Apparantly some synchros can use GL-5 which is what their stuff is. Actually I did try it for 50 miles in my son's Cavalier before I realized the GL-5 would alow wear on the brass synchronizers. It worked ok (for summer)
i switched to mobil1 gear oil last winter to overcome notchy shifting during cold starts. didnt notice a difference. 'plan to try redline mt90 next month
I do not know what synthetic gear oil to use in my ford F150 manual tranny.My manual states it must meet Ford specification ESP-M2C83-C.It does not mention GL4 or GL5 or the weight.Does anyone know what this spec.crosses over to?
adc100, I couldn't find that particular link. Took me forever just to remember my password. >;^)
sdayalani, what kind of car? MTL will give you the best shift feel (especially in the cold)... but MT-90 is better for long term, high-temp protection. MTL is a 70W80 while MT-90 is 75W90 ... but both are considered GL-4. As Armtdm pointed out a while back, some people mix the two 50/50. I've only used MTL because I live fairly far north (Saratoga, NY) and its the cold weather performance that makes all the difference to me.
vidtech, are you kidding me?? Ford didn't even give you an oil weight? What an outrage! I suppose you could ask Redline or a dealer for a cross-reference ...
Tech@RedLineOil.com
... but Ford should be ashamed that they can't provide you with the most basic maintenance information. I wouldn't order/buy anything until you get a firm answer from someone. One could argue that picking out an "OK" motor oil these days is nearly goof proof ... but the same cannot be said for transmissions lubes.
I tell this to all the kids at Honda-Acura.net but so many of them never listen and insist on running Mobil 1 and Castrol Syntec in their 5-speeds. Tsk, tsk ...
Hmmm ... and I see so many "It grinds going from 1st to 2nd. What do I do?" questions. I wonder why? >;^)
i have a 99 mazda protege. mazda calls for a 75w90 gl-4 or gl-5. i emailed redline for the appropriate fluid to use and they suggested mt-90. i live in the northeast ..gets to around -30 C
Typical Ford, but GM does it also. Call 1-800-ask-mobil. They will tell you if it is recommended in your trans.
brorjace: Thats a strange web page, the link does not change the address. Anyway on the home page at the top, select "Mobil 1 Products", then "Gear Lubricants", then at the bottom of the page, "Product Data Sheet"
bluedevils: Thanks for the info. Pretty well agreed with your posts. Your probably right-they don't set their own specs. The oil manufactures may have a generic syn that they sell for bottleing under another label.
I have a '97 Subaru 5-speed. The manual calls for GL-5 for the transmission/front diff/transfer case (all in one) as well as for the rear diff. They do NOT call for a GL4 anywhere. When I drained the factory fill at 30,000 miles, I replaced it with Mobil1 and noticed a great improvement in cold shifts and about 1MPG better mileage. I live in Michigan where cold shifts can really mean COLD!. I also use Mobil1 in the crankcase - Reason? AVAILABILITY!!! I can walk into virtually any retailer that sells motor oil an find Mobil1 motor oil. To me, that alone is worth it (versus other synths).
Are you saying you removed the factory GL5 and replaced it with MOBIL 1 motor oil? I am not an expert, but I think you have done something you may seriously regret, unless you get GL5 back in there pronto!
Someone mentioned a little while ago that using synth oil the pan was cleaner than using regular oil.
Has anyone ever used that proceedure that most dealers offer of sucking out the sludge without dropping the pan? I was planning on dropping the pan every 50k miles and getting the sludge out. Yeah, I know it's obsessive. But I plan on keeping and driving my ride for a long time. But if this process is cheaper and easier, I'd go for it.
Have a 98 Chevy Malibu. According to manual, for severe service the special, long-life Dextron III (?) transmission fluid must be changed @50k miles, and it is good for life otherwise.
I live in Connecticut. A hilly state, and hilly terrains are listed as one of severe driving conditions. To play safe, changed the fluid this summer @40,000 miles at local Firestone. Put in the Mobil-1 transmission fluid.
Now it leaks. Not much, but enough to stain the parking lot. Brought the car back to Firestone; they tightened the pan, but the leak continues. Yesterday repeated the procedure.
The mechanics told me the leak is very small, they did not need to add any liquid. I do not feel the transmission to slip either.
Can the leak be related to synthetic? Or this is just bad luck, an inferior gasket or something of this kind?
