Talk:Automatic transmission fluid

message: TLDR: ATF is an oil, even if it's not referred to as "oil." I'm deleting that statement.
Long Version:
I find that statement confusing, and dubious. I have found another source saying that mineral oil is in fact used as the base of some ATF types.  A Brief History of Automatic Transmission Fluids for Automobiles and Trucks
Now it also says that mineral oil has been replaced by synthetics in newer fluids, but I believe we can still call "oil" in a common sense. Synthetic motor oil is still labeled as oil. No, ATF does not call itself "oil" on the label, but as far as I can guess that's because it contains somtehing like 10 percent or more additives that are an essential part of its function. Also, it is used as hydraulic fluid, and I'm pretty sure that's why it's called fluid.
Simply clicking on the link to oil will tell you:
:"An oil is any neutral, nonpolar chemical substance that is a viscous liquid at ambient temperatures and is both hydrophobic (immiscible with water, literally "water fearing") and lipophilic (miscible with other oils, literally "fat loving"). Oils have a high carbon and hydrogen content and are usually flammable and slippery.
:The general definition of oil includes classes of chemical compounds that may be otherwise unrelated in structure, properties, and uses. Oils may be animal, vegetable, or petrochemical in origin, and may be volatile or non-volatile.[1] They are used for food, fuel, lubrication, and the manufacture of paints, plastics, and other materials. Specially prepared oils are used in some religious ceremonies as purifying agents."
ATF seems to fit that definition. Here's what I'm thinking:
Is ATF an oil itself in entirity? No, but it contains mostly oil.
Is ATF chemically the same as motor oil? No, but its base is an oil using the Wikipedia definition above.
Is ATF a fluid? Yes, but it can also be called an oil.
So I ask someone to speculate or elaborate on what the IP editor's line meant exactly. I'm going to delete it because I think it's wrong. AutumnWind 20:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ATF is not an oil" 

message: This statement needs a citation as Dexton replaced Type A it is unlikely that type A was a mix of Dextron and any other fluid.  In the old car hobby, it is generally accepted that straight Dexton is an acceptable substitute for the no longer produced Type A.  My concern is that the mixture of Dextron and Type F fluids may create a fluid harmful to the transmission.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.239.177.161 (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: It turns out that Type A was basically a nearly 50/50 mix of Type F (Ford) and Dexron (GM), so if you have a pre-1990 Chrysler vehicle, you can mix Type F and Dexron to get a near-match for type A

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Automatic transmission fluid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419162806/http://www.lubrizol.com:80/DrivelineAdditives/AutomaticTransmissionFluidAdditives/default.html to http://www.lubrizol.com/DrivelineAdditives/AutomaticTransmissionFluidAdditives/default.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301220132/http://www.centerforqa.com/home.html to http://www.centerforqa.com/home.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006115836/http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article000564317.cfm?x=b79gdNq,b2W5q9fm,w to http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article000564317.cfm?x=b79gdNq,b2W5q9fm,w
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please do not continue to revert edits, even if you think you're right. Discuss the content dispute here. I've asked the IP to discuss it here, since the ping system does not work for IPs. INeedSupport  :3 17:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's rather problematic that the person using the IP is using multiple IP addresses. I do agree that it should be kept though based on what you said. INeedSupport  :3 17:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content dispute 

message: I reverted the addition as the references do not support the language added. The other parts seem to be original research that falls under WP:OR. Are there other references that support the language without having to infer or add personal beliefs to? ContentEditman (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: nothing to undo, when not tested by the license owner, he would not sub license the product. However, least to protect his own customers. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

text: The first reference, and next several, goes to a Alfton Chemical page with many Docs. That has many issues. For first they are a provider so they would be biased against products they do not make and/or compete against. Let alone I did a quick look and they do not make the same strong statements that you posted. And again they do not fall under a reliable reference for many reasons, some I gave before. Wikipedia is not a group of pages for us to add our own personal thoughts or beliefs. Its a place to post verifiable and reliable information that can be backed up by reliable references. I did not remove your edits on a personal level and I hope you are not taking it personal. I did so as they do not meet many standards Wikipedia is built on and break to many rules. I think some of your language may be added back but with much more toned language and more neutral if you can find good and reliable refe5races for it. The ones used so far do not meet that standard. ContentEditman (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

text: It sounds like you may have missed this paragraph above. The issue of poor quality ATF and fraudulently labeled ATF containers is a worldwide problem. It is such a problem that the California Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of Measurement Standards, Petroleum Products Program, Fuels and Lubricants Laboratory has updated its labeling requirements for transmission fluid to help stop the deception and fraud in California. See pages 7 through the end of the document here https://www.bar.ca.gov/pdf/Product_Labeling_Regulations_4.18.19.pdf This document states that "1. The producers and additive suppliers have developed products that make claims of meeting OEM performance requirements while failing some of the requirements. 2. California law requires OEM requirements to be met." 
I did not include any personal thoughts, I simply included proof of deception in photographs of bottles of ATF claiming to work in certain brands of transmissions on the front label and a totally different story on the back panel with outdated specifications and complex specification numbers that no customer will understand. That is an example of misleading the consumer if not out right fraud. The interpretation added decoded the fluid specifications and licensing program. I do not care of you or anyone else likes this information, it is quite obvious that you do not based upon your previous "Synthetic Fluids" comment. I am a proponent of using only the factory licensed fluids in any vehicle for the best performance and longevity. Under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act you could pour water in your transmission if you wanted to, but that does not mean it will work properly or have a long life. 
Regarding Afton Chemical, they supply additives to many ATF producers and are not biased towards any company. I cannot help it if you cannot totally understand the content of the references and it is mot my job to educate you so that you can understand them. I am so tired of every person who has a favorite brand of ATF coming in and deleting or modifying this type of content mostly out of ignorance. I spent a great deal of time documenting the history of automatic transmission fluids and their official documented specifications on these pages. It is discouraging to me to see anyone fall for the deception and fraud that is clearly going on.
I can tone back the language, but the photographs, technical interpretation (not opinion) of the back panel photographs, and the buyer beware sections must stay. The California laws referred to in the https://www.bar.ca.gov/pdf/Product_Labeling_Regulations_4.18.19.pdf clearly support the deception and fraud language.Hymn62 (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

text: "I did not include any personal thoughts, I simply included..." But you did and even your statement shows that. You added something then did you own personal and original research, that is not allowed. And yes "interpretation" is your opinion. It is not for us to interpret but to use verifiable references and language based from them. You are using language then using references that are not reliable, let alone un-biased, to fit your "interpretation". The buyer beware section is the worst part so far. There is no support or reliable references to support what you have posted there. You're welcome to seek another view at WP:3 but right now what you want to add, how you want to add it, and the references you want to use are well outside normal Wikipedia guidelines and rules. ContentEditman (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions 

message: A section that describes the ATF historically used by Chrysler-made vehicles would be useful, and their backwards compatibility going back to the 60's would be PERFECT. 198.2.104.242 (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get some MoPar ATF content in this article? 

message: Specs like operating temperature ranges, boiling points, critical/flash temperatures, etc. would be welcomed, and improve the encyclopedic nature of the article. Steve8394 (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  More tech details?