ShadowsPapa
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Bill
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2019
- Threads
- 178
- Messages
- 29,093
- Reaction score
- 34,573
- Location
- Runnells, Iowa
- Vehicle(s)
- '22 JTO, '23 JLU, '82 SX4, '73 P. Cardin Javelin
- Occupation
- Retired auto mechanic, frmr gov't ntwrk security admin
- Vehicle Showcase
- 3
One thing to be careful with as far as ATF, and LostWoods pointed in this direction - is that ATFs thee days are often formulated way differently and today we see LV and ULV ATFs.
Some of the fluids out there simply have almost no viscosity to them at all once they reach the temperatures used to test ATF (180 degrees as opposed to 230 for engine oil)
Manufacturers are spec'ing ATF for fuel efficiency these days so the specs are way different than what they used to be.
Typical ATFs we're used to have a cSt of about 22.......... but here's an example of differences:
Amsoil OE “Multi-Vehicle” Synthetic ATF has a cSt of 22
Amsoil OE “Fuel-Efficient” Synthetic ATF has a cSt of only 17 at temperature - extremely thin.
It's also been said here that a company's products may vary greatly in how "good" they are.
Picking on AMSOIL again - it' all over the map. One of their hypoid gear lubes is extremely poor performing and unable to stand up to pressure testing while some of their engine oils are in the top 5. Their ATFs appear to be quite good - very close to the top depending on which one you are looking at. They have several and fall into the top few.
Of course the performance of an ATF is dependent on a multitude of things - gear width, torque or pressure applied to each gear, clutch materials, clearances and so on - more than with engines or differentials.
One good example could be Ford Motorcraft Mercon LV ATF. It performs extremely poorly in certain tests - seizes under pressure and yet does fine in the Ford transmissions it is recommended for. Likely the transmission itself is the answer - gear widths, tooth surface areas and other things play into it. So use that one in Fords but nothing else.
Names are just that. A company may have a great product of one type but fail or do poorly with another.
So when I see shops or even gear vendors recommend a product by name - I'm wary. And of course, a product that was great 5 years ago may have been replaced by another that isn't as good as the one it replaces. We see that in engine oil, ATF, gear lubes and so on. Company ABC may have had one of the best gear lubes last year but it's been replaced and the replacement isn't quite as good - or in some cases, may be better.
Don't get stuck on a brand.
Some of the fluids out there simply have almost no viscosity to them at all once they reach the temperatures used to test ATF (180 degrees as opposed to 230 for engine oil)
Manufacturers are spec'ing ATF for fuel efficiency these days so the specs are way different than what they used to be.
Typical ATFs we're used to have a cSt of about 22.......... but here's an example of differences:
Amsoil OE “Multi-Vehicle” Synthetic ATF has a cSt of 22
Amsoil OE “Fuel-Efficient” Synthetic ATF has a cSt of only 17 at temperature - extremely thin.
It's also been said here that a company's products may vary greatly in how "good" they are.
Picking on AMSOIL again - it' all over the map. One of their hypoid gear lubes is extremely poor performing and unable to stand up to pressure testing while some of their engine oils are in the top 5. Their ATFs appear to be quite good - very close to the top depending on which one you are looking at. They have several and fall into the top few.
Of course the performance of an ATF is dependent on a multitude of things - gear width, torque or pressure applied to each gear, clutch materials, clearances and so on - more than with engines or differentials.
One good example could be Ford Motorcraft Mercon LV ATF. It performs extremely poorly in certain tests - seizes under pressure and yet does fine in the Ford transmissions it is recommended for. Likely the transmission itself is the answer - gear widths, tooth surface areas and other things play into it. So use that one in Fords but nothing else.
Names are just that. A company may have a great product of one type but fail or do poorly with another.
So when I see shops or even gear vendors recommend a product by name - I'm wary. And of course, a product that was great 5 years ago may have been replaced by another that isn't as good as the one it replaces. We see that in engine oil, ATF, gear lubes and so on. Company ABC may have had one of the best gear lubes last year but it's been replaced and the replacement isn't quite as good - or in some cases, may be better.
Don't get stuck on a brand.
Sponsored