Here, I'll help you with it. Thank God for Amsoil, as it has blessed MANY souls with transmission longevity.

That's a little more, on topic.

 

Sorry about that. I would've replied to your post more directly, but that post was alot of words that didn't have much to say. It was more like "word vomit".

But I suppose you wanted me to fan your flame, so here goes...

Any transmission fluid will "work" if you poured it in.

Seems legit...

I have no idea what your sentence is trying to convey. But yes, I can read. I'll assume that you're trying to say that I am twisting words from the manufacturer. If you go back and read, you'll see that I'm quoting directly from their literature and a rep from the company.

Pretty sure I said something to that effect. Is that an echo?

They can’t be? People see what they want to. Nobody wants to say " I paid $12/quart and all I got was this lousy bottle." But you're saying I should take "all the users" word for it? Do they know better than the engineers that designed and tested the vehicle?

I'm happy for you? But I thought we were talking about transmission fluid...

That's a bit presumptuous. I don't think I pushed anything in this thread. Truth is that I use Valvoline or Castrol mostly. Just depends on what I can get my hands on.

Ok? Does somebody here work for a "certain manufacturer"? Based on the commentary in this thread, I seriously doubt there is anybody that works for an oil company here. And even if somebody did chime in and say "I work for Brand X", I'd be skeptical.

Pretty sure that the facts lie with the manufacturers and the oil companies. The more oil-related threads you read, the more obvious this becomes.

The facts are just that - facts. They don't change. Also, what Wiki pages are you talking about? I don't recall anybody citing them.

You sound very frustrated. You seem to be taking this personally. Do you need a hug?

Like I said, what you choose to put in your own vehicle is of no consequence to me. But if you'd like to continue your rant, it would be helpful if it had something relevant to bring to the table.

 

How much time did that take yuh ?

And, was there a point ?

It must of got by me.

_____________________

Well, Amsoil is good stuff regardless. This has been realized for quite awhile. For anyone else, just search it out thru Ford sites and/or various automotive sites. Don't get sucked into one these haters repetitive posts, such as the one above. They're like a disease and resort to what you see. Go with the majority and data from the un bias pro's whom don't require as much attention. You'll be much further ahead.

 

Show me the data. It's just that simple. Your post did not contribute any information, constructive or otherwise.

I would be very interested to see this data. And before you jump back here with more word vomit, please note that citing forums, and anything less than expert/professional level information is not acceptable.

Just so you're clear, the only data that will prove Amsoil universal ATF as acceptable in specific applications is to provide the specs for Mercon V (and other fluids), and the same parameters for the Amsoil substitute.

I'm giving you a change to contribute. If your next post is just more word vomit, I'll assume you have no facts to add to this thread.

Good luck.

 

AMSOIL Synthetic Multi-Vehicle Automatic Transmission Fluid (ATF)

Kinematic Viscosity @ 100°C, cSt (ASTM D-445) 7.5
Kinematic Viscosity @ 40°C, cSt (ASTM D-445) 38.8
Viscosity Index (ASTM D-2270) 163
Flash Point °C (°F) (ASTM D-92) 228 (442)
Pour Point °C (°F) (ASTM D-97) -53 (-63)
FZG Load Stage Pass (ASTM D-5182) 12
Four Ball Wear Test, Scar in mm; 40 kg, 75°C, 1200 rpm, 1 hr (ASTM D-4172B) 0.40
Brookfield Viscosity @ -40°C, cP (ASTM D-2983) 9500

I'll let you try to find Mercon V specs.

 

I was hoping for longer waste of your time. Maybe I can get some more out of yuh.

Nope, I'm not doing your work. Get the hell out of hear with that idea. I've learned over the years, you obviously haven't. I've looked up found, read the data in the past. If you think I'm going to spend that time AGAIN on you, your fricken nuts pal.

Keep trying to passing your BS, you got caught here. Anyone that really wants to know can do as I have done in the past. Search out other opinions and stats. They're are out there. You know, the sites and posts you MUST choose to ignore .... Yea, you know exactly what I'm referring to don't yuh. But go ahead, play you little games with it some more. You seem to like doing that.

Trying to back me in a corner won't work, but your welcome to keep trying if that gives you that temporary tickle.

 

So... no data? Got it.

 

Ha, it's working. At least you stopped spewing that vomit you referred to. For now anyway.

Spend a little time, do your own work. You'll learn unless your THAT afraid of it.

 

The parameters in which Mercon V is tested are very different, and not listed on the Amsoil site. But I appreciate the effort.

The burden isn't on me to prove your claim.

 

EsJayEs and Takeda need to go to the same room and stay there !! DON"t EVER put down a product that has been beneficial to so many of us !!!!

 

Thanks for your technical insight.

 

Exactly! I posted a viscosity / viscosity index comparison, and there isn't a Scamsoil ATF that meets these specs with Mercon V. And this doesn't get into important stuff like friction modifiers.

 

Mobil 1 specs, which DOES MEET MERCON V SPECS:

Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF
Viscosity, cSt (ASTM D445)
@ 40 ēC 36.3
@ 100 ēC 7.4
Viscosity Index 176

Motorcraft Mercon V as per YOUR POST:

33.2
7.5
205

Amsoil ATF:

38.8
7.5
163

Looks to me like Mobil 1 is no closer to MC than Amsoil. You gonna call Mobil 1 a scam too? The only difference is Exxon/Mobil has paid for official certification. The fluids are virtually identical.

 

There is MUCH MORE to the Mercon V spec than just viscosity. By your logic, engine oil would work.

 

In an emergency, yes, 5W engine oil WOULD work.