Let’s change the “thick vs. thin” up a little: Mercon LV vs ULV!

Hmm... even Ravenol seems to say the same fluid is OK in the 10R80 and 10L100. Considering how many dozens of ATFs that Ravenol mixes up, it seems the VMs and other additives all work?

Application Note​

RAVENOL ATF ULV D-M was developed for use in 6, 8 and 10 speed automatic transmissions, especially from Ford and GM.

RAVENOL ATF ULV D-M is particularly suitable when the Ford WSS-M2C949-A specification is required.

It is recommended to flush with RAVENOL ATF ULV D-M before filling with RAVENOL ATF ULV D-M.

RAVENOL ATF ULV D-M
is particularly suitable for

Ford 6-speed transmissions 6F15

Ford 8-speed automatic transmissions 8F24, 8F35, 8F40, 8F57

Ford 10-speed 10R60, 10R80-MHT, 10R80, 10R140

GM 10-speed 10L80 MF6, 10L90 MGL, 10L100 (Allison) MGM/MGU
 
Even AMSOIL recommends the ATL (blue cap) for the 10-speed. Though the shifts will become brutal. I hated how that fluid shifted the 6-speed in the Hyundai and the 8HP70. Maybe AMSOIL should get a better add pack to mix their fluid with.
 
Well, as has been said, the HPL Green (CC) add pack has millions of miles of data showing it works fine in ULV applications.

Kinda shoots down the emotional aspects when faced with real life data, doesn’t it?

This video shows Infineum's testing of the add pack used in the ATF Green/CC in BMW vehicles equipped with ZF 8-speed transmissions.

Enjoy:

 
Well, as has been said, the HPL Green (CC) add pack has millions of miles of data showing it works fine in ULV applications.
Depends what we deem as "fine." Fleet drivers are not known to be discerning and we also are not privy to the longevity expectations of that fleet.
 
Do we have official confirmation that this is the exact add pack being used?
Who's "we"?
Forum members.
My apologies, I thought you were using "we" as one of your pronouns.

1685581660007.png

Say you're sorry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the three of you don't want to learn anything new, then why do you participate in this discussion?
 
If the three of you don't want to learn anything new, then why do you participate in this discussion?
We’re not convinced that you have anything new and factual to share; you have merely broadened the interpretation of limited information that was disclosed to you…
 
So now it's about the add pack and not viscosity? Thought it was thick vs thin discussion?
If you had been following along, there were comments on the viscosity, and that allegedly the LV did not and could not have the same add pack.

So it is the thick vs thin discussion, because some understandings in this thread meant you could not choose thick or thin; owners would be locked into a viscosity spec that excluded all other ATFs on the market except ULVs.
 
And I am still not convinced that a LV can be substituted for a ULV fluid.

If an LV fluid slows down the filling and engagement of a clutch, but the slip if 'covered up' by the additive formulation, is that a good thing? The clutches are slipping more, that is almost never a good thing in a step-shift auto.

If the LV causes harsher shifts because one of the brakes is delayed coming off in the 10 speed, but the harsh binding is 'covered up' by the FM in the fluid, that is also not a good thing.

I'm not sure why you're so hellbent on pushing HPL's LV fluid for use in a ULV application. That is irresponsible to people that have warranties on their vehicles to pitch that 'all will be ok' when it might not be. Especially since your 'golden child' HPL offers a ULV for the application. FM chemistry doesn't affect the clutch filling speeds or the hydraulic operations of the boxes, that is solely down to the viscosity of the fluid.

Either way, you're not changing my mind, and I'm not changing yours. So I'm checking out of this conversation.

--Edit--

I don't care if they both (ULV/LV) use the same additive pack, we are discussing viscosity.
 
Bob, wasn’t trying to “push LV” as much as figure out if I could use the LV or if I needed to swap the gallons for ULV. Sorry if I conveyed that.

I got a good enough deal on the LV fluid that if I do have the issues we suspect may be coming, I will happily post here that it didn’t work, and change it to the ULV.
 
Bob, wasn’t trying to “push LV” as much as figure out if I could use the LV or if I needed to swap the gallons for ULV. Sorry if I conveyed that.

I got a good enough deal on the LV fluid that if I do have the issues we suspect may be coming, I will happily post here that it didn’t work, and change it to the ULV.
I will certainly be interested in the experiment. Keep us posted on how it works out. I don't think you'll kill it, but you might not like it a lot, so it will be good to have another POV.

I think I am ordering the shallow pan this week for mine. Just waiting on one of my cash-back cards to post the points and I'm getting it.
 
I’ll chime in here. When LV was used in my 10r80, shift *timing* suffered. And this was amsoil, who made a very similar statement to HPL, such as “suitable for.” did it shift gears and take me to work? Sure did. Did it shift as well or as snappy as before? Invariably no.

the exact same thing happened when i bought my tundra, which was spec‘d for an LV fluid. The selling dealer put a universal BG fluid in it, of a thicker viscosity. It drove fine. I found out what they had done and flushed it myself with an LV. Shifts became quick and seamless. sure, I understand there are also friction modifiers, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about release and clamp timing. In my experience, viscosity matters.

to further prove the point, I have an LV transmission with a bit of shift flare. I run 1/8 of the mix now with a non-LV quart. It reduces the flare without changing my perception of the rest of the shifts, except when winter cold. Viscosity seems to have raised the pressure a bit, as my guess.

they gotta squirt a metered volume of fluid through small holes at an expected pressure in an expected time frame, often pressing against an accumulator with a known spring value behind it to yield an expected pressure change over time. That’s not a FM thing, that’s a timing thing, which ties to VI.

now, honestly, I’m surprised it seems to make as much of a difference as it does.
 
We’re not convinced that you have anything new and factual to share; you have merely broadened the interpretation of limited information that was disclosed to you…
I must express my disappointment in the manner of our interaction - your condescension and dismissive attitude leaves much to be desired. Your lack of remorse exacerbates the issue. I question the value in continuing our dialogue, either publicly or privately.

Furthermore, kindly refrain from speaking on behalf of the entire forum unless using "we" specifically refers to you. You do not embody the forum's views or beliefs.
 
I'm hoping that by the time i need to change the fluid on my 10L80 ulv will be more common and cheaper. I might get the better ppe thermal bypass valve so it runs cooler.
 
Top