Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 982673

Shear Stability of Automatic Transmission

Fluids -- Methods and Analysis
A Study by the International Lubricants
Standardization and Approval
Committee (ILSAC) ATF Subcommittee
Joseph W. Spry!; Nobuyoshi Hoshikawa James L. Linden
Ford Motor Company Fuji Heavy Industry Co. General Motors

Jyunichi Doi Tracey King Yasuhiro Murakami

Mazada Motor Co. Chrysler Corporation Mitsubishi Motors

Mitsumasa Furumoto Hideo Kurashina Fumio Ueda

Honda Research and Development Co.Mitsubishi Motors Corp. Toyota Motor Company

Reprinted From: Automatic Transmission Fluids (ATF)

(SP-1394)

mA E The Engineering Society International Fall Fuels and Lubricants

For Advancing Mobility
Land Sea Air and Space, Meeting and Exposition
I N T E R N A T I O N A L San Francisco, California
October 19.22,1998

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

rneappe- ofthelSSNcodeatthebottomofttrispageindicatesS~scMIsentthat
copiesafthepapetmaybemadefotpersonalorintemaluseofspecificclients.This~~
isgiven onthecondiion howe~r,thatthecopierpaya$7.OOperarticlecopyfeethrough
theCopy@htClearanceCenter, Inc. OperationsCenter, Rosewood Drive, Danvers,
MA01923forcopyingbeyondthatpermittedbySecWns107or103oftheU.S.Copyright
LOW. Thisconsentdoesnotextendtootherkindsofcopyingsuchascopyingforgeneral
disbibution,foradvertisingorpromotiona!purposes,forcreatingnewcoktiveworks,or
for retie.

SAEi routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date
of publication. Direct yourordersto SAE CustomerSalesand Satisfaction Department.

QuanWyreprintratescanbeobtainedfromtheCustomerSalesandSatisfaction Depart-
ment

To request permission to reprint atechnical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE

publications in other works, contactthe SAE Publications Group.

GLOBAL MOBfUWDAT~E
All SAE papers, s?anda&, and selected
twb~absb’adedandndindexedin#eSAE
GlobalmiD

Nopartofthispubkationmaybyreproducedinanyform,inanelectronicretrievakystem
or otherwise, without the priorwritten permission of the pubiiiher.

Copyright 1998 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

P~c)nsandopinionsadvancedinthispaperare~of~~or(s)aradnot~
those of SAE The author is solely responsible forthe content of the paper. A process is
available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE
Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE
PublicationsGroup.

Personswishingtosubmitpaperstobeconsideredforpmsentationorpublicationthrough
SAE should send the manuscript ora 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to:
Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA 90-I 203BIPG

