This forum is exclusively to address ATF fluids, their applications, etc. Feel free to discuss the "facts", but save the flaming for private. Please ask all other transmission-related questions (such as parts) in the Engine & Drivetrain forum.
Finally, I want to report that I am in the process of obtaining a case of Type A Suffix A fluid. Will advise of cost, etc, in case anyone else wants the "Real McCoy" original stuff in their car.
Stef
Type A Suffix A is still available today (new manufacture, not 40 year old stuff)I think I read on some board that it was still used on some farm machines and was easy to get at any Farm Supply. It also shows up occasionally at chain auto parts stores in quarts or gallons when someone made a mistake in ordering. [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
Like Lugnut says, I would not use it today when Dexron is available.
I read on some board that it was still used on some farm machines and was easy to get at any Farm Supply.
TYPE A fluid is still used in many specialty truck and earth moving equipment applications, such as garbage truck hydraulics, and front end loader hydraulics.
I'm going to repeat from one of my earlier posts to some extent and particularly when it comes to rebuilt or rebuilding any Ford supplied or Ford Manufactured transmission.
If any vintage Ford automatic transmission is rebuilt today, the clutches and bands will not be of the same material as was originally put in the transmission unless one comes up with an old kit (not a real good idea since clutch, band materials and seals have a shelf life). The new materials from what I'm told have no problem with using Dexron/Mercon fluids, or Type F.
As I mentioned before rebuilders today are going to fill any transmission they rebuild with Dexron/Mercon unless they are told to do otherwise. Why? Because they buy fluid in 55 gallon drums and prefer to have only one fluid type in their pumping system. If someone specifies they want to use Type A or Type F someone is going to be running to the parts store to pick up enough to fill the specific transmission.
The bottom line is still this: If your transmission has not be rebuilt use only the type of fluid specified in the manuals. If it has been rebuilt make sure you know what was put into it before assuming it was filled with the fluid specified in the manual, if the manual specifies Type F. If the manual specifies Type A, Dexron or Mercon fluids can be safely added, but not Type F.
If the manual specifies Type F, and the transmission is known to be filled with Type F, then it should have only Type F added to it to top it off.
In reality, aside from just satisfying curiosity, it makes no real difference when Ford changed specs or the nature of the change of specs if one follows their manuals or has made note of the fluid type in their transmission having been changed to another type after a rebuild. It is the responsibility of each vintage car owner to acquire the manuals for their given car to insure not only proper transmission maintenance but all maintenance. And it doesn't hurt if they read them after they acquire them, if they didn't get them with the car.
Willard: Thanks for the offer. Which SAE paper do you wish to purchase? All three? They $12.00 each. I see you live not far from me so I could give them to you in person. That might be fun. I'll be at the Northstar brunch next weekend, incidentally.
Lugnut: I think you are probably right: a transmission rebuilt using current clutch and band material should probably use the fluid for which it was designed, most likely Dexron/Mercon. One would need to determine that the rebuilder did in fact use such material. I understand that the FMX used bronze clutch material and its characteristics demanded Type F. If one had such a transmission recently rebuilt, then it would bear close questioning on the fluid/clutch material match. Also, I concur with you that, for non-rebuilt transmissions such as the one in my '60 Lincoln, one will not go wrong using the original fluid. That is why I am going to obtain some Type A Suffix A for the occasional top-off. When the transmission eventually is rebuilt then I'll have to use a fluid appropriate for the clutch and band materials. Yes, some of what we are speaking about has to do with curiosity. Nonetheless, I think that in the process we can gain some knowledge that might have practical value. And, of course, I too encourage all owners obtain a set of manuals for their cars. I think is almost irresponsible to operate a collector car--or any car--without these manuals. Thanks, also, on the Type A Suffix availability.
