![]() ![]() RAVENOL ATF DEXRON VI is recommended for all GM vehicles with hydramatic – automatic transmissions from 2006. Dexron®-VI is a registered brand name of General Motors Corporation. RAVENOL ATF DEXRON VI fulfils the transmission oil specifications of General Motors for all vehicles with hydramatic – automatic transmissions from 2006. Because of the special formulation the durability is twice the time as a comparable ATF oil. RAVENOL ATF DEXRON VI is an automatic transmission oil ATF on the basis of the latest technology of the HC/HT hydrocrack oils which is approved by General Motors for the use in vehicles with automatic transmissions. Dynamic Exchange Device Complaint Report.Hydraulic oil for agricultural vehicles and constr.Gear oil for manual transmissions and drive axis.Engine oil for agricultural vehicles and construct.They clearly state that they are well aware Amsoil ATF is over the Dex VI viscosity limit at 100☌, but this is by design and as we have demonstrated here, it's not relevant in usage. It's just something they don't like to do, but are contemplating a format digestable by the average joe. I have a running dialog with Amsoil on releasing their test data. It really bothers me that you scoff so lightly at a company that has been making synthetic fluids since 1972, and in 1980 released the first commercial synthetic ATF. However, since they are approved for Dex III (yes and Dex VI) I can say that Amsoil ATF not only has the testing behind it has thousands of vehicle miles to back it as well. I actually would agree with you if either vehicle's AT was originally designed for Dex VI. I don't think it should be a case of proving that the approved fluid is better than the non-approved fluid, it should be the opposite way round. They seem to strive for better if not best.Īt least the GM approved fluid/s have GM support for the application. An historical perspective on Amsoil products makes me think that they may be correct. ![]() I also accept that Amsoil thinks that their product is even better. Personally, I accept that GM thinks that Dexron VI is "good enough." They also thought that Dexron II, and III were "good enough" until recently. We also cannot "know" that the average DexVI approved fluid is as good as Amsoil ATF. We cannot "know" that Amsoil is better than the average DexVI (for Dexron applications). Do you trust GM's "minimum" more than Amsoil's "better"? On the other hand, the minimum standard clearly shows that approved fluids are "good enough" from GM's point of view. I am not suggesting that anyone said that - I am suggesting "minimum" is not even similar to "best". I think that a suggestion that a minimum standard is as good as a fluid can be is a foolish point of view. This is clearly an argument between "minimum standards" and "brand reputation" It cannot be settled here without data. Several DEXRON-VI producers do have data in their information packages, for instance if you get hold of a ConocoPhillips info pack (either Tri-brand or Kendall) they are quite impressive. I don't think you will find a comparison because although Amsoil's advertising implies that their fluid can be used where DEXRON-VI is required there is apparantly no approval and no data to support the claim. The paper numbers are SAE 41 (oxidation) and SAE 42 (specification and results). GM presented some of those results and since then they produced two papers containing pretty much all the information regarding the specification, quite a few test results and an extensive oxidation test evaluation. The reason I'm saying DEXRON-VI is that in order to gain the approval those fluids have had to pass over 100 assorted bench and dyno tests. Make sure it's a real one of course with a license number on the packaging. Well if I were you I would go for the DEXRON-VI. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |