OEM vs After Market - wires & trans fluid

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by jaygreg, Nov 6, 2009.

  1. jaygreg

    jaygreg Guest

    The reference to the technical paper “cavedweller” provided was
    beneficial. It didn’t answer the question specifically but it allowed
    me to formulate a far better defense for my seemingly illogical
    decision to pay more for the same “type” of transmission fluid. There
    are still a lot of holes in my argument but here’s the gist:

    Standards were set for (just who and how SAE and ASTM standards are
    set?) the industry concerning transmission fluids. I presume they have
    to deal with viscosity at established levels over time and temperature
    (I don’t know who does that either; who determines specs for
    “Type”? ).

    It appears these “standards” are rather broad-based in nature.
    However, due to the complexities of transmissions and the multitude of
    designs, the level of performance engineered into any specific
    transmission may not be fully addressed by these given fluid types as
    exemplified by the technical paper mentioned here. These are more
    refined levels of performance speced for any given transmission that
    go beyond the guidelines of published “types”. For example, my
    Chrysler transmission may be designed to perform at temperatures
    specified by Type F fluids but is really built to perform beyond the
    time frame and temperature set forth by Type F and they’ve developed a
    fluid to meet those more stringent specs with the aid of several third
    parties.

    If that’s true, then using anything less may (not necessarily will)
    not perform as well and may even shorten component life. Which leads
    the ultimate consumer faced with that ever recurring question…. just
    how luck do you feel today!

    I’m stickin’ with Mopar! Thanks for all the input.
     
    jaygreg, Nov 9, 2009
    #21
  2. jaygreg

    cavedweller Guest

    You digested it ALL in 45 minutes??

    ;)
     
    cavedweller, Nov 9, 2009
    #22
  3. jaygreg

    jaygreg Guest

    Nope. Just all I needed to read (pages 6-7). That convinced me. Aston
    Crusher actually gave the explanation before I wrote my conclusion. He
    pretty much hit it on the head after I reread it just a minute ago.

    Anyway.... I'm convinced.
     
    jaygreg, Nov 9, 2009
    #23
  4. jaygreg

    cavedweller Guest

    Actually, my comment was for Ashton.
     
    cavedweller, Nov 9, 2009
    #24
  5. jaygreg

    Bill Putney Guest

    That's nothing - Congressmen claim they can read 2000 pages in 12 hours. :)
     
    Bill Putney, Nov 9, 2009
    #25
  6. jaygreg

    Joe Pfeiffer Guest

    Heck, they claim they can read.
     
    Joe Pfeiffer, Nov 10, 2009
    #26
  7. Pretty much. How long should it take to read a couple dozen pages?
    Most of the important stuff was shown in the graphs, particularly the
    test result comparisons of the different fluids as they "aged".
     
    Ashton Crusher, Nov 10, 2009
    #27

  8. bada BING!
     
    Ashton Crusher, Nov 10, 2009
    #28
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.