2004 accord - ATF and engine oil change

Dexron III licensing stopped in 2005. Now the synthetic-blend Dexron
VI ($$) designed for direct clutch trannys replaced all prior fluids.
There are still cheap dino "Dexron-III compatible" fluids, except
refiners can't call them "Dexron III" fluids. Just a technicality
really from the legal department.

"the automaker is already recommending Dexron-VI for service fill in
existing vehicles, noting its compatibility with transmissions built
before model year 2006. To encourage the switch, the company will
cease to issue Dexron-III(H) licenses at the end of 2005, meaning all
such licenses will expire by the end of 2006."

http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_artic...kBc,b16hwRCn,w



On Sep 26, 5:55*am, jim beam > wrote:
> > BTW, GM no longer licenses the older Dexron names.
>
> it's a license thing? *i thought it was just that gm now have type III
> and as far as they're concerned, it out-performs type II in all respects
> - everybody uses planetary transmissions, right?
>
> except that honda transmissions don't use planetary gears, have their
> regulators set for type II, and type III makes it shift like someone
> just rear-ended you.
>

wrote:
> Dexron III licensing stopped in 2005. Now the synthetic-blend Dexron
> VI ($$) designed for direct clutch trannys replaced all prior fluids.
> There are still cheap dino

ok, but where do you and pszemol get this "synthetic" vs. "cheap dino"
attitude from? what makes it relevant to a transmission? what do you
think "synthetic" is?



> "Dexron-III compatible" fluids, except
> refiners can't call them "Dexron III" fluids. Just a technicality
> really from the legal department.
>
> "the automaker is already recommending Dexron-VI for service fill in
> existing vehicles, noting its compatibility with transmissions built
> before model year 2006. To encourage the switch, the company will
> cease to issue Dexron-III(H) licenses at the end of 2005, meaning all
> such licenses will expire by the end of 2006."
>
> http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_artic...kBc,b16hwRCn,w
>
>
>
> On Sep 26, 5:55�am, jim beam > wrote:
>>> BTW, GM no longer licenses the older Dexron names.
>> it's a license thing? �i thought it was just that gm now have type III
>> and as far as they're concerned, it out-performs type II in all respects
>> - everybody uses planetary transmissions, right?
>>
>> except that honda transmissions don't use planetary gears, have their
>> regulators set for type II, and type III makes it shift like someone
>> just rear-ended you.
>>

"jim beam" > wrote in message
t...
> wrote:
>> Dexron III licensing stopped in 2005. Now the synthetic-blend Dexron
>> VI ($$) designed for direct clutch trannys replaced all prior fluids.
>> There are still cheap dino
>
> ok, but where do you and pszemol get this "synthetic" vs. "cheap dino"
> attitude from? what makes it relevant to a transmission? what do you
> think "synthetic" is?

Pszemol does not have a synthetic attitude :-) I was just commenting
his argument, that ATF Z1 might be synthetic and that is why it is so
expensive compared to "dino" ATFs like Dexron II/III.
My question "do you know for the fact if it is synthetic" is not an
expression of any "attitude" toward anything. It is just a question.
It is agreement to an idea that since synthetic engine oils are much
more expensive than "dino" oils, the same can apply to ATF kinds.

If you haven't noticed yet, it was not about switching to a different
fluid in our hondas. It was just discussion about the ATF price iteself.

p.s. why do you leave old citations on the bottom of your texts?
It is so messy... this fragment is not relevant to your response.
You can cut it out without impacting understanding of your answer.

"jim beam" > wrote in message
...
> Pszemol wrote:
>> "jim beam" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> You just read the abstract only. Please read the full paper, Einstein!
>>>>
>>>>> as for you trying to bleat about "synthetic", do you know what that
>>>>> word even means? do you understand how it applies to auto lubricants?
>>>>
>>>> ?? Read the full story and then we will come back to this, ok?
>>>> If you still want to come back here :-)
>>>
>>> there you go with the insults again - now you can go on your denial
>>> rant.
>>
>> Not again, this was the first time. And don't you tell me you did not
>> deserve it:
>
> google still too hard for you?

Obviously for YOU, because you are unable to prove your silly accusations.
Remember the golden rule: innocent until proven guilty. It is YOUR
responsibility to prove I am guilty of something you accuse me of, not mine
to prove I am innocent.

>> I gave you the link to the professional paper and you read only the
>> abstract and you are surprised that in the abstract there is nothing
>> about ATF being not synthetic... Duh!
>
> dude, you gave a link to an abstract that in no apparent way corroborates
> what you say.

I gave you the link to the professional paper treating IN GREAT DETAILS
about many different AT fluids. It happened to also have an abstract, but I
was sure it will not be too taxing for your IQ to guess I am not refering to
the abstract alone but to the full text. The fact you did not find anything
relevant in the abstract itself should be another clue (and would be for
anybody with average IQ level) for you that I was refering to the full paper
not the abstract. So if you still do not get it, let me spell it for you:
you need to read FULL PAPER to get the information about ATZ F1 fluid being
not synthetic fluid. Yes, you have to pay for it to read it, but nobody
forces you to read it. It is totally up to you.

