jhumbo

iTrader: (1)

Can anyone confirm that DW-1 is a full synthetic? I have read otherwise that it is a blend.

Inaccurate

Bump

Anyone (cough) have an update on the DW-1

TampaJim

DW-1 is a Group III Synthetic. It does have a modified additive package versus Z-1. It is backwards compatible in transmissions, not in gearboxes.

Inaccurate

^ But is DW-1 a real synthetic like Amsoil ATF and Redline ATF?

TheChamp531

iTrader: (3)

If DW-1 is grp III, than it is NOT a synthetic. grp III is really a synthetic blend. ]

Redline and Amsoil are grp IV.

DW-1 is ok-- I've checked some other boards with lab test. It doesn't contain a lot of FM, but still not better than Redline/Amsoil D4/SS

mau108

I'm using it in my RDX, it's on it's second drain and fill. Shifts and transmission are perfect. It takes a severe beating in stop and go traffic M-F, bit of long distance driving on Sat and Sun.

TampaJim

Group III is not a synthetic blend ... that would be a mix of Group II or Group II+ with at least some amount of one other base stocks from Groups III, IV and/or V.

Honda/Acura DW-1 is a very high quality synthetic (Group III) lubricant AND it matches the needs of the transmission design. Base stock is roughly 70% of the fluid volume, the rest is an additive package which contains (a) Oxidation Inhibitors; (b) Rust Inhibitors; (c) Copper Corrosion inhibitors; (d) Antiwear Agents; (e) Detergents and Dispersants; (f) Viscosity Index Improvers; (g) Foam Inhibitors and; (h) Low Viscosity Diluents.

Believe it or not, the additive package is MORE important than the base stock. Of course, they do go "hand in hand" in keeping things in proper working condition.

If I remember correctly, AMSOIL does use PAO (Group IV) base stock for many of their products and Redline uses Ester (Group V). The former is very similar to petroleum based synthetics, the latter is considerably different.

What most people don't know ... Group IV and Group V stocks are used as LVD (Low Viscosity Diluents) in almost every lubricating oil on the market. You will find them in DW-1, but they aren't considered to be a part of the base stock but rather an additive.

I would suggest placing less emphasis on base stock and the definition of synthetic and more on the additive package and the testing of the fluid with our transmissions, versus an implied applicability especially if the vehicle is under warranty coverage.

usmarinedelta

iTrader: (1)

^^^ Now if you consider DW1 a high quality synthetic, would you advise against my next 3x3 be done with Amsoil syntetic if dw1 is good?

I hate cars

GrpIII is a highly refined dino that you can legally call a syn due to the lawsuit but let's not fool ourselves.

Base oil has more to do with change interval length than performance except in temperature extremes both ambient and internal namely in the clutchpacks where 400F spikes can happen on a bad shift.

GeaugaDog

You will be much better served with a redline typeF/d4 mixture

TampaJim

I would love to see a written statement from Redline that ... 1) encourages the use of their product in Honda/Acura transmissions, including 2011 and newer; 2) supports and documents the proper mixing of the various ATF fluids for Honda/Acura transmissions, including 2011 and newer and; 3) accepts full financial liability from any and all claims arising from using their recommendations/products.

jhumbo

iTrader: (1)

Of course they won't write that (well certainly not item 3 and probably not 1 either, maybe item 2 they would be okay with) -- They have no reason to risk the liability for a possible slight increase in sales.

... but that doesn't mean it's not better for our cars.

jda123

^ Hell, Honda won't even accept full financial liability when using their products... you use their fluid for years and then you get to pay the repair bill too. It isn't like they give you a free warranty if you use their products, you have to pay for the warranty. You might get some generosity/goodwill from them if you serviced your vehicle there, but let's don't fool ourselves, it was the service money paid and hope of future business that got the generous discount, not the use of products.

Any guarantee would be fools gold. Doing your homework and deciding what is best for you is the real prize. For me, after having almost a three quarters of a million miles in various Honda and Acura vehicles using store brand Dex Merc III, I have never even had a shift slip or the slightest issue once replacing the fluid. The best advice that I ever got was from a tranny shop guy who put a new transmission in my old accord at 62K miles and told me to use Dex/Merc III - at 450K when I got rid of the car, it was on that same transmission.

TampaJim

What liability? It either works, it doesn't OR its questionable. Which is it?

Who says it is better for the vehicle? What percentage of failed transmissions have factory fluid versus alternative fluids?

