Back to my orginal post, use the Motorcraft filter. That is the one that the factory used on the transmission when it was new. I do not think FOMOCO wants to risk doing a warrenty job on an engine, or a transmission, to save a few cents on a filter. My guess is that the factory filters from Ford (Motorcraft) are among the most extensively tested filters made. Same with AC/Delco filters for GM products, or whatever the brand of factory filters is used in Mopar autos.

 

DanielC,

Great point. Other filters may be great, maybe even be oem but factory does not want problems.

Ken

 

My only comment is I put Redline D4 ATF in my '92 Aerostar around 95,000 miles and it shifts beautifully. I figure it is about 50% Mobil 1 and 50% Redline because I had M1 in it and then when the pan was dropped and filter replaced, they refilled about 3.5 qts Redline I had supplied and then I drained 3 qts 5000 mile later and refilled with more Redline.

 

I use regular dino fluid and my trans shifts perfectly too. I really think synthetics are overrated. Nothing wrong with them but overrated. If they were that good, they would be factory fill. Like the man said, manufacturers don't want warranty problems. If a slightly more expensive fluid would be better, they would install it. Typical new vehicle warranties are 50 thousand miles these days. Do not waste your money.

Ken

ken

 

They also don't use anything that adds to the cost per unit unnessesarily. They are in the business of making money. Regular oil meets specs and is cost effective, that's why they use it. Don't think for a minute that auto manufacturers try to put the best parts in cars. Think specs and dollars.

Remember the Ford Pinto debacle?

The financial analysis that Ford conducted on the Pinto concluded that it was not cost-efficient to add an $11 per car cost in order to correct a flaw. Benefits derived from spending this amount of money were estimated to be $49.5 million. This estimate assumed that each death, which could be avoided, would be worth $200,000, that each major burn injury that could be avoided would be worth $67,000 and that an average repair cost of $700 per car involved in a rear end accident would be avoided. It further assumed that there would be 2,100 burned vehicles, 180 serious burn injuries, and 180 burn deaths in making this calculation. When the unit cost was spread out over the number of cars and light trucks which would be affected by the design change, at a cost of $11 per vehicle, the cost was calculated to be $137 million, much greater then the $49.5 million benefit. These figures, which describe the fatalities and injuries, are false. All independent experts estimate that for each person who dies by an auto fire, many more are left with charred hands, faces and limbs. This means that Ford’s 1:1 death to injury ratio is inaccurate and the costs for Ford’s settlements would have been much closer to the cost of implementing a solution to the problem. However, Ford’s "cost-benefit analysis," which places a dollar value on human life, said it wasn't profitable to make any changes to the car.

 

Merry Christmas Billy and a lump of coal for each of the preferred family stock holders

Ford did the same thing to Volvo when they bought the company....cost analysis on every bolt and screw....Volvos are NO longer one of the safer vehicles on the road

 

Oddly enough, I obtained filter and gasket that were alledged to be OEM, and the pan gasket was cork. Someone once mentioned somewhere herein that they found some small, perfectly circular pieces of metal in their trans pan. That's easy. There are little metal pieces embedded on either side of each bolt hole in the gasket, or at least there were on the one I removed, and on the one I installed, probably to prevent excessive local crushing of the gasket. I thought the cork was rather quaint, but as long as you have reasonably even clamping preassure, and avoid any tears, the material will absorb ATF sufficiently to preclude any leaks.

 

Cork really is amazing stuff. They use it in the aerospace industry. It is used as an thermal insulator because it can withstand the shockwaves and the heat without disintegrating. However, there are better gasket materials. Ford used it both to save a small amount of money in production, and they are intending that the transmission will be serviced regularly through its life. Intending, but not necessarily expecting.