> if you think paying to read something, based on your track record, without
> apparent connection or relevance is smart, you have serious problems with
> either english comprehension or grasping reality. besides, if what you
> say is true, you can use google, cite a real live public link, and prove
> it! not hard to do if you know what you're talking about, right?

I do not know why is it so unusual or strange for you that scientific and
technical papers cost money? You have never done any real reseach, haven't
you? If all your knowledge is based on "free" material available to search
engines than it is pitiful.

I said it is not synthetic, link the source of this information and this is
the end from my side. Rest is totally up to you. If you want - read it, if
not - do not read it. Why would I care?

>> Read the paper and you will learn that ATF Z1 is not synthetic.
>
> so what?

Try to find the context of my question about ATF Z1 being synthetic or not.
Maybe you will get it then. If not - tough luck! Why would I go through the
effort explaining this to you? What is there for me?

> your cite says:
>
> "Based on the results, one can conclude that each ATF is uniquely
> formulated to specific OEM requirements. In addition, the results show
> that a customer should not deviate from the automatic transmission fluid
> specified in the vehicle's owners manual."
>
> how much more clear can that be? if a specific atf is:
>
> 1. uniquely formulated to meet a manufacturer's requirements
>
> 2. detrimental if not used
>
> why would you even /consider/ some random "synthetic" - especially if you
> apparently don't even know what it is?

Jimmy, why is it so taxing for your IQ to comprehend such a simple text in
plain English?

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Pszemol wrote:
>>> "jim beam" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> You just read the abstract only. Please read the full paper, Einstein!
>>>>>
>>>>>> as for you trying to bleat about "synthetic", do you know what
>>>>>> that word even means? do you understand how it applies to auto
>>>>>> lubricants?
>>>>>
>>>>> ?? Read the full story and then we will come back to this, ok?
>>>>> If you still want to come back here :-)
>>>>
>>>> there you go with the insults again - now you can go on your denial
>>>> rant.
>>>
>>> Not again, this was the first time. And don't you tell me you did not
>>> deserve it:
>>
>> google still too hard for you?
>
> Obviously for YOU, because you are unable to prove your silly accusations.
> Remember the golden rule: innocent until proven guilty. It is YOUR
> responsibility to prove I am guilty of something you accuse me of, not
> mine to prove I am innocent.
>
>>> I gave you the link to the professional paper and you read only the
>>> abstract and you are surprised that in the abstract there is nothing
>>> about ATF being not synthetic... Duh!
>>
>> dude, you gave a link to an abstract that in no apparent way
>> corroborates what you say.
>
> I gave you the link to the professional paper treating IN GREAT DETAILS
> about many different AT fluids. It happened to also have an abstract,
> but I was sure it will not be too taxing for your IQ to guess I am not
> refering to the abstract alone but to the full text. The fact you did
> not find anything relevant in the abstract itself should be another clue
> (and would be for anybody with average IQ level) for you that I was
> refering to the full paper not the abstract. So if you still do not get
> it, let me spell it for you: you need to read FULL PAPER to get the
> information about ATZ F1 fluid being not synthetic fluid. Yes, you have
> to pay for it to read it, but nobody forces you to read it. It is
> totally up to you.
>
>> if you think paying to read something, based on your track record,
>> without apparent connection or relevance is smart, you have serious
>> problems with either english comprehension or grasping reality.
>> besides, if what you say is true, you can use google, cite a real live
>> public link, and prove it! not hard to do if you know what you're
>> talking about, right?
>
> I do not know why is it so unusual or strange for you that scientific
> and technical papers cost money? You have never done any real reseach,
> haven't you? If all your knowledge is based on "free" material available
> to search engines than it is pitiful.
>
> I said it is not synthetic, link the source of this information and this
> is the end from my side. Rest is totally up to you. If you want - read
> it, if not - do not read it. Why would I care?
>
>>> Read the paper and you will learn that ATF Z1 is not synthetic.
>>
>> so what?
>
> Try to find the context of my question about ATF Z1 being synthetic or
> not. Maybe you will get it then. If not - tough luck! Why would I go
> through the effort explaining this to you? What is there for me?
>
>> your cite says:
>>
>> "Based on the results, one can conclude that each ATF is uniquely
>> formulated to specific OEM requirements. In addition, the results show
>> that a customer should not deviate from the automatic transmission
>> fluid specified in the vehicle's owners manual."
>>
>> how much more clear can that be? if a specific atf is:
>>
>> 1. uniquely formulated to meet a manufacturer's requirements
>>
>> 2. detrimental if not used
>>
>> why would you even /consider/ some random "synthetic" - especially if
>> you apparently don't even know what it is?
>
> Jimmy, why is it so taxing for your IQ to comprehend such a simple text
> in plain English?


1. "synthetic" is a red herring. you'd know that if you knew what you
were talking about.