Do you understand, really understand, what you are putting into the car OR did you just read it on the web?

I know the difference and I put ONLY lubricants which meet/exceed manufacturer specifications into my vehicles. I also understand that "universal" applications don't exist except in the mind of the marketer.

The way that these "multi-purpose" ATFs work is that they are designed to "hit the target" versus "hitting the bullseye". Even at that, they tend to miss due to "exaggerated" claims. I have seen "universal" products that claim to meet DEXRON VI, ATF +4, MERCON L-V and CVT in the same bottle. Let me tell you that is one hell of a magic trick considering that each one of them has an entirely unique set of criteria that demands differing characteristics.

TampaJim

I won't even bother to debate the first part, you have made up your mind.

As for the second part ... older Hondas did use DEXRON III fluid, there is nothing unusual there. Try that on a newer one and it WILL get the best of you.

Grandpa used 50W in the summer and 30W in the winter, they didn't have multi-viscosity oils back then. That doesn't make the old straight weight oils better. Today's technology is different. Believe or don't ... it is your vehicle.

I hate cars

Straight weights are still better under harsh conditions as they usually have a higher HTHS and no VIIs. Today's straight weights such as Redline qualify as a multi weight. Redline's 5w-30 is a straight 30wt with no VIIs but the ester oil has such a high natural viscosity index it qualifies as a multi weight. If they chose to do so they could market it as a straight weight to the racing crowd.

I'm not sure where you have been for the last couple years but everyone uses at least a DexIII and many of us a mix of DexIII and Type F or straight Type F. I've run DexIII since the car had 20,000 miles up until 70,000 where I swapped to straight Type F. It currently has 104,000 and shifts better than stock. It's seen 5 track days as well.

You are way behind the curve here and as usual you're bringing up topics that have long been settled, explained, and tested. Are you still going to tell me DexIII will kill my trans when I have 84,000 miles on it?

The only debate is the optimal amount of FM. I run no FM and I stick by that. Some are starting to mix the DexIII with Type F to get a little FM but still way less than Z1.

I suggest you read the racing atf thread and the switches thread to catch up. Once you search you will see how many transmissions the Type F and DexIII have cured that had the shudder and were about to be rebuilt.

This isn't rocket science. The only real differences are viscosity and friction modifier levels. The other stuff is minor.

You basically have Z1 and some of the Chrysler fluids with a ton of FM. You have DexIII fluids like Amsoil ATF, Redline D4, etc which have a medium amount of FM and you have Type F with no FM. Other than the FM levels you have the DexVI and the Honda DW-1 lightweight fluids (and I'm sure there are more by now)

I absolutely despise ATF threads but there is a lot of mis-info in this one. Your ideas are not new, they have been answered many times. I would like to hear your explanation of how DexIII can hurt a Honda trans and "meets or exceeds manufacturers spec is not a valid answer. If you wanted to go that route, by the same logic Z1 is junk because all of the transmissions involved in the class action lawsuit and the tens of thousands of early failures were using Z1.

So again, sit back, take a day to read all of the info that's out there on this very forum and I doubt you'll question the fluid anymore.... and don't believe most of what you read on bitog.

jda123

Almost 400K on an rebuilt Accord tranny, 225K on an original 2000 Accord, 154K on a 2004 TL and 114K miles on a 2006 TL... none of them with Honda Fluid. When will the Dex III get the best of me? I guess any day now... Wait, I think that the trannys just fell out of both of my Acuras as I was typing this. Even with all of those miles on all of those cars, you could barely discolor a single square of toilet paper with the debris on the magnetic drain plug.

It is hard to argue that Honda has not had it's fair share of transaxle issues. Either the fluid sucks, or they don't know how to design them...or both...or maybe the maintenance steps are not appropriate. In any case, why should anybody care what meets their standards?

Take care of your 2012 for me. When it starts to have tranny issues then trade it in and let me know where you did. I will buy it CPO after they replace the tranny and then I will go to 400K with it using a good tranny fluid and doing some real maintenance on the thing. If the car is red or black, then I am in. I should need a new car by then. You appear to know enough about cars to generally keep them well enough for the rest, but you should pay attention a bit to the people who have a long history with Honda. We can nearly certainly suppose that you don't have a long history or else you would unequivocally know, with your other general automotive knowledge leading the way, that you cannot rely upon anything trans related coming from Honda.

Alright, I guess that is enough hyperbole and cynicism out of me for one night. My apologies.

