On Feb 26, 2004, at 00:24, andy levy wrote:
> | If the fluid meets ATF+4 specs, it meets ATF+4 specs. Why should
> there
> | be any noticeable difference, except maybe fluid life?
>
> But the bottle David was referencing didn't say that it met ATF+4.
>
> "He pulled out a tech bulliten from Valvoline stating that their
> MaxLife
> ATF meets Chrsylers ATF+4 specs (the bottle only stated it met Chrysler
> specs)."
>
> That sounds more like an afterthought "yeah, it's fine to use,
> whatever"
> message than solid documentation.
if the bottle says "meets chrysler spec" and the maker issues a
statement/bulletin/whatever that says, "yeah, we know chry changed
their stuff and recommend +4 now. our stuff is good enough that by
'chrysler spec,' we can and do mean that you can call our juice
equivalent to ATF+4" then it had damn well better be good enough to
meet/ beat Mopar brand +4 juice. otherwise that's false advertising.
if they say "chrysler spec" alone, since the +3 to +4 change is
relatively recent they could make a case that they meant +3 when they
stated chry spec. having a bulletin out that says they intend to mean
+4 would make them as culpable as they could be. how culpable that is
is another matter, and since IANAL I have no idea.
-- Mike Maskalans <http://mike.tepidcola.com/dodge/> 84 RamCharger 360 (parked) 98 Dakota CC 318 (Fixed!) mobile.612.618.4652 campus.585.274.2246 fax.360.364.3930
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 01 2004 - 00:34:04 EST