 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018
Shear Stability o.f Automatic Transmission Fluids -- Methods and Analysis
A Study by the International Lubricants Standardization and Approval
Committee (ILSAC) ATF Subcommittee
Joseph W. Sprys
Ford Motor Company
Jyunichi Doi
Mazda Motors Company
Mitsumasa Furumoto
Honda Research and Development Company
Nobuyoshi Hoshikawa
Fuji Heavy Industry Company
Tracey King
Chrysler Corporation
Copyright 0 1998 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses four methods for measuring the
resistance of transmission fluids to permanent viscosity loss
through shear. The four methods include the Fuel Injector
Shear Stability test, the Sonic shear test, the DEXRONB-III
Cycling test and the KRL test. Each of these methods and their
advantages are discussed and data provided for many OEM
fluids and the effects of these methods on the final viscosity.
The data indicates the KRL generates the maximum shear
stress on the fluids compared to the other methods. The data
also indicates the sonic shear method results are similar to
those of the KRL test. The fuel injector test imparts the least
stress to the fluid. Data is presented to show the correlation
between viscosity changes obtained using these methods and
viscosity changes observed with mileage accumulation in
vehicle transmissions.
INTRODUCTION
Transmission fluids are composed of two major constituents:
basestock and additives. The basestocks are typically mineral
oils from refined crudes but can also be produced either from
100% synthetic materials or mixes of synthetic and mineral
oils. The mineral oil crude sources come from various parts of
the world and are refined in many places. The refining process
of these crudes has been developed over the years and
includes various techniques such as solvent refining,
hydrotreating and hydrocracking. Each process produces a
certain quality of basestock that can be used as a basis for
lubricant development. Because of the molecular construction
of these basestocks the molecules do not provide the desired
characteristics needed for proper lubrication under all
circumstances. The basestocks impart the low temperature
fluidity and oxidation resistance characteristics of lubricants.
Unfortunately these characteristics alone are insufficient for
1
982673
Hideo Kurashina
Honda Research and Development Company
James Linden
General Motors Research and Development Center
Yasuhiro Murakami
Nissan Motors Company
Fumio Ueda
Toyota Motor Company
adequate performance in vehicle systems used in automobiles
and other transportation equipment.
To obtain optimum transmission performance over a wide
operating temperature range, transmission fluids must be
blended to have good low temperature fluidity as well as
adequate fluid viscosity at high temperatures. The most
common method of obtaining this viscosity-temperature
relationship is to use relatively low viscosity base oil for low
temperature performance and then add viscosity modifiers,
often referred to as viscosity index improvers (VII) to enhance
the viscosity at elevated temperatures. Viscosity modifiers,
typically long chain polymeric materials, are added to increase
the viscosity at elevated temperatures. Additionally, to
enhance the overall performance characteristics of the base
oils, additive treatments have been developed, which improve
the anti-wear, the anti-foaming, the friction modification and
the oxidation resistance characteristics of the fluid.
Each base oil has its own viscosity vs. temperature pattern that
needs to be altered to provide optimum fluidity as the
operating environment changes. As transmission performance
operating conditions have been expanded to include a wide
range of operating temperatures and with the incorporation of
electronic controls, automatic transmission fluids (ATF’s)
have been required to exhibit better low-temperature fluidity
while providing adequate high temperature viscosity (I)
These requirements have typically been met through the use of
viscosity modifiers. In conjunction with lower viscosity base
oils these viscosity modifiers provide the viscosity
requirements needed m today’s automatic transmissions.
Shear stability refers to retention of viscosity of a fluid in any
mechanical system and is important for the life of the
components that make up that system. During the operation of
a transmission, the fluid experiences high shear stresses during
flow between components such as the pump, friction clutches,
hydraulic and electronic valves, planetary gear sets, and
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

bushings. The high molecular weight components undergo
chain scission, which fractures the long chain molecules and
changes the viscosity of the fluid.
Application of the correct method of stressing the fluid in
bench tests to determine the effect on viscosity is important
for the development of new fluids and to ensure that sufficient
stress has been applied during the test to properly simulate that
effects of transmission operation. The development of the
correct bench tests also allows effects of stress to be evaluated
at a much less costly method than using vehicle tests.
5. Show very good correlation to actual vehicle performance
data
6. Be accurate for many different types of transmission
designs
7. Be developed on equipment that is available worldwide
In our efforts to evaluate test procedures and equipment that
will meet these criteria four techniques have been tested. Each
technique has been tried on samples representing typical
factory fill fluids used either by JAMA or AAMA. This paper
also provides a status report ‘of this work in progress.

SHEAR STABILITY MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES

Four bench techniques for degrading transmission fluids were

investigated (2-5). These are::
1. FISST ( Fuel Injector Shear Stability Test)
2. Sonic Shear Test
3. DEXRONB-III Cycling Test
4. KRL Tapered Roller Bearing Test

Details of each procedure are shown in Table 1. Each of the

individual techniques will be described and results will be
presented which show the comparison of the viscosity changes
generated by the individual test method to the viscosity
changes obtained from vehicles with various mileages. In the
conclusion of the paper, an overall comparison of the
techniques and discussion will be presented.

TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF SHEAR STABILITY TESTS

FIGURE 1. Effects of Poor Shear Stable Fluids on
Transmission Performance.