Kultulz: My statement is based solely on the Ford literature or products as discussed in one of my earlier posts. By deductive logic:
1)The 1956 to 1960 Lincoln maintenance manuals originally called for Type A (Ford P/N 8L19582) and then Type A Suffix A
2)C1AZ19582 is Type F, which, itself meets M2C33-F
3)C1AZ19582 is specified by the Lincoln Parts Catalogs dated Jan.1963 and Nov. 1964 for the 1956 to 1964 Lincolns (and others)
4)C1AZ19582 is specified by the OSIs dated Nov. 1960 and Jan. 1963 as interchangeable with the early P/Ns from the Type A era (8L19582, et seq.). This is confirmed by an actual can of C1AZ19582.
5)Type F of other manufacture, if made i/a/w M2C33-F is equivalent to the Ford Type F sold as C1AZ19582.
Therefore, if all 5 foregoing premises are true, then Type F may be used in Type A fluid Lincolns. If any one of these premises is false, then one cannot use Type F in Type A fluid Lincolns. If anyone can, using an empirical basis--not a rational basis--refute any of these premises then
I would have to retract my statement.
Notwithstanding Fords literature and product information, would I personally throw in a batch of Type F into my transmission of old Type A? No I would not. I might have done so if the Type A were relatively recent but my transmission fluid has ancient Type A and old seals, therefore I want to add a fluid that is the least different from what is there now so as to minimize leakage. For any top-off I use Type A Suffix A. When it gets rebuilt then, as mentioned above, I would likely use a current version of Dexron provided I am satisfied on the clutch and band material question. I concur that Dexron cannot be substituted for Type F, if by that you mean mix the two.
Eddie: thanks for providing that info. on availability of Type A Suffix A fluid. And I agree, for a newly rebuilt transmission I would use Dexron instead of Type A Suffix A for cars originally calling for the latter, provided that clutch and band material are designed for Dexron.empirical Stef
4)C1AZ19582 is specified by the OSIs dated Nov. 1960 and Jan. 1963 as interchangeable with the early P/Ns from the Type A era (8L19582, et seq.). This is confirmed by an actual can of C1AZ19582.
You need to supply these said TSB's. TYPE F fluid is in no now way backfill for TYPE A, and vice-versa. I think you have mis-read the info as it is allowable to top off a low trans in an emergengy.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KULTULZ:
<STRONG>
You need to supply these said TSB's. TYPE F fluid is in no now way backfill for TYPE A, and vice-versa. I think you have mis-read the info as it is allowable to top off a low trans in an emergengy.
</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The can label I was referring to was a qt. of Rotunda A.T.F., Ford Part Number C1AZ19582, an image of which is located at http://www.geocities.com/vitas00/LINCOLNS/rotundaatf106.html
While its clear from the label that one can't use Type A fluid in Ford built cars filled with the C1AZ19582 (in later years referred to as Type F), the label does clearly state that it (the C1AZ19582 in the Rotunda container) "may be mixed with all other transmission fluids". This is consistent with what the Parts Catalogs and the OSI's state. Therefore premise #4 still stands.
I fully agree with you that we need to locate and read the relevant TSBs as, hopefully, they will satisfy every one of us. They've got to be out there somewhere. Tomorrow is another day.
CAUTION: To retain the lifetime feature in FORD-built cars, up to one quart of competitive Type "A" fluids may be used to bring the fluid level to the "FULL" mark.
This same statement was given in a 1962 shop manual here.
When are all the "slant eye" and "slab side" owners going to check their owners manuals and or dipsticks for any information? I think only one person actually posted dipstick info and that was for a '67? Let's go people, you cant let other people do all the work while you sit on your butts [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img] Just the facts, please [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KULTULZ:
<STRONG>
And I disagree. If going on your premise (and there are mistakes made in FORD literature) there are no differences in hydraulic fluids.