TampaJim

I don't get my information from web forums, although I do research concepts, ideas, practices, etc. that I occasionally gather from them.

The fluids you are recommending have different frictional and viscometric properties than DW-1. Plain and simple, they are incompatible.

ATF products have changed a LOT in the last five years. The days of DEXRON III/MERCON are long gone. How do you explain the claims of some of these fluids that tout DEXRON VI and MERCON V in the same bottle? These are fluids with differing kinematic viscosities ... the latter requires a MINIMUM of 6.8cSt while the former requires a maximum of 6.8cSt, and that is just for starters - we haven't even addressed additive packages.

I spend my entire day trying to debunk this kind of stuff. I probably shouldn't even bother at night.

jda123

Well done on the Ford stuff. With over 200K on my excursion getting the crap beat out of it every day, the fluid wears very well and I have never even sniffed an issue. I serviced diesels as a side job for a while and up to 500K, those things just performed. Oh, they took Dex III... and I imagine that they might be designed better.

Seriously, you all need to take a field trip and check out what these fluids are actually doing to the Hondas. Perhaps it is a blend of design, recommended maintenance (I do more than what Honda calls for by cleaning solenoid fitter pipes, changing filters, etc.) and the fluid, but it is not working. In a world of 4 nines, even a 20% fail rate is unacceptable and we are talking about issues well beyond that. I am sure that everything that you said is perfect academic science... but the applied science has shown a lot of ruined transaxles.

I might be a dogmatic dinosaur, but I remember when academic science told us that margarine was better for us than butter... but applied science had the final say on that one too.

Applied > academic

EDIT - To give this post some scope, I wrote this before you removed the last line about your occupation.

I hate cars

The problem here is while you think you're debunking you're actually creating myths.

As I said before you have frictional properties and you have viscosity.

Viscosity is not so important as long as the base oil is a decent on the thinner oil which is why the DW-1 is a grpIII highly refined dino vs Z1 which is mostly grpII and thicker. Honda says they're fully interchangeable even though they have different viscosities so there goes that myth. You can't say some aftermarket fluid is not compatible due to it's viscosity then say DW-1 is compatible. Hot viscosities are very close, it's the cold/warm up viscosities that differ.

The maximum viscosity is only given to appease CAFE. The fluid can be 10x thicker when you first start it and considerably thicker all through the warm up process. Drive it hard and it gets thinner. Drive it down the freeway with the TCC locked and it gets considerably thicker. There's a HUGE swing in acceptable viscosities. They're so close that the DexVI (thin fluid) will be thicker then DexIII (thick fluid) with a 15F reduction in temp. Hardly worth worrying about. If viscosity mattered so much, our cars would never survive the warmup process.

You can make a good synthetic that starts out thinner on a cold start but barely thins any more during the warmup process that satisfies both the DexIII and DexVI requirements. The catch is it requires a more expensive synthetic base. 6.8cSt is just a rough number. With transmission temps varying with usage, viscosity will be all over the place. The main purpose of the thinner fluids is to be as thin as possible during the warmup process where there's something to gain. Let's not forget, the reason for this thinner fluid is for better mpg during the warmup process, nothing more.

Frictional properties change with temperature and age. This is another thing that varies with the same fluid. There's a fairly large range that's acceptable but less FM will give less wear period.

Please, do tell why you think one additive package is better/worse than another. I would love to hear this.

Again, if you take the time to read posts around here you will realize the vast majority of the people are using a DexIII, Type F, or a mix of the two. You have some catching up to do.

guitarplayer16

iTrader: (8)

I hate cars

Oh do tell.

jda123

Sorry, it is not mine to tell. It showed up in the email that I got, but was gone from the post.

I hate cars

Tampa, what is your profession?

TampaJim

I am a tribologist and product support specialist for the OEM lubricants programs of both Ford and Honda/Acura.

While there are ALWAYS design issues, tolerances and lifespans with any piece of machinery, AHMC vehicles are well designed and do exceed industry averaged MTBF.

FYI, I am not speaking from a classroom only or laboratory only standpoint. I have worked in the field since 1996 supporting a variety of OEM programs.

BTW, I am on my seventh Honda/Acura personal vehicle. The highest odometer reading to date ... 270,000. I have always used OEM fluids and have had no failures within the powertrain, only a few very minor issues and expected suspension wear.

