5HP -19 Fluid?
- Thread starter BMW Dom
- Start date
D
Deleted member 89374
The specifications for the Lifeguard 5 fluid are: https://aftermarket.zf.com/remoteme...ts-psd-msd/lifeguardfluid-5/pds-zflgf5-en.pdf
Being an older fluid, Red Line D4 or AMSOIL ATF (red cap) is a good choice, though I would lean towards Red Line D4.
Valvoline MaxLife is a Group III ATF that does not meet the viscosity requirements of the Lifeguard 5 fluid specifications.
The most modern option would be HPL ATF Blue. It's got the most up-to-date additive package. This is a Group III+ based ATF.
The is also an all-PAO version of it called ATF Blue CC. Their CC versions are all-PAO. If you have questions about this ATF you should definitively contact @High Performance Lubricants. It is a good product.
High Performance Lubricants ATF:
Being an older fluid, Red Line D4 or AMSOIL ATF (red cap) is a good choice, though I would lean towards Red Line D4.
Valvoline MaxLife is a Group III ATF that does not meet the viscosity requirements of the Lifeguard 5 fluid specifications.
The most modern option would be HPL ATF Blue. It's got the most up-to-date additive package. This is a Group III+ based ATF.
The is also an all-PAO version of it called ATF Blue CC. Their CC versions are all-PAO. If you have questions about this ATF you should definitively contact @High Performance Lubricants. It is a good product.
High Performance Lubricants ATF:
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2020
- Messages
- 2,411
Yeah, I really like the looks of the HPL products, but I need to to multiple drain and fills, to get rid of the old fluid. Maybe another time
I'm just looking for the most economical way to do multiple drain and fills.
The Maxlife claims to be compatible with the spec. I could see how this could be since the Lifeguard 5 is probably similar to a DEX III, which was succeeded by DEX VI, due to it having a higher sheered viscosity.
And with Redline D4, I could use FCPs Lifetime Replacement, and just have to pay for the initial purchase of the fluid.
LMK what you think - thanks
Although it's pretty steep, they do have the actual OEM fluid at FCP
ZF Lifeguard 5 Automatic Transmission Fluid (1 Liter) - 83229407807
ZF Lifeguard 5 Automatic Transmission Fluid (1 Liter) - 83229407807
www.fcpeuro.com
D
Deleted member 89374
You're very welcome
I think that Maxlife is blended to a price point, first and foremost. They probably cut some corners. It's also a mismatch for viscosity as it's not even close to Lifeguard 5 fluid.
Red Line D4 is a good option if HPL is not in your cards. I would definitively go for that.
Here are the flash points for Red Line ATFs:
I hope this info helps
Last edited by a moderator:
Maxlife will be fine
D
Deleted member 89374
Valvoline Maxlife's transmission compatibility list and performance claims are only limited by the space on the back of the jug. That would be okay, except for the fact that I take issue with recommendations for applications that require a TES-295 or Lifeguard 5. No one in their right might will put this fluid in an expensive Allison transmission that's used in a commercial application, not to mention that it's a very good way to have your warranty voided when said transmission fails. Someone had a field day writing the OEM compatibility list at Valvoline, and that's just plain wrong. I mean, you look at a manufacturer like ZF who painstakingly created documentation (ZF TE-ML) addressing compatible fluids, including approved fluids, for every transaxle, differential, and transmission they make, and Valvoline here claims to be compatible with all of them. That's not possible.Maxlife will be fine
I am not saying that it is a bad product, and it is priced fair for what it is. However, given its viscometric properties, it would be more appropriate for a ZF 8HP transmission than for a 5HP.
Ultimately if @BMW Dom tries to save a few dollars up front, he might end up spending serious money down the road.
MolaKule
Staff member
How did you determine that it is blended to a price point and that Valvoline cut some corners?
Do you have a comprehensive or "forensics" analyses of the chemistry you would like to share?
The viscosity differential between the two is about 1.5 cSt, but what is the frictional Mu(v) stability or viscosity of LifeGuard 5 after 40,000 miles?
MolaKule
Staff member
How so?
The DI ATF package (as are most DI packages) is formulated with appropriate base oils and tested in actual hardware for compatibility.