SHEAR TEST TECHNIQUES

The viscosity of transmission fluid plays a critical part in the

20.9 534 mL/min
performance of all systems. It is responsible for maintaining Amounl of Fluid 100 mL 30mL 11 L 40 mL
fluid film thickness to prevent contact of sliding or moving Flu Id ‘Tern pcrnutc
Test Duration
30-3s “C
20 Cycles
40 T
6 0 mtn
130 “C S u m p
20.000 cyclcr O”Cr
6 0 “C
1740): r~v~l~t~~ns
components, for assisting in maintaining pump capacity as I 222 HIS over 20 Hrs
Typlcnl User Ford Japanrrc GM M erccdcr
temperatures of operating systems increases and for iMERCON VI OEM’S VW.ZF

maintaining its properties when exposed to severe shear

environments. For the development of new transmission fluids
techniques need to be developed and evaluated to properly test
the fluid viscosity resistance to changes. These techniques
must show a good correlation to the viscosity changes
experienced by the fluids in the transmissions under customer
operating conditions.
The selection of the proper laboratory technique to degrade
fluids to match the viscosity degradation found in
transmissions has been one of the many efforts expended
within the ILSAC community. Techniques evaluated had to at
least meet the following criteria:
1. Preferably require small sarnple size
2. Produce statistically repeatable results
3. Degrade the fluid in a reasonable time period
4. Be able to degrade fluids at different temperatures
516 Tbi,
Note on viscosity plots: Since the times to degrade the
various fluids with these techniques is a variable controlled by
the shear stresses imposed by the method, the horizontal axis
labels are variable for each data figure. In certain instances the
horizontal axis is adjusted to make the viscosity resulting from
the technique match the viscosity of the fluids from the
vehicles. In all cases the horizontal axis conditions will be
indicated for ease of understanding. The fluids used in this
report are a series of reference fluids provided by members of
the team. In most cases the fluids provided are OEM factory
fill fluids and they are identified as fluids A through E.
Fuel Injector Shear Stability Test (FISST,
ASTM D 3945)

2
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

Description and Test Procedure

This test, first introduced in 1980, was developed through the

ASTM Committee on Petroleum Products and Lubricants. The
test is one of two procedures, procedure A and procedure B,
included in the ASTM D 3945 - 80, titled, “Shear Stability of
Polymer-Containing Fluids Using a .Diesel Injector Nozzle”.
Test Procedure A is identified as the “European Diesel
Injector Test” and Procedure B is identified as the “Fuel
I I /
Injector Shear Stability Test (FISST:l. The first test procedure ! I
was not evaluated for this program and will not be discussed I
further. 0 20 40 60 80 loo 120

flSST Passes
Nozzle Holder
+ I
Figure 3A: Viscosity Changes with FISST Passes - Fluid B
Viscosity measurement were also made of fluid B removed
from transmissions with different kilometer accumulations to
Lower
establish whether a correlation exists between the viscosity
Reservoir changes produced by FISST and those produced by action of
passage through the vehicle components. The viscosity of
+
Drain fluids was measured after accumulations of up to 100,000
miles (62500 Kilometers). The results of the viscosity
measurement of fluid from vehicles are reported as Figure 3B.

Figure 2: Schematic of the FISST Apparatus

A schematic of the test apparatus for the FISST is shown in

Figure 2. The fluid is introduced into the device through a
pump and repeatedly forced through the fuel injector until a
specified number of passes have been completed. The fluid is
then drained from the apparatus throu.gh the solenoid drain
valve and its kinematic viscosity measured.
The injector design and details are provided in the ASTM
Specification D-4983 and are not repeated here. The
clearances of the injector are adjusted to a preset level using
the shearing of a reference fluid by passage through the
system a preset number of times at controlled temperature and
pressure. The viscosity is then measured and must fall within
set parameters for the reference fluid. The performance
characteristics of the injector equipment having been verified
the fluid whose shear resistance is to be measured is then put
through the injector for a prearranged number of passes. The
fluid viscosity is then measured and reported as a function of
FISST passes. The identification of the reference fluids and
the repeatability and reproducibility parameters of the test
results are provided in the ASTM specification.
Results
Fluid B was investigated by one OEM using this technique.
The fluid was subjected to many passes through the FISST
and the viscosity changes as a function of those passes plotted
on figure 3A.
ii4
% I
-5 2 f
ii
.- I
> *
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Vehicle Mileage
Figure 3B: Viscosity Changes with Vehicle Mileage - Fluid B
In this instance it is evident that the viscosity of fluid degraded
by FISST at 20 passes matches the viscosity of the fluid from
vehicles using Fluid B after 5,000 miles (3125Km). We can
also say that FISST at 20 passes using Fluid B matches the
viscosity of the fluid from vehicles at 5,000 miles (3125Km).
Based on 20 passes as a good correlation point between the
FISST results and the vehicle performance results, this number
of passes was applied to other reference fluids supplied by
ILSAC members. The fluid viscosity for these fluids are all
reported in Table 2 and indicate that several fluids exhibit
shear degradation after 20 passes through the injector while
others show little or no effect.

