It is any old multipurpose oil. But with a marketing guy who puts vague and illogical claims on a web page. Based on lies. But if he can continue to find victims, he will keep doing it. Why would you want to reward that behaviour? If you want a cheap multipurpose fluid, just put Dexron III in it. But don't be surprised if it doesn't work.

If it said suitable for those who want single malt or Tequila, which one do you think it would be more like? Only ask since the two are mutually exclusive, just like those specs.

I can't believe that. That would be paramount to fraud... A company can't out rightly say a specific product is for something specific if it isn't. There are stringent tests these oils have to go through to get on the market and they have their specifications listed and out for everyone to see. They have obviously been viewed, compared, and trialled for suitability.

Typical Characteristics: SYNATF
KV @ 100°C, cSt 7.000
KV @ 40°C, cSt 33.40
Viscosity Index 179
Density @ 15°C, g/mL 0.8514
Pour Point, °C

These must lay within the parameters for that oil and therefore it has been deemed "suitable" for that application

You are incorrect. All transmission fluids are essentially just light weight hydraulic oils. Those specs above are generic. What makes the various fluids unique is the additive package, essentially friction modifiers that impact how the wet clutches engage. Those are proprietary. They are matched to the control algorithms and designs of each transmission. The specs aren't openly published. The holder of the spec, ZF in this case, will supply the details, and test any oil for someone who wants to license it and pay that fee. Anything else is close to a 10w hydraulic fluid with unknown frictional characteristics at the clutch plate interface.

We know that some specific fluids have different enough boundary layer frictional characteristics that they result in failures when used in specific transmissions. Yet this fluid claims to be suitable for both those applications. That is the quick test of whether it is a reasonable claim.

It isn't fraud to say that something is suitable for vehicles that call for x. There is no stated guarantee of it being fit for use. It is fraud to say that it is x. That is why the lawyers review those marketing claims. It is legal, but questionable.

You are completely free to make your own judgement. Using a non-spec fluid won't guarantee failure. It just introduces an additional risk factor to a procedure that already has risks.

Check their website mate.

ZF Lifeguard Fluid 6 *# - Nulon Products Australia

It is quite common for manufacturers to put limited information on a product container, and further information in technical literature.


With regard to what ZF "approve", there are two things in play here. One, is what ZF have tested (or have accepted the results of another manufacturers testing) and specifically condone that product for use in lieu of their own.

Then there are "product manufacturer claims". The nulon product is an example of this. Nulon make a "manufacturers claim" that their product meets the published requirements of the ZF Lifelong 6 (I think it is) fluid. That is a claim they are making, and do not ask ZF to verify that claim.

Engine oil manufacturers do it all the time.

Guess I'll just have to take what it says on the bottle... I suppose time will tell as it's to late now.
I wasn't showing all the specs.. That was just an example... And they are kind of saying its x due to saying it is able to be used for that exact type of oil..
It also says on the site
"Due to continued product research and development, the information contained in this Product Bulletin is subject to change without notification" ... and on the bottle it didn't say anything about not mixing which you would imagine it would if it wasn't supposed to be mixed.
The Nulon link I put up didn't have anything about not mixing?
Full Synthetic Multi Vehicle Automatic Transmission Fluid- Nulon Australia
Maybe a new variation?

Yeah they probably haven't got it tested by ZF and have just done their own tests to verify it meets the standard..
Even if it is only a manufacturer claim I have no reason to believe that they're "lying"

One thing I 100% know is that since the oil change the car shifts gears better and firmer and has all but eliminated the clunk when coming to a stop (except under heavy braking)

I see where u found it saying it "recommends" a dry fill and "recommends" not to mix.. It says that with every other oil though also.. Probably just to cover their ass.. Because how could u have a "suitable" to use with that oil claim and then "need" to do a dry fill.
So I guess it's suitable, but to cover their ass they "recommend" a dry fill as obviously 1 consistent oil is better than any mixed oils.

I had that clunk when coming to a stop in my 58k miles E39
Turned out it was missing 3qts of oil in the tranny
Added fluid but that thing never went away; i guess some gears in the transmission didn't like the fact that they didn't get lubricated and just decided to give me that rear ended feeling when coming to a stop from
there on.

Yeah I drained out around 3.5 litres but the car took 4 to get it back to the fill point. I thought it had fixed it completely as the first 20 stops were completely smooth.. Then I tried a coming to a more rapid halt and occasionally got the shunt once again, although less severe

Remember that you only changed some of the fluid so there's still old stuff in there.

You could do another change and get closer to a complete flush. Maybe that'd help the thunk issue more.

BTW: on the diesels, is the catalytic converter right near the fill plug so you have the opportunity to almost burn your hand off as you pump in the new fluid w/the engine running? That was fun when I did my 4.4.