In any case, I have heard it from factory independant locations that the OEM gaskets for most automakers are top of the line quality, giving a perfectly engineered balance between filtering efficiency, longevity, durability, heat resistance, and cost. OEM may skimp and make mistakes in a lot of areas, but filters are not one of them. This is true of all the filters in the vehicle, not just tranny filters. One independant test performed on GM Duramax diesels on air filters showed that the OEM filter had good airflow characteristics throughout its useful life, which was nearly double the nearest aftermarket competitor. The K&N Filters in their tests showed that they did in fact flow more air, but the filtering efficiency was terrible, especially in the large particle catagory. In the test, the AC Delco filter lasted 78 minutes before it was plugged to the point where it was pulling 10 lbs vacuum. The K&N only lasted 23 minutes. In fact, in simulated mileage, the AC Delco was lower in initial airflow than the K&N, but after just 500 miles the AC Delco was outperforming the already restricted K&N. If you cleaned your K&N every 500 miles, it would clearly cost more to service than the OEM filter. In reality, the AC Delco filter lasted about 70,000 miles before it was officially restricted and needed replacement. The K&N was officially restricted and need a good cleaning after just 20,000 miles. In the mean time, the OEM filter only let .012 grams of very fine particulates pass through, while the K&N let .2 grams pass through in its much shorter lifespan. This test was conducted by an independant lab that really wanted to know the truth about air filters. The website that contained the detailed information has since been removed from the web, and I wish that I had archived it.

 

I've always wondered why the OEMs don't just put some kinda filter in the ATF coolant lines to the radiator. Sort of like a fuel filter. It would be oh so less messy. Downside, for OEM, would be, if it clogs, there went the tranny. Upside, you could change it without getting red ATF fluid in your armpits. Not that this is a bad thing, fungicide and all.

 

a clutch pack blows up or another part explodes, the pieces-chunks of metal, springs, cogs and friction material chunks drop down and end up in the bottom of the pan....
the pan filter ATF pickup prevents this grinding material of death from being sucked into the pump and pushed through out the transmission grinding out the rest of the expensive goodies....

first sign of grinding bumping humping noise out of an auto tranny===STOP and have towed with drive wheels off road
drive and it's more money in the pocket of the tranny shop owner

many tranny shops and DIYers add an aftermarket inline filter such as Magnafine in the cooler line and change every 10k>20k

 

I know I'm not as smart as the average posting guru, so I'd like a little clarification please. Here you say that the pan filter pickup prevents the grinding material of death from being sucked up into the pump and on this IDENTICAL thread a few days ago you say that "the particles pass right thru a screen filter and cause no harm".
So what is it? Does the filter stop the harmful particles or do they pass through? Maybe they pass through a screen, but the felt material stops them? Maybe I'm reading your posts wrong, but please explain your comments on BOTH of these posts please........

 

different size particles..

blown up clutch pack.... 100 micron and larger, most the size of matchheads....stopped by screen and will then drop to bottom of pan next engine off cycle as pump suction stops...most will not be picked up again

normal clutch pack wear particles....most less than 10 micron, pass thru screen filter but will be filtered out by a Microfine inline and removed from system by easy inline filter change...
size does no harm to tranny
this size will eventually plug up a pad filter with no warning until the grinding sounds start

i prefer the screen only pan filter with an inline Microfine filter because I currently don't have transmission line pressure gauges on any of my rigs to monitor for pan filter filter plugging....the transmission will bypass the external cooling lines and inline filter if there is a plug or restriction externally to the tranny.


many of the new designs have no internal or factory external filter, no pan to access or even a check dipstick

 

Don't most of our trannies call for Mercon V? I know the Valvo I bought was semi-sythetic, and I believe all Mercon Vs are. Bear in mind that there is considerable debate in oil forums (see bobistheoilguy) as to whether M1 products are true sythetics, and Redline products are not held in universal esteem either.
In any event, mine seems very happy with the Valvo semi-syn Mercon V. If I thought M1 would be any better, I'd use it.
As an aside, there are plenty oil UOAs on various forums out there. Has anyone ever heard of UTF (used trans fluid) analysis?

 

I think that depends on the year. My 97 does, but I think almost every year before that is Mercon III. I will defer to that to the local experts, but I am pretty sure that most do not take Mercon V.

 

I may be wrong, but I thought I read that Ford had stopped lisencing any version of Mercon other than V. They in turn back-speced Mercon V for autoboxes calling for earlier versions of Mercon. There was apparently some concern as to the suitability of Mercon V for earlier boxes.