The reference to the technical paper =93cavedweller=94 provided was beneficial. It didn=92t answer the question specifically but it allowed me to formulate a far better defense for my seemingly illogical decision to pay more for the same =93type=94 of transmission fluid. There are still a lot of holes in my argument but here=92s the gist:
Standards were set for (just who and how SAE and ASTM standards are set?) the industry concerning transmission fluids. I presume they have to deal with viscosity at established levels over time and temperature (I don=92t know who does that either; who determines specs for =93Type=94? ).
It appears these =93standards=94 are rather broad-based in nature. However, due to the complexities of transmissions and the multitude of designs, the level of performance engineered into any specific transmission may not be fully addressed by these given fluid types as exemplified by the technical paper mentioned here. These are more refined levels of performance speced for any given transmission that go beyond the guidelines of published =93types=94. For example, my Chrysler transmission may be designed to perform at temperatures specified by Type F fluids but is really built to perform beyond the time frame and temperature set forth by Type F and they=92ve developed a fluid to meet those more stringent specs with the aid of several third parties.
If that=92s true, then using anything less may (not necessarily will) not perform as well and may even shorten component life. Which leads the ultimate consumer faced with that ever recurring question=85. just how luck do you feel today!
I=92m stickin=92 with Mopar! Thanks for all the input.