I switched my 90 Nissan 240SX from 75w-90, GL-4 conventional gear oil to MT-90 Red Line. Great shifting improvement, It's just a different transmission for only $24 (3q)! Thanks to ALL of you who suggested this product.-AW
unfortunately, the seal should have been replaced before adding the synthetic OIL. You probably had a leak, but Syn, being more uniform actually showed up more extensively.
I believe, they replaced gasket when changed the liquid. At least, they installed the OEM filter for $80; to the best of my understanding, the filter is available only as a kit including gasket.
sdayalani, Gee, seeing that you live almost as far north as I do and the fact that it's a FWD car, I'd be sorely tempted to use the lighter MTL ... but you are safer using the weight specified by the factory which would mean the MT-90.
adc100, thanks for the directions. The two things that stick out on the page (to me) is the mention of sulphur-phosporous compounds and the LACK of a mention about corrosivity. If I had a transmission like n8wi's, I'd be fearful of using this stuff and cutting down on my synchronizers' life. I'd use the Mobil 1 in rear-ends and Redline everywhere else for that reason alone.
one2one, I can't see that slurp method doing a good job. If you want to be obsessive ... be OBSESSIVE! Drop that pan and get in there with your fingers, man! >;^)
csandste, yes, this is talking a lot about trannies lately ... but the transmission topic is almost exclusively for automatics ... and we're talking synthetic tranny lubes, besides. >:^)
aspenwhite, ain't it sumthin'? With all the expensive aftermarket junk out there for sports/sporty cars, I'm surprised more people don't invest in $15-25 for a better transmission lube.
can't really argue that point. I didn't really make too much of an effort to look into it. If I had a manual trans that needed an oil change right now I would go with Red Line or if it were a GM possibly with the GM "Sinchromesh" fluid.
armtdm: My Toyota calls for GL-4 or GL-5 and 75W-90 or 80W-90.I have Amsoil gear lube in it. Is Amsoil's 80W-90 Gear oil suitable for GL-4 only requirements?? I'm wondering whether I should go to a GL-4 Gear oil to be safe.
adc100, I'm a little leery of that Mobil 1 gear oil in synchromesh transmissions, the more I think about it. If you read the intended application blurb on the product sheet, there are a number of if/then statements that don't exactly inspire confidence that this stuff is safe to use in a wide variety of applications. But, if anyone would like to get clarification from Mobil and then post it here, I'd be interested in reading it. As it is, that formula seems primarily intended for differentials. A buddy of mine put a quart of that stuff in an old VW Rabbit's transmission several years ago and noted no difference in shift feel nor fuel economy. The car died in a series of small accidents and unrelated component failures a couple years later. >;^)
Also, didn't you say the GM factory fluid is about $10 per quart? Gee, you know something's wrong when Redline's $7-9 premium price per quart is looking like a bargain by comparison! >;^) And what are the chances the GM factory fluid is better than anything Redline has to offer? I highly doubt it.
I know what you mean. Yes the GM stuff was $10. It would be interesting for someone to compare the both products. Has anyone done this?? I saw no difference between the Mobil 1 and GM stuff. But then again it was not winter time.
adc100, about OEM tranny lubes, I strongly suspect they are merely a good quality mineral oil (possibly hydrocracked mineral oil) with an application-specific additive package. So, I'd suspect they are competent, but nothing worth writing home about.