I think ZF LG5 is equal to ESSO LT71141(OEM supplier)
D
Deleted member 89374
@MolaKule, first and foremost, please accept my apologies, as my remarks were not meant to portray any single product in a negative light. Your comments are reasonable and well-founded. However, please understand that there is a difference in perspective between how you see lubrication products as an experienced formulator and the information that I have access to as a hobbyist, consumer, and commercial consumer. My access to information is limited, and at times marketing makes drawing sound conclusions an even more convoluted process. Therefore, I tend to err on the side of caution and take a relatively conservative approach to any advice I give. However, time, and the willingness of others to read everything I post, don't allow me to detail my thought process. However, you absolutely deserve an explanation for the statements that I made.
I am also open-minded and welcome all the information that I can get from someone as experienced and well-versed in lubrication science as yourself. Conclusively, I welcome all corrections to the previously made statements and the ones I am making here.
Based on anecdotal evidence gathered from multiple forums over the years, I concluded that DYI-ers such as myself had experienced problems with just about any brand of Multi-Vehicle ATF. Their problems were caused mainly by inexperience or insufficient knowledge about changing transmission fluid or other already present defects.
I have also read your comments about people mistakenly thinking that formulators blend oils to a price point. And I agree with your statements. However, I am also a realist and know that every company has cost accountants whose responsibility is to keep the company they work for profitable. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that material choices that go into products are made based on price points. If you consider transportation, packaging, distribution, marketing, profitability, and the retail price of Valvoline Maxlife, then it is not hard to see how every penny has been accounted for. I seriously doubt that Valvoline is selling Maxlife as a loss leader.
Even additive manufacturers such as Afton Chemicals advertise profitability and price points in their ATF marketing literature:
Full PDF document here: https://www.aftonchemical.com/Afton.../PDS/HiTEC-2414B/HiTEC-2414B_PDS.pdf?ext=.pdf
In the case of Valvoline Maxlife, I have no way of knowing what materials Valvoline chose to use for their ATF blend. However, based on this information that I have access to, what conclusion could I draw? Other than they blended it to meet certain performance criteria at a certain price point. Also, as I consumer I do not have any access to test data showing that shows performance data of Maxlife.
Now, as a consumer, how could I possibly know the condition of LifeGuard 5 after 40K miles? Or that of any other fluid for that matter. It's also influenced by driving style (highway vs. grueling city driving), vehicle load, towing, etc. Take that vehicle consistently to the track or drag race it and we'll see how long the fluid and transmission last.
And that's perfectly fine when it comes to personal vehicles and applications because OEMs treat them differently. If, for example, you look at the ZF TE-ML documentation, you will notice that for personal vehicles the term "lifetime fill" comes up quite often when talking about differentials and transmission fluids. However, when it comes to commercial applications, ZF provides fluid change intervals.
The commercial vs. personal application criticism extends to other brands as well. I have yet to see someone driving a truck with an Allison transmission that uses MaxLife, Red Line D4, or AMSOIL MV ATF. They all use Delvac 1 ATF, Castril Transynd, or Shell Spirax S6 A295.
And while a vehicle manufacturer might not void a warranty if the customer used an aftermarket ATF that was listed by the ATF manufacturer as compatible with his transmission, when it comes to the commercial world, things are different. Yes, some fleet operators will maximize cost savings and buy the cheapest fluids they can get and deal with the consequences. I have seen firsthand the damage that inappropriate (as in cheap) gear oil or transmission fluid does in a truck. As such, most fleets will use appropriately rated fluids that carry OEM approvals. For those people "meets and exceeds" doesn't mean anything.
Back to personal vehicles, when it comes to Multi-Vehicle ATFs, recommendations can be made only on reputation. I am a hobbyist and an enthusiast, so it comes naturally to me to recommend the products that I use. I have never used Valvoline MaxLife ATF in a vehicle, and probably never will. I have used AMSOIL ATF, ATL, Red Line D4, and recently D6, and I know HPL by reputation and I recently purchased their motor oil, transmission fluid, and gear oil. I use and recommend products that are marketed for personal-performance applications. Valvoline MaxLife is not marketed as such. Does that make it a bad product? Absolutely not. However, I don't think that Valvoline tested it in all of those applications that they recommend it for. Maybe they didn't test it in any and are just going by the specifications provided by their additive supplier. And this could be very well the case for other blenders. However, with blenders such as AMSOIL, Red Line, and HPL, at the very least I have the confidence that they used high-quality materials because for them it is not paramount to meet a price point.
I am also open-minded and welcome all the information that I can get from someone as experienced and well-versed in lubrication science as yourself. Conclusively, I welcome all corrections to the previously made statements and the ones I am making here.
