] 15 U .S.C. § 2302(c).

Was clarified by congress
"no automobile manufacturer may condition his warranty of an automobile on the use of a named motor oil or on the use of its own automobile parts unless he shows that any other motor oil or automobile parts which are available will not function properly and will not give equivalent performance[.]" H.R. Rep. No 93-1107 at 36-37 (1974).

In addition under the act if they require the use of their branded oil they are required to provide it free of charge. Since the owners manual specifies ATF meeting JWS 3309 are acceptable they cannot deny the claim.

Your choice on paying a premium of Mopar brand Oil. Nothing wrong with doing that. I just isn't required under the law.

You haven’t answered either question. No actual 3 rd party ( API) test on meeting the spec as all major companies use. Nor have you told us how you’re going to pay the legal cost of the fight. Everybody likes to quote M.M. but nobody who does has actually taken on a manufacturer in court over it because the fight costs more than the vehicle.