Honda for years recommended using 10W30 motor oil in their 5-spd transmissions but a couple years ago they came out with their own specific manual transmission fluid and now sell it for about $4-5 per quart. If this is the factory stuff that came in my '95 Civic's tranny, I am not terribly impressed with it. When I drained that stuff at around 10,000 miles, it smelled a little like gear oil but wasn't quite so thick. Still, it was at least as thick as 10W30 motor oil ... conventional, that is. When I switched to Redline MTL it was a marked improvement, especially in the cold which is a dead giveaway that the factory fluid was some mineral oil with proper anti-wear additives. Taking a guess, I'd suspect GM's fluid to be similar ... but that's just an educated guess. If so, that $10 per quart figure is a mega rip-off. That's high even if they merely repackaged one of Redline's fluids. >:^O
I argue continuously on the Honda boards with two different groups: the ones that say using anything other than Honda MTF will transform your manual transmission into a fragmentation grenade and others who insist upon using their favorite brand of synthetic motor oil in their manual tranny, saying that the stuff is all the same and the tranny shifts fine (which I know isn't true). I even had a kid tell me that he was positive that Honda MTF was merely repackaged Mobil 1. Some local idiot "Porsche-Certified" mechanic told him so! Some days, it's all I can do to keep from throwing up my arms in disgust. <|^(
If I couldn't get Redline, I would take a careful look at Motul tranny fluid. The one person I talked to who had used it (some other kid) said it was at least as good as Redline. Take that for the tiny bit that it's worth. BUT, I've never stumbled upon a dealer who sold Motul. I suppose a search on the 'net would yield some results ... but I'm happy with what I have now. >;^)
--- Bror Jace
Post Script Update: I took a look at Motul's site (Motul.com) and they have a number of gear oils, both mineral-based as well as synthetic. Their best stuff for synchromesh transmissions (Motul Gear 300) is a 100% esther based 75W90 - GL-4/5 oil which sounds equivalent to Redline's MT-90, except it costs a little more. Pricing I found at northstarmotorsports.com is $6.25 per half liter. I don't know if that includes shipping. Anyone want to do a conversion and exact cost comparison to the ounce or milliliter? >;^)
At 57,000 miles son pruchased a 97 Isuzu Rodeo which I converted to synthetic immediately. (assumed that previous owner used dino but unconfirmed and do not know change interval of previous owner either) Due to some varnish on sides of valve cover ( which is why I assumed dino) decided to go slow and change the oil at 3000 the first time. Oil Analysis came back great so extended to 7,600 this time, analysis just came back and again looks great. Oil was tan colored at time of change and if you placed some on a silver backing (like aluminum foil) it was relatively clear. I was working my way up to my standard 12,000 mile change interval with a filter half way (no change during the 7,600 this time) and it looks like I can go there this next time and take a look.
Just filling the group in on my experience. Amsoil 10W30 with an Amsoil filter.
armtdm: "A 75W90 GL-4/5 is not the same as the Redline MT-90 or MTL which is GL-4 only not a GL-5."
Yes, I noticed that difference, too. >:^)
"I would not use a GL-5 rated oil where GL-4 is specified."
As I stated before, I'm pretty happy with what I'm running right now (MTL) but if I were serious about switching, I'd do a little more research. I don't know enough about gear oils to be sure but I would think that if the oil was rated GL-4 and GL-5 as the Motul is, it would be safe for both ... but I could be wrong. With the GL-5 rating, are you worried about possible corrosion of the synchros? I know the stuff is a racing formula so it might not be ideal for long term street use. Most racing gearboxes don't have synchronizers and even if they did, the average team or weekend racer isn't worried about the synchros lasting hundreds of thousands of miles ... just a few weekends or a season at most.
Guys (and the occasional girl), I thought I'd move this thread up since there seems to be so much synthetic oil discussion in the oil filters thread all of a sudden. I assume new people just never scrolled down far enough to see that this thread even exists.
bd21 wrote that wide spread oil formulas/weights offer the user the best of both worlds. While this can be true to some degree, there is one major pitfall. These wide spread oils like 0W30 and 5W50 are heavily dependent on a polymer goo (like STP) which reacts to engine heat and forming a thicker, more viscous film of oil in the motor. So at 0F degrees, these oils flow like a 5W (or even a little thinner for a 0W) but at 212F degrees it should act/protect like a 30W oil. Well, this may be true for a medium performance V-8 or V-6 driven conservatively in a temperate climate, it is a poor choice for an engine that is really put through its paces. This could be a kid with a high-revving 4 cylinder, a businessman who travels on the highway at 75-80+mph for hours at a time, a vehicle towing a trailer or any engine with a turbocharger. Plus, as everyday engines are expected to run cleaner (as far as emissions are concerned), they are running hotter. The number of oil-friendly engines on the road these days is decreasing every year.
High heat and RPMs break down the long chain molecules which make up these polymer viscosity improvers and then the oil will begin to thin out so a 5W50 might only protect like a straight 30 or less once it's been put under some stress. Plus, these polymers, once broken down, can form varnish and engine sludge once they are broken down. This begins to happen after only a few thousand miles. They really are the weak link in most multi-viscosity oils. As is usually the case in life, there is a downside ... or else every company would have abandoned most of their weights in favor of a few wide-spread formulas.
So, if you want to change your oil and filter every 3,000 miles, you'll probably have decent luck with oils featuring a comparatively wide spread. But, as was pointed out in the other thread, it's a waste of synthetic oil to drain it out after less than 5,000 miles. It's expensive and usually has a lot of life left to it. Not only that but it's time consuming as well. Not only for doing the change, but also running to the store to buy the oil and then properly return the waste oil after it's been drained.