I made an assumption based on the fact that this transmission fluid is sold in a price-sensitive market. Valvoline MaxLife used to cost $17.99 a gallon for a very long time, and currently, Walmart sells it for $22.98. Given current economic conditions and the fact that it's sold out everywhere around here where I live, it is clear that this product enjoys a high degree of popularity. Does it make it the best? No, it does not. However, people are happy with it as long as they can get from A to B while using it.
Based on anecdotal evidence gathered from multiple forums over the years, I concluded that DYI-ers such as myself had experienced problems with just about any brand of Multi-Vehicle ATF. Their problems were caused mainly by inexperience or insufficient knowledge about changing transmission fluid or other already present defects.
I have also read your comments about people mistakenly thinking that formulators blend oils to a price point. And I agree with your statements. However, I am also a realist and know that every company has cost accountants whose responsibility is to keep the company they work for profitable. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that material choices that go into products are made based on price points. If you consider transportation, packaging, distribution, marketing, profitability, and the retail price of Valvoline Maxlife, then it is not hard to see how every penny has been accounted for. I seriously doubt that Valvoline is selling Maxlife as a loss leader.
Even additive manufacturers such as Afton Chemicals advertise profitability and price points in their ATF marketing literature:
Full PDF document here: https://www.aftonchemical.com/Afton.../PDS/HiTEC-2414B/HiTEC-2414B_PDS.pdf?ext=.pdf
In the case of Valvoline Maxlife, I have no way of knowing what materials Valvoline chose to use for their ATF blend. However, based on this information that I have access to, what conclusion could I draw? Other than they blended it to meet certain performance criteria at a certain price point. Also, as I consumer I do not have any access to test data showing that shows performance data of Maxlife.
As a consumer, how could I possibly have access to that kind of information?
Yes, and yet companies such as Red Line Oil, AMSOIL, HPL, Castrol, and others who blend Multi-Vehicle ATFs offer two products to account for each viscosity, even if the additive packages are similar or identical. To me, that signals that this small viscosity differential is not insignificant.
I would like to learn more about Mu(v) and how friction modifiers work for Multi-Vehicle ATFs, and I am kindly asking for your guidance on the subject matter.
Now, as a consumer, how could I possibly know the condition of LifeGuard 5 after 40K miles? Or that of any other fluid for that matter. It's also influenced by driving style (highway vs. grueling city driving), vehicle load, towing, etc. Take that vehicle consistently to the track or drag race it and we'll see how long the fluid and transmission last.
This is Valvoline's own statement made in this PDS document: https://sharena21.springcm.com/Publ...2d889bd3/5ca3517a-e29c-e711-9c10-ac162d889bd3
And that's perfectly fine when it comes to personal vehicles and applications because OEMs treat them differently. If, for example, you look at the ZF TE-ML documentation, you will notice that for personal vehicles the term "lifetime fill" comes up quite often when talking about differentials and transmission fluids. However, when it comes to commercial applications, ZF provides fluid change intervals.
The commercial vs. personal application criticism extends to other brands as well. I have yet to see someone driving a truck with an Allison transmission that uses MaxLife, Red Line D4, or AMSOIL MV ATF. They all use Delvac 1 ATF, Castril Transynd, or Shell Spirax S6 A295.
And while a vehicle manufacturer might not void a warranty if the customer used an aftermarket ATF that was listed by the ATF manufacturer as compatible with his transmission, when it comes to the commercial world, things are different. Yes, some fleet operators will maximize cost savings and buy the cheapest fluids they can get and deal with the consequences. I have seen firsthand the damage that inappropriate (as in cheap) gear oil or transmission fluid does in a truck. As such, most fleets will use appropriately rated fluids that carry OEM approvals. For those people "meets and exceeds" doesn't mean anything.
Back to personal vehicles, when it comes to Multi-Vehicle ATFs, recommendations can be made only on reputation. I am a hobbyist and an enthusiast, so it comes naturally to me to recommend the products that I use. I have never used Valvoline MaxLife ATF in a vehicle, and probably never will. I have used AMSOIL ATF, ATL, Red Line D4, and recently D6, and I know HPL by reputation and I recently purchased their motor oil, transmission fluid, and gear oil. I use and recommend products that are marketed for personal-performance applications. Valvoline MaxLife is not marketed as such. Does that make it a bad product? Absolutely not. However, I don't think that Valvoline tested it in all of those applications that they recommend it for. Maybe they didn't test it in any and are just going by the specifications provided by their additive supplier. And this could be very well the case for other blenders. However, with blenders such as AMSOIL, Red Line, and HPL, at the very least I have the confidence that they used high-quality materials because for them it is not paramount to meet a price point.
