Talk:DEXRON

Is dexron 3 harmful if inhaled through a fresh a dreadful air line line — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.141.23 (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Confusing?
Seems clear enough to me so haven't edited Chrismorey (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

But I have now. However there is no tag to remove, so what happens next? Chrismorey (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on DEXRON. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gm.com/experience/technology/gmpowertrain/transmissions/DEXRON_VI_Service_Fill_Release_30NO07.doc
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article000384801.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on DEXRON. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6E0buCXwu to http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article000384801.cfm

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) 20:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent additions
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) 02:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * There is no original research in this article. 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

The other references I provided clearly show a download for a datasheet for specific additives made by just one of approximately ten chemical additive producing companies. Afton Chemical is the largest and is specifically called for in many transmission fluid specifications. The datasheets show the terminology listed in this article that you keep deleting.

The content you deleted was backed up with valid sources and the content of the entire page. Citations and references from General Motors, the Society of Automotive Engineers, patents, and various chemical additive manufacturers are included. The references to Afton Chemical take you to the page where you can download the datasheet for that product. Each datasheet shows the terminology used in the article and its various meanings. There is no sales pitch, this information is universally true and applies to all manufacturers of automatic transmission fluids. Transmission fluid is a combination of a group 1-5 base oil (including synthetically produced base oils) and an additive package. Some additive packages are much better than others. Some are much less expensive than others but sacrifice long term reliability. Transmission manufacturers use and recommend the best additive packages, many aftermarket sellers use inexpensive additive packages. The general public does not know the difference and may assume all fluids are the same except for the price. As a result, they are likely to purchase the least expensive fluid. The purpose of this section of the page is to help educate the public to the potential differences. There is no reason to block or delete this valid information from the world. Hymn62 (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, Weber State University also tells this. I guess, we have a bicycle rider contributing negatively to the project. Anyway, the WP is not a Support platform. So just describe whats behind not using bold letters. Have a source what clearly describes, who is responsible on damage or what are the conditions on sublicensing the oil/fluid. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 19:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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) 02:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Anyway, conditions for licensing, and customer rights on warranty are defined in the agreement. So whats behind the buyer guide? Just basics count here, not blaming anyone. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 13:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "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 not 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)


 * Thank you for your feedbackHymn62 (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Saying it clear, any manufacturer sets conditions to fulfil warranty for the own product. When operating it of use, there is no warranty, due third parties operate it their way. Then offering any product "designed for" this party is responsible. such warnings like "be aware of" is not part of Wikipedia, but facts should clear the situation. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 11:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the NIST documenation: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/hb/2019/NIST.HB.130-2019.pdf -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 11:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you the link and your feedbackHymn62 (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Dexron-VI (J)
GM claims Dexron-VI (J) is a substitute for any previous Dexron ('A' and further). Petro-Canada (the developer of J) says it substitutes DIII (H) and (G), and also DII(E). But this article says only for DIII H and G. So maybe it's worth to prove this statement? Or edit an article to comply the manufacturer. Gambit RUS (talk)