If you want to get the most out of a synthetic, you'd be better off with a 5W30 or better yet a 10W30 if it's warm most of the year where you live. Even then, if you look at the back of a bottle of 10W30, it will flow at some ridiculous temperature of -40F or so which is overkill for 90% of the United States. So, most cars will be perfectly happy with this stuff ... and most synthetic 10W30s contain ZERO polymer viscosity improver making it a stable, ideal choice for most vehicles as well as extended drain intervals.
As for synthetic blend motor oils, I think there were studies cited much earlier in this thread that showed you could get something like 80+% of the benefit of synthetic oil by using a mineral oil base stock blended with 15-25% synthetic. Scroll back a few pages if you're interested. If you're NOT interested, then why are you here? >;^)
Still, most synthetic blends are priced as though they are 50% synthetic ... when they are in actuality only about 15-25% synthetic ... MAX! So, they aren't usually a good value. Sure, you can always mix your own but there is a tiny chance that the additive packages won't get along and the total value of the oil will be less than the sum of its parts.
armtdm said that one doesn't really see benefits from synthetics unless you leave it in for at least 7,500 miles. Well, I agree with him in theory/principle but I'd reduce that threshold to about 6,000 miles or so.
I set up a spreadsheet tracking these costs over a year and 3,000 miles+dead dino oil+$3 filters was roughly equivalent to 6,000 miles+Mobil 1+$5 filter. There are other inputs such as the price of gas, the amount of fuel saved using synthetic (I factored in a modest 2% gain), finding oil on sale, the number of miles traveled in a year, etc ...
Using these values, I usually find a tiny cost advantage in favor of using an oil like Mobil 1. But either way, the difference amounts to only $5-10 annually which is insignificant when compared to the total cost of keeping a car on the road for a year (depreciation, insurance, gasoline, repairs, other maintenance, etc ...
I believe saying that extended oil change intervals are the only benefit of using full synthetic is by all means not all inclusive. Because full syn is superior in every way to conventional, at least one other obvious benefit would be longer engine life with fewer repairs. Also, changing full syn at 6,000 mile intervals really isn't necessary unless you just prefer to keep the oil in your car "pretty". Full syn can easily go 10,000 miles between changes without breaking down. It may turn black, but it hasn't lost any of it's protecting qualities.
It appears Amsoil, Mobil 1 look pretty good in the VI, Low Temperatura Catagory. Amsoil being the best. Spectro Golden M.G. good in the VI but not so hot in Low Temperature. Red Line not so hot in anything. I hasten to add this has nothing to do with durability of the oil. Again good Post!!!
As we know, if we don't smoke we will probably live longer, how much, well we don't know. But if our parents died from heart disease etc. chances are we can postpone the year a little but fact is, genetics dictate to a large extent how long we will live. Same with an engine. Two engines off the same line are not 100% duplicates and one will last longer then another under the exact same conditions. Infusing synthetics into the picture may extend the life but to some degree the manufacturing process, climate, driving habits all bear on the longevity of the engine.
So, for the same driver synthetics will probably extend the life over what that driver may have seen with dino, but sooooooo many factors to play with. Like life, puting a 75 year old on cholesterol lowering drugs to me is a waste of money, you may extend that persons life by what, a few months, maybe years, hell, at that age eat and drink what you want and enjoy it. Same with putting synthetics in a 200,000 mile engine that was run on dino for its life.
Having followed armtdm's posts for some time. I know he is the biggest supporter of syn. However I believe he is saying is that syn is not a silver bullet that makes absolute sense under all conditions. You have to look at the economics, practicality (how much time do you have to change oil in how many vehicles) Quick example-using it in a lease vehicle which will be ejected in less than a year. Do you really care if the wear on that engine is less by using syn?
I am also saying that even if you use synthetics but your timing belt breaks at 38,000 miles (just past warranty) on an interference engine that to some degree it is the luck of the draw for longevity. Synthetics, hopefully will lead to longer engine life but there are also hundreds of other problems that could cause an engine to fail at 38,000 or 80,000 miles regardless of what is in the crankcase.
Like adc100 stated, I frimly believe in synthetics for better protection and longevity, however, I have been unable to convince co-workers (even with reams of oil analysis results) that they are better. Co workers change their oil at 3000 or 5000 miles, have not had an oil related problem, are content to go 100,000-150,000 miles and do not see any justification. The price is the determining factor for them especially as they have someone else do the changes so the cost for synthetics is quite high. They just do not see the pay off. And, hard to show one!