Attachments
MolaKule
Staff member
I'll respond to what I think are Rod Knocks three main points:
1. Price Point. I doubt anyone knows the exact profit margin for any known lubricant, but let's not create a conspiracy theory over it. Take PetroCanada, who blends most of GM's OEM fluids. They will blend Afton's DI packages for the minimum OEM spec in order to make the most profit for themselves and especially for GM's dealers, where the largest profits occurs. The same occurs for Nissan, Honda, etc and their contracted blenders. This DOES NOT mean OEM fluids are superior, and in most cases, they are mediocre at best; hence the reason for third party blenders.
Some blenders such as HPL, Amsoil, Redline, and a few others blend for 'above-spec' performance and add certain chemistries and better base oils to boost performance, hence their products are not developed according to "price points," and thus they have to charge more for their products.
BTW, profit is NOT a dirty word, because without profit, companies would fail economically.
2. Hardware Testing. You misunderstood my discussion about testing. No blender that I know of have the facilities or the hardware to test, in this case, all transmissions out there, and I never stated such. What I said was the DI package supplier does the testing using their in-house facilities and second party testing facilities. The DI manf. develops and tests DI packages, and creates a formulation for that DI package, which the blender receives with his DI purchases. Why do think the DI packages are so expensive?
3. The reason for my questions to you about the technical aspects of the fluids was that you made assertions, without any supporting data, that was also leaning toward some conspiracy theory. We don't deal here on BITOG with conspiracy theories or unsupported statements.
So one should either come up with technical data to support his statements, or clearly state that they are opinions or simple observations.
As for the effects of Friction Modifiers on the Mu(v) curves,
1. Price Point. I doubt anyone knows the exact profit margin for any known lubricant, but let's not create a conspiracy theory over it. Take PetroCanada, who blends most of GM's OEM fluids. They will blend Afton's DI packages for the minimum OEM spec in order to make the most profit for themselves and especially for GM's dealers, where the largest profits occurs. The same occurs for Nissan, Honda, etc and their contracted blenders. This DOES NOT mean OEM fluids are superior, and in most cases, they are mediocre at best; hence the reason for third party blenders.
Some blenders such as HPL, Amsoil, Redline, and a few others blend for 'above-spec' performance and add certain chemistries and better base oils to boost performance, hence their products are not developed according to "price points," and thus they have to charge more for their products.
BTW, profit is NOT a dirty word, because without profit, companies would fail economically.
2. Hardware Testing. You misunderstood my discussion about testing. No blender that I know of have the facilities or the hardware to test, in this case, all transmissions out there, and I never stated such. What I said was the DI package supplier does the testing using their in-house facilities and second party testing facilities. The DI manf. develops and tests DI packages, and creates a formulation for that DI package, which the blender receives with his DI purchases. Why do think the DI packages are so expensive?
Valvoline ATF Dexron VI/Mercon LV & Ultra1Plus
Valvoline fluid says "Officially licensed and GM* approved DEXRON*-VI Fluid", but there is no license number on the label. Also "recommended" for Mercon LV applications. Why would they not publish the license number on the label? I have a list of GM Dexron VI licensees, Valvoline has 2 US...
bobistheoilguy.com
3. The reason for my questions to you about the technical aspects of the fluids was that you made assertions, without any supporting data, that was also leaning toward some conspiracy theory. We don't deal here on BITOG with conspiracy theories or unsupported statements.
So one should either come up with technical data to support his statements, or clearly state that they are opinions or simple observations.
As for the effects of Friction Modifiers on the Mu(v) curves,
Friction Modifiers (FMs)
Remember, a Friction Modifier (FM) can be a friction reducer, a friction increaser, or one that controls friction in a specified manner. In an engine, we want to reduce kinetic friction to increase fuel mileage. In a CVT type AT we want a friction increaser so the chain/belt/pulley system can...
bobistheoilguy.com
atf friction modifier purpose
What are the purpose of friction modifiers? I have heard they enhance the smoothness of shifting but I am not 100% certain. Also what are some factory specific and universal fluids that are low in friction modifiers?