I have read many of the various threads you have posted. My review has you using a mix of certain products and percentages, yet still having issues. Have I overlooked a more recent post with your transmission behaving in a perfectly normal capacity?

jda123

My Fords and Honda using the non-honda fluid have an infinite MTBF for the transaxle and transmission, so far. The typical Honda/Acura cannot even come close to that. Guess what the uncommon denominator is? Besides, industry average MTBF is a bit misleading and I would bet that AHMC MTBF for transaxle failures in the same class of vehicle would probably be off of the charts bad. I doubt that Lexus/Toyota and Infinity/Nissan have this many trans failures.

I have 50K on some dex III that I need to change (154k total miles). If you have some tricky, fancy equipment, I can send you a vial and you can see what it looks like. If the amount of the debris on the plug and filter is any indication, I imagine that it would test out cleaner than some 50K Acura fluid coming out thin looking like non-carbonated root beer.

Inaccurate

The oem 3G TL shifts like a huge pile of crap

I flushed that crap Z1 out of my car when it had just 14,700 miles on the odometer. I ran Mobil 1 Synthetic Multi Vehicle ATF from 14,700 to 54,500 on the odometer. During that time, the trans shifted so much better than oem.

From 54,500 miles to 70,300 miles currently, I been running Redline Type F ATF. The trans shifts like a double-clutch transmission. Super Awesome shifts. Makes me glad that I have the PCD's so everyone around me in traffic can hear and enjoy the awesome shifts along with me.

Oh before I forget, I need to let you know that my trans hasn't exploded yet from the non-approved ATF.

Does my trans shift like oem due to the non-approved fluid? Hell no. I would be embarrassed to said that it shifted like oem.

Inaccurate

I forgot to include the wife's 2003 RL.

Dumped out the dumpy Z1 with 60,200 on the odometer. Used Mobil 1 Synthetic Multi Vehicle ATF from 60,200 to 135,400 on the odometer.

From 135,400 to 163,000 on the odometer, been using Redline Type F ATF.

So that is 103,000 miles on non-approved ATF. The RL too shifts better than oem. It never exploded yet either.

I hate cars

You've got me confused with someone else. 80% of the 104,000 miles has been on either a DexIII or Type F fluid, never a single issue, don't expect to have any.

If you don't mind, what do you actually do, more specifically, are you more toward the marketing side of things?

I'm still interested as to how you think using a different fluid will destroy the trans, especially with your background.

TampaJim

I may very well have you confused with Inaccurate. You both use, endorse and recommend Redline Type F, etc. At this point, I have read enough on this topic to make my head hurt.

I am in the field now, this is my "retirement" position. I spent 13 years at corporate, 7 years in the air and the last 5 on the ground driving.

My interest is actually more in YOUR credentials and YOUR documentation as to the enhanced vehicle design using the products you endorse and the methods you have outlined.

Here's the deal ... components have basic criteria to meet - safety, useful lifespan, serviceability, performance, efficiency and assembly.

Rooms filled with VERY bright people work on these things daily. They have millions of dollars worth of equipment and budgets that would stagger. Meetings are held with a dozen or more mechanical and chemical engineers that share 200+ years of experience.

I don't know precisely what will happen using your modifications ... I do have some thoughts, most aren't desirable. However, as I stated - prove your system is better than that of our advanced engineers.

You stepped out on this one. The way that SCIENCE works is that YOU have to prove your theories to publish them, especially if you are "debunking" someone else's work.

jwr0ng626

iTrader: (1)

:surrender

thank you guys, I will be getting rid of my z1 during the next change.

jhumbo

iTrader: (1)

I was previously a design engineer for many years at a very large engineering corporation with very intelligent and experienced engineers whom I learned a lot from. The company had millions of dollars worth of equipment and budgets that would stagger. Meetings were held with a dozen or more engineers that share 200+ years of experience.

. . . and yet decisions were often made by the company that engineering completely disagreed with for reasons that are not engineering reasons or reasons that were not in the best interest of our customers. Engineering does not always get what they want. There are always compromises in engineering, it's simply the nature of engineering. Things must be sacrificed to make a product manufacturable, affordable and profitable. Often the compromises that a company makes are not the thing the engineers would have like to have compromised.

Also, engineers do make mistakes. When they discover that their are field failures and investigate them, they are often able to come up with a way to correct the issue. However, giant companies look at the cost to correct the error and evaluate Return On Investment and decide against the fix. It is often hard to quantify the cost of an error making these ROI calculations difficult.