3
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

the fluid held at a specified temperature and time. The

Table 2. Viscosity losses of 5 ILSAC fluids after 20 pass viscosity at 100°C is measured and reported after testing.
FISST Some details of the device and the operating parameters are
~~ shown in Figures 5.
Kinematic Viscosity at 100°C, cSt

Unused After 20 passes Viscosity Loss %

Fluid A 7.655 7.54 4.12
Fluid B 7.68 5.88 23.42
Fluid C 7.39 7.:36 0.40
Fluid D 7.53 6.03 19.92
Fluid E 7.68 5.69 25.91

Fluid B and C have been evaluated in vehicles and the

viscosity plotted simultaneously with the viscosity changes
noted after FISST in Figure 4. ‘The correlation between the
FISST and the vehicle performance with Fluid B is very good.
There, however, is no correlation between the FISST and the
vehicle viscosity changes for Fluid C. Fluid C is not
sufficiently stressed by the process.
8 within 10 minutes. When the reference fluid has been placed
7.5 7 radiated for 1 hour and checked for viscosity loss. When the
Ll
I I I I I I
Figure 5. Sonic Shear Stability Test Device (Schematic)
The JASO specification used for this procedure is identified as
JASO M347-95. The system is calibrated using a reference
fluid that must undergo a 30% viscosity reduction at 100°C
in the beaker surrounded by cooling water at 40°C, it is
system has been stabilized to reduce the standard viscosity
sample by 30% the system is ready to receive the candidate.
The candidate fluid is placed in the cleaned beaker and cooled
as the standard fluid. The oscillator cone is positioned above
the fluid sample and the oscillator is started for 60 minutes.
The sample is then removed and its kinematic viscosity
measured at 100°C. The % viscosity loss is calculated and
reported. The ILSAC reference fluids were examined using
this device and the results are reported in Table 3.

Table 3. Viscosity Loss Measured After Sonic Shear

Testing

Kinematic Viscosity at l.OO°C, cSt

Unused After Sonic Test Viscosity Loss, %

Figure 4. The Relationship of Vehicle Kilometers to Number Fluid A 7.55 6.80 9.9
of FISST Passes for Fluid B and Fluid C Fluid B 7.89 5.22 33.8
Fluid C 7.47 7.09 5.1
Sonic Shear Test Fluid D 7.11 5.29 25.6
Fluid E 7,97 4,78 40.0
Description and Test Procedure

The FISST requires that the fluid being degraded come in

contact with the parts of the devices that are shearing the
additive components. A second shear-generating device has
been developed and it too has been derived from an ASTM
procedure. This technique uses acoustic emissions to alter the
molecular weights of the additive system components and
therefore change the viscosity of the fluid. Sound waves of a
specific energy and frequency are directed into a container of
Results
In addition to the standard one-hour test from which the data
in Table 3 are obtained, two of the ILSAC fluids, A and C,
were subjected to extended Sonic Shear Tests of 3,5 and 10
hours. The viscosity loss data from the extended tests are
compared to viscosity loss data for those same fluids after

4
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

vehicle test. The comparison is shown in Figure 6. The data

indicates a good correlation between the Sonic test and the
vehicle tests. There is no comparison of viscosity data after 10
hours which corresponds to viscosity changes measured at
55,000 kilometers.