Exactly what issue date of the OSI says A was replaced by F?</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My premise #4 does NOT state or imply that there are "no differences" in hydraulic fluids. There ARE differences. The can label implies a one-way interchangeability. What the can label is saying is that you can use the Rotunda fluid in place of other ATFs: "may be mixed with all other transmission fluids", but not the other way around: "up to one quart only of competitive Type A fluid may be used in emergencies". To me that implies that you can use the Rotunda fluid (C1AZ19582, later called Type F)in place of the Type A fluid in the older cars. What does the statement "[Rotunda]..may be mixed with all other transmission fluids" mean to you? How do YOU interpret that??
I agree that literature can be mistaken. But what are the chances that 2 Parts Catalogs AND 2 OSIs are all wrong? The issue date of the earliest OSI that says Type A (MK19582)was replaced by C1AZ19582 (later referred to as Type F) was dated January, 1963. However the 56-59 Lincoln Parts Catalog, specifies C1AZ19582 even earlier: October, 1961.
Like I say, we can't derive any further information from the parts catalogs and OSIs for the period 1956 to 1960 than this. We all agree that we need to see the TSBs. I suggest we concentrate our efforts on finding them.
I agree that literature can be mistaken. But what are the chances that 2 Parts Catalogs AND 2 OSIs are all wrong? The issue date of the earliest OSI that says Type A (MK19582)was replaced by C1AZ19582 (later referred to as Type F) was dated January, 1963. However the 56-59 Lincoln Parts Catalog, specifies C1AZ19582 even earlier: October, 1961.
Here is my position. The parts literature can be wrong if the parts supercession was incorrect. What is the publication date on the 56/59 LINC catalog? It has to be a later final issue to have a 1961 PN listed in it. I think this is where the problem origionates. It was then carried over to the OSI catalog.
It is common knowledge that substitution of a TYPE F fluid will cause hard and erratic shifting characteristics in a trans built for TYPE A (DEXRON).
Now, are we saying that the first release of SPEC. M2C33 was actually an advanced TYPE A SUFFIX A for the period? Why would the fluid carry the same SPEC. M2C33 F when we know that particular fluid is positively TYPE F and then even later in the seventies FORD changed back to DEXRON because of internal friction material changes?
Until I see the exact TSB or SAE paper, I do not recommend DEXRON/MERCON (TYPE A and TYPE A SUFFIX A are so out of date that it is only used as a cheap hydraulic fluid now) for a backfill of any origional FORD trans from 49/61.
The big snag in all of these discussions has been the C1AZ19582 part number, which is clearly of 1961 origin with no specification number clearly dated in 1961.
It is time to look at this with reason. In automotive manufacturing/engineering it is quite common for part numbers to be assigned years before the product used upon is actually offered to the public or officially enters the dealer parts system. This appears to be one of those cases.
This simply means the owner's and shop manuals for the given year vehicle is the last word until some later TSB specifies something else for the specific vehicle.
Candidly, this discussion needs to be closed. It has reached the point it is not serving any beneficial purpose to those participating in these forums.
There is no way C1AZ prefix would be in a 56/59 publication unless the publication had been printed after that date. It is called Final Issue or misprint.
I have no need to call FORD as I have a full understanding of how their parts system works.
There is no way C1AZ prefix would be in a 56/59 publication unless the publication had been printed after that date. It is called Final Issue or misprint.
Who said the C1AZ prefix appeared in a pre '61 model year manual? Certainly wasn't me, and I don't recall seeing such a reference in any of the various threads and rants concerning the subject.
I have no need to call FORD as I have a full understanding of how their parts system works.
May well be true, but it is quite obvious you lack any knowledge whatsoever about getting a car to the market and production planning before the assembly line cranks up on a new model.
Go take another Prozac before you go into "I'm making an objectionable fool of myself again" mode.
hi all, have read all posts as for 40 year old fluid I will take all I can get as there is whale oil in it. the class that I took the instructor said it was used to help in the cluch packs not burn and help keep the seals soft and anti forming, we don't kill whales any more thank god. thanks for the info. jerry