Let's play out this hypothetical scenario. [NOTE that this is purely conjecture as I have not worked for Honda or Acura or any car company for that matter.] It is quite possible that many years ago Acura marketing asked engineering to make shifts feel so smooth you could hardly notice them. Engineers might have worked on this and determined this could be done with lots of FM in the ATF, but that it was a bad idea due to increased clutch wear. They relayed their findings to marketing. Marketing considered the problem of increased transmission wear and decided that it was an acceptable compromise due to the improved smooth driving experience that potential customers would appreciate. Years later, it turns out there are lots of failures. Engineering is of course asked to investigate. Engineering recommends reducing the amount of FM in the ATF. Operations is hesitant to put a new formula into effect because of all the re-testing that would be required. All the millions of dollars spent on vehicle testing were performed with a different fluid. Due to compliance issues, many of these tests might need to be re-tested if the fluid is changed, including many government mandated tests, such as CAFE regulations. The change is put off for many more years and is only put into effect after the number of transmission replacements starts to become so high that it can be quantified that spending millions of dollars on re-testing is worth it.

Trust me, I saw this sort of scenario many times as I worked for a top notch company whose product were consider some of the best in its industry. This is just the way it goes.

I hate cars

You don't talk like an engineer. I've seen nothing remotely technical in your posts. All "evidence" is ancedotal. My guess is you're in marketing or sales. Nothing wrong with that, that's not what I'm getting at.
Let's see, I rebuilt transmissions for 4 years early on. Think about the companies that make a living correcting factory transmission flaws. Being that we had to warranty our stuff for 5 years, we mostly used Transgo shift improver kits. This is not a "shift kit" for harder shifts but it improves on various issues the factory dropped the ball on. Better lube, better shift timing, sometimes higher line pressure or larger/better servos/pistons, altered accumulators, etc. I've been racing since '94 and getting a 200-4R to live with over 700lbs of torque is a feat in itself.

I have a pretty good understanding of how an auto trans works which includes frictional components. I know that minimum hot viscosity is important for acceptable hard part wear but as long as you're over that viscosity it just isn't really important.

There were the various college classes as well that really aren't important.
Useful lifespan is an interesting one, maybe they should put a little more weight on it. Serviceability, good one, at least they put the switches in an easy to get to location. An actual pan with a replaceable filter would be nice. Safety, they're not so safe when they're locking up going down the freeway.
These bright people didn't do so well considering the class action lawsuit on the Honda 5at. Transmissions that were failing by the thousands in under 30,000 miles. I loved the oil jet "fix". Or how they would lock up going down the freeway. The integration of electronics was extremely poor. No answer for the shudder issues

What does it say about these super bright people when some nobody on the consumer level fixes their problems. Not only that but the issues and fixes are very well known in the transmission industry. So well known in fact that I have to question why the defects were allowed to go on for over 10 years.

Let's not forget that the engineer rarely wins against marketing. I'm sure any engineer worth anything would prefer a trans that shifts quick and snappy to reduce wear. Most non car people want soft mushy shifts and they may not buy the car if it shifts too hard so marketing wins and you just reduced the transmission's lifespan considerably.

A trans with 2-3x the clutch area might get away with soft shifts and go hundreds of thousands of miles but you don't put this compact low torque capacity trans behind a nearly 300hp engine in a full weight car and expect it to be reliable with mushy shifts. Enter Type F and DexIII fluids.
Exactly, you don't know. However, I know along with many others know because we're using the stuff and have been for many miles. Tell your engineers I would love to teach them a few things to save Honda future troubles.

Again, your writing style is that of marketing. "our advanced engineers" lol.

We've proven the pressure switches have a 2yr useful lifespan after which they go out of calibration and cause slippage. We know Z1 usually oxidizes within 10,000 miles by UOA results. We know it has too much FM and we know when a trans is on it's last leg with shudder and flaring on Z1 we can swap it out for Type F and new switches and everything will be fine. They're even starting to be done on the 2g TL with the worst track record and curing the issues. I've done them on a 2g along with the Type F fluid that had the most awful flares I've ever witnessed.
Science doesn't end in the laboratory. Welcome to the real world. Honda debunked their own work with the track record of their auto trans. It seems anytime Honda is mentioned the 5at is brought up as a weak spot. Honda has failed to step up with a fix or maybe those super bright people aren't so bright so the consumer was forced to come up for a cure and the cure works. It was also done with a budget of $200 lol.

