Biker Posted July 17 Report Share Posted July 17 Any transmission guys here know if there is any advantage to switching from ULV to LV trans fluid? My understanding is that the super thin ULV is part of the effort to reduce parasitic drivetrain losses to boost fuel economy. Not necessarily the best for wear or longevity. I'm thinking of switching unless there is a smart transmission guy that knows otherwise. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garycrist Posted July 17 Report Share Posted July 17 Back a long time ago, we would sub thinner type f for Type A for harder faster shifts. The LV will shift softer read slip the clutches and add heat. It could void the warranty too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wubster100 Posted July 17 Report Share Posted July 17 I have thought about switching from ULV to LV, but I haven’t found enough solid research or firsthand experiences to know for sure whether it’s a good or bad move. In theory it would make things better? They are both low viscosity types, but ULV is designed to meet tighter tolerances and specific OEM requirements. Is it only for better fuel economy or is there something else at play? Without more data and real world feedback, I’m hesitant to make the switch and risk long term issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1004ron Posted July 17 Report Share Posted July 17 My Google search results advise against changing viscosity - I would not experiment with it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker Posted July 19 Author Report Share Posted July 19 Ok thanks guys. Found similar info on the B.I.T.O.G. site. I will stick with the ULV. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.