Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
So can you elaborate further on this?
No. I can't.
The dual recommendation circumstantially appeared to be a supersession of the ATF+4 recommendation and that was my assumption.
Perhaps you can elaborate on why both fluids overlap in your vehicle literature, to shut me up.
Quote:
Also help me understand what LV stands for in Motorcraft Mercon LV ATF, Kendall Versatrans LV ATF, Pennzoil Platinum Multivehicle LV ATF, etc. if it's not shorthand for Low Viscosity with reference to prior generation ATF's? I see it more as a design designation for differentiation than a marketing term.
It stands for Las Vegas. Viva Las Vegas!
Really though, we all know, and it's no secret, that newer ATF specs have trended to lower viscosities. That's all irrelevant to the discussion, however. In this thread, not once have I been comparing the viscosities of one generation ATF to another generation of ATF. This thread is about Power Steering fluids and my contention is that all ATFs, regardless of ATF specification, are low viscosity power steering fluids. That's a distinction that I'm personally making. Look out for the words "relative" and "relatively" to determine what the comparison is being made between.
Why should I think so? Simply because PS fluids typically have a kinematic viscosity around 7.5cSt@100C not unlike older ATFs, but with a narrower VI relative to ATFs. That means that ATF does not thicken as badly as PS fluid (and indeed hydraulic fluids, generally) in extreme cold weather. Again, not a secret. People have been selecting ATF instead PS fluid in some PS applications for this reason for decades. This is why I refer to ATF as a "low viscosity power steering fluid", because when it's used in a power steering application, or any other basic hydraulic application, it will remain a lower viscosity in the cold. Despite calling it that, ATF is not a power steering fluid at all IMO, but it serves the purpose of a high VI, low viscosity PS fluid. ATF is optimized for Automatic Transmissions and PSF is optimized for power steering systems. That's just kind of a fact that you are more than welcome to challenge.
Again, I apologize for short-handing "low viscosity" to "LV" because of the confusion and exploitability that a lack of explicity invites. It's also really annoying to have to craft posts like legal documents that can stand up in a court of law when you're just trying to share thoughts.
PS - "LV" is certainly marketing; or rather a 'proprietary' terminology I should say, since it's been selected as a proper name for a given trademarked specification. (and I can't even be sure the proper name of the specification has been trademarked, so I could be wrong about that) Point: when a technical documentation needs to refer to low viscosity, it's usually represented as "low viscosity", not "LV".