Very interesting information, Charon9
Thank you for posting it.

I am not sure I agree completely with it,
primarily because the different ATF's have been found to have different effects on
'torque converter shutter'
and I have experienced this personally with
ATF+2 versus Mobil One Synthetic ATF in a 46RH.

I am also not confident that you can categorize ATF performance inside the torque converter strictly on viscosity at different temperatures,
and I am not confident that viscosity alone is all you need to know for gear and bearing lubrication.
Other measures like film strength:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timken_OK_Load

have been proven important in other high load applications, and I have seen this personally in mining equipment.

It has been awhile, but I did once read the 14 page SAE paper # 982674 that Chrysler, Lubrizol, and Texaco Lubricant engineers wrote about 9602 ATF (called +4) was superior:

http://u225.torque.net/cars/tech/trans/982674.pdf

Most of what I know about lubricants I learned from Lubrication Engineering, Inc of Texas, so I might be biased.

I had a long interesting telephone conversation years ago with an engineer at
Universal Lubricants,
the maker of Lubegard 'Red Bottle',
the company founded by an ex-Mobil One engineer who got a US gov grant to turn agricultural plant oils into a substitute for (no kidding) Sperm Whale oil that used to be in ATF formulations.

Your post indicates you are interested in ATF for Dodge automatics (and open minded)
so I would urge you to read 982674 too,
and give your comments.

I am not completely sold on 9602 myself now,
because within 1200 miles after I put new 9602 ATF+4 in my (very high mileage) 46RH in place of ATF+3 plus Lubegard,
the friction facing materials came off my torque converter lockup clutch.