50,000 100,000
VehicleDistance in Kilometers

Fluid A Fluid C Sonic -Fluid A Sonic - Fluid C

-a-- + -.+..-
Figure 7. Cycling Test Apparatus

Figure 6. Viscosity of ILSAC Fluid A and C as Function of

Vehicle Kilometers and After Sonic Shear Hours The results from the cycling test are plotted against vehicle
kilometers for IISAC reference fluids A and E are shown in
figure 8. The results indicate good correlation between the
DEXRON@lII Cycling Test vehicle kilometers and the cycling test for approximately
10,000 kilometers. As the test progresses, used oil viscosity
Description and Test Procedure begins to increase as previously mentioned. Thus the cycling
test correlation with the vehicle distance in kilometers is not
The DEXRON III cycling test incorporates the use of an very good at high kilometers.
operational transmission driven by an automotive engine
similar to that seen in figure 7. Two major components of the
assembly (the engine and transmission) can be seen in the
photograph. The cycling test consists of 20,000 cycles, each
about 45 seconds in duration, using forty percent throttle
accelerations through 1-2,2-3,and 3-4 shifts. The transmission
test begins with a complete rebuilt transmission, new friction
material and fresh fluid. Fluid samples are removed from the
transmission at 5000 cycle intervals and the viscosity
measured at 40°C and 100°C. The cycling test primarily
evaluates friction characteristics, but includes requirements of
fluid viscosity as well as fluid effects on overall transmission
performance. Since the cycling test evaluates fluid shear
stability in an operating transmission, it should be the best
indicator of fluid shear stability in actual vehicle use.
However, because the cycling test is conducted at sump fluid I I I i
44
temperature of 130°C, fluid oxidation results in fluid
0
thickening as the test progresses so that the fluid viscosity may
never reach the lowest possible sheared viscosity. In addition
to the high test temperature drawbaclc to the cycling test, two
other factors preclude the use of the cycling test as a “bench- I -+-MA +-R.idE +-FWA-qdpg +WdE-qdirg
type” shear stability test. Those factors are the time involved
to run the test, about 222 hours, and the high cost of the test. Figure 8. Comparison of viscosity of fluids tested in cycling
test vs viscosity of fluids from vehicle used in field.

5
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

Table 4. Viscosity Loss Measured After Cycling Test Table 5. Shear stability changes after KRL test.

Kinematic Viscosity at 100°C, cSt Kinematic Visocisity at 100°C, cSt

Unused After 20k cycles Viscosity Loss % Unused After 20 hrs KRL Viscosity Loss %
Fluid A 7.51 7.13 5 Fluid A 7.51 6.36 15
Fluid C 7.49 7.41 1 Fluid B 7.88 5.017 36
Fluid E 7.85 5.50 30 Fluid C 7.49 6.58 12
Fluid D 7.35 4.93 33
Fluid E 7.85 4.55 42

KRL Tapered Roller Bearing Test

reported above and are reported in Table 5. Fluid C shows the
Description and Test Procedure greatest resistance to shear using this method with Fluid A
showing the second best resistance.

The KRL device uses a tapered bearing driven by a Shell 4-

ball tester which continually passes fluid through the roller
surfaces and the inner and outer race of a tapered roller
bearing. The test bearing is totally immersed in the fluid to be
tested. The test is conducted at 160°C under a constant load of
5000 N for fixed numbers of revolutions. High stresses,
created between the rolling mernbers of the bearing and the
races, shear the molecules and reduce the viscosity of the
fluid. The fluid kinematic viscosity is measured before and
after the test to determine the arnount of permanent
degradation. Details of the test can be found in the DIN
specification DIN 5 l-350 and are not reported here. The
length of time for the test can be set at one of three options of
4, 8 or 20 hours. The 20-hour test time was chosen for this
test and it is equivalent to 1,740,OOO revolutions of the motor.
The viscosity of the degraded fluid is obtained at 100°C and
+ R&A +RudE +RudA-KFL x FkidE-IR
the relative viscosity decrease can be reported as percentage
loss from the original sample. The repeatability and
reproducibility are indicated in the specification.
Figure 10. Chart showing viscosity changes of fluids from
vehicles and corresponding viscosity changes after 20 hours
KRL.

The sheared viscosity of ILSAC Reference Fluids A and E

after 20 hours in the KRL are placed on the plot of the
viscosity data from the vehicles as a function of kilometers.
The points at which the KRL viscosity data matches the
vehicle viscosity data, a correlation is said to be established..
This is shown in Figure 10 for these two fluids.