bobistheoilguy.com
Friction Modifiers (FMs)
Remember, a Friction Modifier (FM) can be a friction reducer, a friction increaser, or one that controls friction in a specified manner. In an engine, we want to reduce kinetic friction to increase fuel mileage. In a CVT type AT we want a friction increaser so the chain/belt/pulley system can...
bobistheoilguy.com
Additive Component Chemistry IX
This formula is composed of the following: Performance Improver - 7% (All additive chemistries necessary for the application). Viscosity Index Improver (VII) - 3.6% Ester - 12% (2.7 cSt) PAO 2 - 9.4% (~ 2.1 cSt) PAO 6 - 68% (~ 5.9 cSt) Hints: It has a Brookfield Viscosity of approx. 3,850 and...
bobistheoilguy.com
Is Valvoline pushing Maxlife ATF too far?
It has been entirely too long since I've been active on this site! It's certainly changed since I first joined. But I digress... For those of you that don't know, Mazda requires the use of FZ tansmission fluid. Not a lot is known about this fluid (from what I gather) other than it being an...
bobistheoilguy.com
Type "F" ATF
Ok, back to the original reason for this Forum - Lubricant Education: Other Thread With References: Today, Automatic Transmission Fluid (ATF) is a specialized hydraulic fluid with friction modifiers to ensure the proper static and dynamic coefficients of friction during...
bobistheoilguy.com
Multi-Vehicle Autoatic Transmission Fluids
A question was aked in a previous thread: Quote: "...how does a multi-application fluid address two completely different sets of FM needs?" That is the source of my confusion. How can one product like MaxLife Dex/Merc provide the same transmission shifting characteristics as: " DEXRON...
bobistheoilguy.com
ATF and Friction Modification
In an engine, we want to reduce kinetic friction, but in an Automatic Transmission, we want a specific type of static/kinetic friction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_friction discusses static and kinetic friction. The frictional characteristics we are discussing here is dynamic...
bobistheoilguy.com
CSTCC
In order to provide smooth operation and economy in new transmission designs, Continuously Slipping Torque Converter Clutches have been incorporated. 1. Briefly describe the operation of these transmissions, and 2. What Type of Additive (Common, general name) must be incorporated in order to...
bobistheoilguy.com
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 89374
@BMW Dom, after removing my beer goggles and reading the threads that @MolaKule posted (thank you so much, by the way), I now have a better idea of how fluids are blended. Unfortunately, it is difficult to cut through the thick layers of marketing and see what matters as a consumer.
I don't know if you have already made up your mind and picked a fluid for your BMW. However, I also came across this Motul ATF that looks to be in the same viscosity range as the Lifeguard 5 fluid: https://azupim01.motul.com/media/motulData/DO/base/MULTI_ATF_en_FR_motul_45600_20211230.pdf. Like Valvoline MaxLife ATF, it is a predominantly Group III fluid, and there is nothing wrong with that. I think I picked up some bad habits as I now always look for PAO when it comes to ATF. However, as far as I've heard, Group III base oils have a better additive response and seal compatibility than PAO.
And I apologize for the way I phrased my opinions about ATF. I should have used the appropriate phrasing to clarify that they were, in fact, just my opinions and conclusions that I've drawn at the consumer level.
I don't know if you have already made up your mind and picked a fluid for your BMW. However, I also came across this Motul ATF that looks to be in the same viscosity range as the Lifeguard 5 fluid: https://azupim01.motul.com/media/motulData/DO/base/MULTI_ATF_en_FR_motul_45600_20211230.pdf. Like Valvoline MaxLife ATF, it is a predominantly Group III fluid, and there is nothing wrong with that. I think I picked up some bad habits as I now always look for PAO when it comes to ATF. However, as far as I've heard, Group III base oils have a better additive response and seal compatibility than PAO.
And I apologize for the way I phrased my opinions about ATF. I should have used the appropriate phrasing to clarify that they were, in fact, just my opinions and conclusions that I've drawn at the consumer level.
That's a popular misconception. There's no single formulated engine
or transmission oil with PAO as the only base oil component. Cheaper
'PAO based' oils use some group 2 and 3 while higher-end ones use
some group 5 (ester or ANs or a combination of) for aniline number
adjustment which is a measure or indicator at least for additive solubility
and seal compatibility. Some even use a combination of group 3, 4 and 5
(e.g. M1 ESP 5W-30). Molacule, please correct me if I'm wrong.
.
I recently used Pentosin ATF-1 in the 530i in my signature. Absolutely zero issues, much smoother shifts.