I would honestly love to know the reasoning behind the Z1 fluid and why they will not acknowledge that pressure switches are behind many of the failures. I've always wanted to know why Honda chose not to fix the issues when it was so easy to fix.

It's not like there were a ton of hard parts breakage. It was mostly excessive wear in the clutch packs and shudder both on shifts and in the torque converter that a little less FM and good pressure switches wholly cured.

The NHTSA review was a joke as well.

I hate cars

Very well said. This is what I was getting at but you said it much better. It's not that the engineers couldn't build a reliable trans but other priorities got in the way. I feel like deleting my post now after reading yours.

jda123

FWIW, my 04 is an oil jet car with 154K on it. The better fluid is what I credit for no issues. I love how these bad ass engineers used the fluid fill hole for their "fix" and I either have to remove the oil jet or use a drinking straw to add fluid down the dipstick tube neck. Some kind of engineering. If they were truly bad ass, they could have put another fill hole on top of the fix.

I think that somebody at Honda has purposefully made the decision to continue to drive service dollars with weak transmission. Otherwise, you just cannot explain why there is not a better total solution. Hell, even recommending a 1x3 with the crappy z1 ever 5K miles would probably keep most of them on the road at least twice as long.

I have save almost a dozen friend's and coworkers honda transmissions (if the TC is not gone yet) by switching fluid, changing 2nd/3rd (4at) or 3rd/4th pressure switches, cleaning solenoids & pipe filters/screens (or replacing them if bad) and even putting some dielectric grease on the connectors that are prone to oxidation from being in bad places. Many of these saves are after slips and significant shudder. I am just a hack in his garage helping friends with a $20 volt meter and a craftsman tool set, yet AHMC with all of the resources in the world takes a "replace it all" stance. Surely these idiots could use a voltmeter too... or are they after the cash instead of a 1 hour solenoid cleaning job, or $200 switch replacement.

All of these points do not reconcile for a company that supposedly is looking out for the best interest of the user. The logic is not there.

Believe it or not, I have an academic background with dual majors in Computer Science and Math from a major university. However, 2 months in the workforce at 22 years old and I learned that applied science crushes academic science. For most good engineers (and I am around a lot now in my new job), logic always leads the way before science, technical discussion and theory start - this is what separates bad asses from academics. This issue does not even pass the logic test, so who cares about the science. If we even attempt to go past the logic, then we will end up with paralysis by analysis... which is what we have seen with

jda123

I will help prove it. I will send 50K miles worth of Redline D4 to somebody if they want to study the properties and debris against Type F and the Honda Fluids.

It should be easy for somebody who works with Honda to get a few ounces of Honda fluid at the 60K initial change.

Anybody can PM me with an address to send a sample to. Just let me know how much you want.

TampaJim

While I could accommodate, it would be a waste of time and energy. You don't have proper controls and documentation. In addition, the pool isn't large enough to sample. Your willingness is appreciated however.

IF you feel you have a solid, logical, scientific-based argument, I will submit it for review and comment.


I am very bothered that people are being encouraged to use a fluid that doesn't meet/exceed manufacturer's specification, especially during the warranty period. This results in fraudulent claims, flawed statistical data and increased vehicle costs for every new car buyer ... not to mention, dissatisfaction with the vehicle and its manufacturer. The simple fact is that folks do stuff like the recommendations in this thread and when it doesn't work out, they change the fluid back to OEM and say they have never swayed. Not everyone does it, but plenty do. This happens with ALL kinds of modifications - primarily performance related, but plenty of others as well.

I am not sure that we couldn't convince someone to put chocolate milk into their transmission by posting enough success stories, implied data and other conversation on the web. However, it surely wouldn't be right to do so.

TampaJim

I did just put two and two together. Your vehicles are listed as an 04 and 06 TL.

Isn't D4 rated as a Z-1 replacement? I have been discussing the merits of Type F (and various mixtures) in all AHMC vehicles and using D4 as a DW-1 replacement.

IMO, you are fine if you are happy with the Redline guarantee ... which you must be. I am fine with non-OEM fluids. I don't personally prefer them, but I appreciate the availability and the competitiveness of a vibrant marketplace.

jda123

The sad part is not that they might put chocolate milk in the car, but the fact that they had to try it. The failure is the need, not the end.

I hate cars

No doubt you're a marketing/sales guy. You can't even acknowledge there's an issue with these transmissions.

Personally I don't want something that meets Honda's recommendations but I can see why you do being from the sales department.