Mercon LV
- Thread starter Pablo
- Start date
- Status
Ford back-specs thin motor oil for everything, but thin ATF is not recommended for their older tansmissions. GM back-specs thin ATF for everything, but does not recommend thin motor oil for their old line-up.
It seems like the laws of physics would be applied similarly in both shops.
Thanks for the info, Pablo.
It seems like the laws of physics would be applied similarly in both shops.
Thanks for the info, Pablo.
yes very interesting - I have recommended to Amsoil that they at least have 2 or possibly 3 "universal" ATFs (to go allong with ART and ATD and the PowerShift series) - not that they listen to me in the short term....
It's hard to believe that viscosity is the only issue behind what Ford are saying. Think about it. GM have made their fluid back servicable to all previous specs. How can they do that? Well from a viscosity perspective (and there is clearly more to it than that) if one were to say that the 'thinner' fluid won't work or may cause problems then that is the same as saying that the earlier fluid is only good for about 5 or 6 thousand miles because that's roughly how long it takes to shear for instance an average DEXRON-III fluid from about a KV100C of 7.8cSt to about 5.0cSt and it's still dropping! Therefore to say that a KV100C 6.0cSt fluid is or may be a problem clearly lacks some logic. In addition the GM SAE paper covering DEXRON-VI claims that the oil film thickness of DEXRON-VI is higher than that of DEXRON-III at a given temperature even though the viscosity is lower! So I don't understand why those two OEMs have a different stance anymore than you.
Its interesting to note that Afton supplies both the GM Dexron VI and now the Ford Mercon LV additive packages. Anyone want to wager on how similar they are?
I'm actually quite surprised that Mercon SP wasn't broadly adapted to all transmissions. Not good enough?
Can't wait to try the LV in GM vehicles. D-VI works very well in Fords, Nissans, Toyotas, and other older vehicle requiring Dexron. Even without OEM support or backspec'ing, I'd wager that LV will work well in many transmissions. Now all I want to see is the LV fluid specs and requirements.
I'm not worried about seal compatiblity. Cork and organic rubber isn't found in too many transmissions.
Concerning the eternal life of the new ATFs, without proper filtration, I'll still recommend reasonable transmission service intervals. The 'real world' tends to put all the bench lab testing to shame.
I'm actually quite surprised that Mercon SP wasn't broadly adapted to all transmissions. Not good enough?
Can't wait to try the LV in GM vehicles. D-VI works very well in Fords, Nissans, Toyotas, and other older vehicle requiring Dexron. Even without OEM support or backspec'ing, I'd wager that LV will work well in many transmissions. Now all I want to see is the LV fluid specs and requirements.
I'm not worried about seal compatiblity. Cork and organic rubber isn't found in too many transmissions.
Concerning the eternal life of the new ATFs, without proper filtration, I'll still recommend reasonable transmission service intervals. The 'real world' tends to put all the bench lab testing to shame.
MolaKule
Staff member
"The 'real world' tends to put all the bench lab testing to shame."
Very true and from a mechanic who has seen what works in real life and up close.
I too continue to be skeptical of 100k "lifetime" fills.
Very true and from a mechanic who has seen what works in real life and up close.
I too continue to be skeptical of 100k "lifetime" fills.
Real world is a much more thorough validation than any other scheme that can be dreamed up. Anything else is just a substitute.
I see what you mean but did you observe that the spec demands that for the approval of any chemistry a 150k mile feild test is required, so I would suppose that they (GM) nhave already proved that the fluid will really do this. One of my neighbors has a Lucerne and that handbook quotes a 150k miles drain interval for "normal" service.
Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well. I was using the GM example to comment on 'lifetime' fluid in general. I might be taking a bit of a leap in assuming that Ford do either the same or similar. I haven't seen a MERCON-LV spec yet so I don't know whether that is true or not but since they have announced that their standard drain is extended ti 150k miles like the GM example that I quoted I suppose that they have already proved that the fluid is capable of that.
When Ford came out with the new 2002 Explorer it was lifetime fill with no dipstick.
So I guess that was a false alarm.
The Service manager at the time mentioned that he was recommending more frequent changes.
So I guess that was a false alarm.
The Service manager at the time mentioned that he was recommending more frequent changes.
I understand.
Now look at it from the other side. Who are you going to scream at when the trans fails outside of warranty when you followed manufactures advise. The Service Manager should tell you when he knows something different.
When I managed a Volvo service department I got it from both sides. Customers that screamed when a trans service was recommended at 30,000 miles on their S70 Turbo and customers that screamed when the trans failed at 70,000 to 80,000 miles on the cars that hadn't had the fluid changed while the ones that did were running fine.
I will have a hard time ever believing that trans fluid is really "lifetime". I also remember when Ford claimed that type F fluid was "lifetime" fluid. I really feel that we have been down that road before and until there is better validation it is hard to believe.
I don't trust the service guys as much as I don't trust the automakers. Service guys need to make a living. Automakers need to sell cars.
Since an ATF service is cheaper then a transmission, I'll vote on behalf of the service guy's recommended maintenance vs automakers negligence.
Since an ATF service is cheaper then a transmission, I'll vote on behalf of the service guy's recommended maintenance vs automakers negligence.
Can you imagine the howls if Service Managers were recommending Diff/Tcase fluid changes at 2k like is common here on BITOG ?
One other thought on the 150k "FIELD TESTS" done by GM, Amsoil and others. While there is probably real value to these tests, they are probably not done with the vehicle racking up 150k in 1000 coldstart, AC on, stop-and-go traffic commutes.
To get a 150k takes 2000 hours of driving at 75mph. Or 50 weeks at 40 hours a week (what a job!). Or 83 days straight 24 hours a day! They'd never get done if they tried to emulate normal traffic conditions.
To get a 150k takes 2000 hours of driving at 75mph. Or 50 weeks at 40 hours a week (what a job!). Or 83 days straight 24 hours a day! They'd never get done if they tried to emulate normal traffic conditions.
There may not be byproducts of combustion in transmission fluid but there is clutch debris and ongoing oxidation of the fluid. Periodic drain/fills if you're fortunate enough to have a drain plug, or pan drops if not are always valuable no matter what fluid is in the unit. OEM fluids are improving, this Mercon LV (and Dex VI) are far better than the old Mercon/Dexron we were using just a few years ago. However, if I planed on keeping the vehicle for a long time I would continue to service the transmission.
Did anyone else catch this:
"It is intended to coexist with Mercon V going forward, and the two are not interchangeable.
This is the EXACT same thing Ford has been telling us about Mercon vs. Mercon V since 1998...until this year. At least they're consistent.
BTW: Lifetime fill my a$$... heh...
"It is intended to coexist with Mercon V going forward, and the two are not interchangeable.
This is the EXACT same thing Ford has been telling us about Mercon vs. Mercon V since 1998...until this year. At least they're consistent.
BTW: Lifetime fill my a$$... heh...
Last edited:
I saw that too...however last yr itself they announced that MERCON is replaced by MERCON V - good news.However now they just added one more spec.I was at the SAE meeting - they atleast said they were trying to reduce complexity, not sure why they can't do what GM did.Won't compare them to Chrysler - because they are in their own little world (with poor quality tranny...)
- Status