2. you're hiding behind "mommy's skirts" by alleging the contents of a
cite something not publicly available.

3. you're resorting to insult again.

bottom line, unless you can be bothered to actually present anythng
relevant and on-topic, i have to conclude you're just being a troll.

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> t...
>> wrote:
>>> Dexron III licensing stopped in 2005. Now the synthetic-blend Dexron
>>> VI ($$) designed for direct clutch trannys replaced all prior fluids.
>>> There are still cheap dino
>>
>> ok, but where do you and pszemol get this "synthetic" vs. "cheap dino"
>> attitude from? what makes it relevant to a transmission? what do you
>> think "synthetic" is?
>
> Pszemol does not have a synthetic attitude :-) I was just commenting
> his argument, that ATF Z1 might be synthetic and that is why it is so
> expensive compared to "dino" ATFs like Dexron II/III.
> My question "do you know for the fact if it is synthetic" is not an
> expression of any "attitude" toward anything. It is just a question. It
> is agreement to an idea that since synthetic engine oils are much
> more expensive than "dino" oils, the same can apply to ATF kinds.
>
> If you haven't noticed yet, it was not about switching to a different
> fluid in our hondas. It was just discussion about the ATF price iteself.
>
> p.s. why do you leave old citations on the bottom of your texts?
> It is so messy... this fragment is not relevant to your response.
> You can cut it out without impacting understanding of your answer.


troll.

Sure it was a little digression from ~$6/quart Honda ATF. Synthetic or
synthetic-blends typically cost ~$6 (including Dexron VI, Toyota Type
3, 4 etc ), while the dino Dexron II/III usually is less than $2.

This is not to say people should use any other than specified ATF
fluid in any car.



On Sep 30, 5:51*am, jim beam > wrote:
> ok, but where do you and pszemol get this "synthetic" vs. "cheap dino"
> attitude from? *what makes it relevant to a transmission? *what do you
> think "synthetic" is?

wrote:
> Sure it was a little digression from ~$6/quart Honda ATF. Synthetic or
> synthetic-blends typically cost ~$6 (including Dexron VI, Toyota Type
> 3, 4 etc ), while the dino Dexron II/III usually is less than $2.
>
> This is not to say people should use any other than specified ATF
> fluid in any car.

so honda's got you by the shorts! the problem is, nobody else sells atf
that works as well in their transmissions. but given that you don't
need to change it very often [i changed the atf on my civic after 60k
miles of hot high speed desert driving - e.g. grape vine at 90+ at
103'F, flat out in 3rd, so no lockup clutch - and when i changed it, it
looked/smelled almost perfect, and there was almost /nothing/ on the
transmission magnet] i don't see that it's much of a problem.


>
>
>
> On Sep 30, 5:51�am, jim beam > wrote:
>> ok, but where do you and pszemol get this "synthetic" vs. "cheap dino"
>> attitude from? �what makes it relevant to a transmission? �what do you
>> think "synthetic" is?

"jim beam" > wrote in message
t...
> 1. "synthetic" is a red herring. you'd know that if you knew what you
> were talking about.

What I know is the 1 quart of synthetic engine oil costs $5 while 1 quart of
nonsynthetic costs <$2. Red herring or not - the price difference is quite
dramatic. And this is what we were talking about with John - you did not
catch the point - you were lost in the conversation, completely confused
thinking we want to change fluid to a different one in our hondas. Your
problem! Not the first time this is the reason it is very hard to discuss
with you...

> 2. you're hiding behind "mommy's skirts" by alleging the contents of a
> cite something not publicly available.

Stop the lies. It IS publicly available! It just hurts you to spend $14 to
get it.

"jim beam" > wrote in message
t...
> Pszemol wrote:
>> "jim beam" > wrote in message
>> t...
>>> wrote:
>>>> Dexron III licensing stopped in 2005. Now the synthetic-blend Dexron
>>>> VI ($$) designed for direct clutch trannys replaced all prior fluids.
>>>> There are still cheap dino
>>>
>>> ok, but where do you and pszemol get this "synthetic" vs. "cheap dino"
>>> attitude from? what makes it relevant to a transmission? what do you
>>> think "synthetic" is?
>>
>> Pszemol does not have a synthetic attitude :-) I was just commenting
>> his argument, that ATF Z1 might be synthetic and that is why it is so
>> expensive compared to "dino" ATFs like Dexron II/III.
>> My question "do you know for the fact if it is synthetic" is not an
>> expression of any "attitude" toward anything. It is just a question. It
>> is agreement to an idea that since synthetic engine oils are much
>> more expensive than "dino" oils, the same can apply to ATF kinds.
>>
>> If you haven't noticed yet, it was not about switching to a different
>> fluid in our hondas. It was just discussion about the ATF price iteself.
>>
>> p.s. why do you leave old citations on the bottom of your texts?
>> It is so messy... this fragment is not relevant to your response.
>> You can cut it out without impacting understanding of your answer.
>
> troll.

I see you finally understand your mistake and not having anything smart to
add you call me names... how mature it is :-)