Discussion:

Four different methods of degrading transmissions fluids have

been presented. Each in order of presentation represents
improvement in the capabilities to degrade very shear stable
fluids as well as match viscosity changes noted in fluids
removed from customer vehicles.
FISST. This report indicates that this test is adequate for
Figure 9. Schematic of KRL App$a.ratus fluids with non-shear resistant or easily sheared additives but
provides insufficient stresses to degrade more stable fluid

6
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018
additives. The fuel injector set up as used in this test
procedure, however, is inadequate for fluids such as Fluid C.
Regardless of the number of passes through the injectors no
measurable effect on the viscosity was evident. Adjustments
may be made to the nozzle geometry to increase the shear
stresses imposed on fluids passing through the injector but no
experiments were conducted to determine their effect. One
advantage of this test is that all the fluid passes through the
injector orifice and is subjected to the same shear stresses as
any other part of the fluid. This may not be the case in the
other techniques discussed in this paper.
Sonic Shear Tests: The sonic shear test imparts a more
severe stress to the fluids. The intensity of the sonic waves
generated in the apparatus has been found adequate to change
the viscosity of Fluid A and C whereas little effect was
observed on these fluids when tested using the FISST
procedure. Fluid B, D and E have similarly undergone a
further reduction of viscosity than with the FISST using this
method. As was noted with the former method, no tests were
conducted to determine if the test procedure could be changed
by increased intensity of the sonic wa.ves. The advantages of
using the sonic shear test include small sample size and
sufficient stress to degrade fluids not affected by the FISST.
DEXRON@ III Cycling Test: The: cycling test has an
advantage over the other tests discussed in that it is performed
in a functioning transmission operation driven by an engine. It
provides a direct measurement of viscosity loss with cycles of
the transmission while the test is being conducted. All the
other techniques require that samples be removed from
vehicles to determine viscosity change correlation between the
vehicles and the test apparatus. However because this test is
run at 130°C, fluid oxidation and the resultant thickening can
mask the shear stability (or lack of) of the test fluid.
Disadvantages of the Cycling Test over other test methods are
the volume of fluid required, the cost of required equipment to
perform the test, and time to complete the test.
KRL Tapered Roller Bearing Test: The KRL test provides
the greatest shear stresses to any fluid. investigated., This
procedure is capable of degrading the most shear stable fluid
available. The KRL test is relatively easy to perform. Since
the KRL is capable of shearing the most stable of fluids in a
bench test guarantees that it can provide a relationship to shear
degradation measured for any vehicle as a function of usage.
CONCLUSION
Although many techniques are available for evaluating the
shear stabililty of transmission fluids, the KRL test procedure
is the most acceptable. It requires a small volume of oil, is
capable of being used at high temperatures, is capable of
shearing the most shear stable fluid available and is becoming
more widely used. Of the 5 fluids examined Fluid C was
found to be the most shear stable.
1. FISST is not able to shear very stable fluids although it
may reduce viscosity to match field performance with
some non-shear stable fluids.
2. The SONIC shear test is adequate for more shear stable
fluids than FISST but still is not capable for some very
stable fluids.
3. The DEXRONB -111 Cycling Test is better than the
FISST but requires a substantial investment in equipment,
and takes a significantly longer time to run.
4. The KRL test is able to reduce viscosity of all fluids
tested, including the most shear stable.
5. Extended length Sonic Shear test results match those
obtained with the KRL.
6. The KRL data is easily correlated to vehicle viscosity
changes regardless of vehicle type and will be the most
probable method of choice for future shear stability tests
for ILSAC members companies
References:
1. J.L. Linden, S.P. Kemp, “Improved Transaxle
Performance at Low Temperature with Reduced Viscosity
Automatic Transmission Fluids”, SAE Paper 870356
2. MERCON Automatic Transmission Fluid Specification,
available form Ford Motor Company, Livonia MI 48 15 1
3. DEXRON -111 Automatic Transmission Fluid
Specification, GM-6297M, available form GM ATF
Committee, GM Global Research and Development
Center, M/C 480-106-160, Warren, MI 48090, April 1993
4. JASO Test Method 348-95, Japanese Automobile
Standard Test Method for Friction Properties of
Automatic Transmission Fluids, available from Japanese
Automobile Manufacturers Association, Tokyo, Japan
5. CEC Test Method CEC L-45-T-93 - Viscosity Shear
Stability of Transmission Lubricants (KRL-Tapered
Roller Bearing Test Rig) Shear Stability Test, 1993,
Available from Coordinating European Council, Madou
Plaza - 25* Floor , Place Madou 1 B-1030 Brussels,
Belgium
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to recognize the efforts of the AAMA and
the JAMA staff for keeping the information flowing between
the two committees and for their patience while we conducted
the necessary work of ILSAC. We particularly wish to thank
Mr. James Steiger of AAMA and Mr. Hirokazu Furukawa of
JAMA.