Seelig and everyone, I like the effort that went in to Hacket's little study. I've printed it out and poured over it many times in the past few years ... but there are a couple things I'd like to point out:
1) Most importantly, the info is quite dated despite being "updated" at one point. The oils he's showing are rated "SG" ... in other words the figures are well over a decade old. Each brand of oil has undergone numerous reformulations since then as we are currently transitioning from SJ to SL. Simply put, the data in the study no longer applies to what we're buying on the shelves.
2) The range of data is of limited value and he even explains this. The pour points of all 10W30 and 5W30 synthetics, for example are overkill for 90+% of the cold weather in the continental United States. What's the point in trying to infer that one oil will flow/pour at -52 versus -58? Besides, won't an oil that pours at the lowest point thin out quicker when the heat gets turned up? Probably. All things being equal (and I know there are other variables) you'd think this was true. Flash point and amount of zinc are certainly useful numbers ... but the numbers listed are no longer true because the oils have changed. What about a number for resistance to shearing? Percentage of viscosity improver by volume? What about thermal breakdown over time? Resistance to fuel dilution? Those are things most of us would like to know and they are absent from this report. So, trying to decide which oil listed is actually better than another is still largely a guessing game.
3) Lastly, where did Ed get his info? Did he actually get every brand of oil and test them himself? I know I made an attempt to re-create the information using the internet to search current manufacturer MSDS sheets and about 1/2 of the way through the project, I gave up. The data on those sheets was not uniform and it was obvious that different manufacturers were using different criteria for their oils. There was no pattern, for example, to 'pour points'. If I remember correctly, one manufacturer had very similar pour points for 3 different weights of their conventional motor oils ... which we all know isn't likely to be true. Also, the disparity among pour points for different brands was as wide as the disparity between the average conventional and the average synthetic. Obviously, something was very wrong with using manufacturer published data ... even simple, objective data that should have had a great deal of uniformity to it. So, despite my intention to make an updated version of the often-cited Hackett study, I could see it wasn't going to happen. <:^( And more importantly, If Ed Hackett got his info from MSDS sheets or similar industry information, it casts doubt on the entire study.
But, having said that, I still treat that study as an interesting 'snapshot in time' and perhaps an indicator of past oil qualities (which may or may not indicate current and future quality).
I was just kinda stirring the pot to agitate adc100 and brorjace a bit! (;^> I use synthetics in a limited fashion at present, going for synthetic hypoid. I have returned to using petrobase oil in my engines for several reasons, not the least of which is that in my family we don't seem to ever keep a vehicle long enough to REALLY reap the harvest of synthetic usage. I also see the evolution of dino moving it closer to the syn in overall quality, but I do not see syn pricing as appealing. The nebulous nature of information concerning syn oil and some of the "trickery" extant further pushes me away. Overall, I do not see the scales tipping toward me using syn engine oil. I certainly used to use it, and enjoyed the technology of it greatly. Now I see it as an industry failing to mature and set proper standards for the long haul.
Here is a copy of my post on my new forum called Mechanics: Horror Stories --you may want to visit my site for more stories about incompetent and dishonest mechanics---Here is my post
Once I brought my car in to have a flat fixed and have the oil and filter changed. I could have fixed the flat myself with one of those do it yourself expresso plug kits but figured why not have it done right seeing I needed an oil change anyway. So I left the car with the grease monkey and came back to pick it up at the end of the day. Charged me $12 for the flat repair and $23 for the oil change. The guy that worked on my car wrote up the bill. I paid the bill and headed home. Once home, I checked the dip stick to make sure he filled it up to the proper level. The stick had oil on it as black as coal---the oil obviously wasnt changed. I checked the tire repair and found that he had just inserted a plug like I could have done myself in 2 minutes instead of the proper inner patch. Well, I headed back and asked him why he didnt change the oil. He stated that he must have forgot. I said to him: "Yeah, but you didnt forget to charge me!" I also mentioned the improper flat repair and demanded a full refund which I received. Needless to say, I will not be heading back to that station for any future repair or maintenance work. Some unsuspecting customer would have driven the car for another 3,000 to 7,000 miles with dirty oil and a clogged filter. Dont think that would be too good for your engine.--Motto: Buyer Beware
Are there any stats showing that oil additives (a-max, duralube etc. actually work. My mechanic mentioned to me that an additive called Lucas oil stabilizer is a very good product, says it helps the oil stick to the metal, any comments?
Even more so then engine oils the additives have never been tested by independent labs and almost everyone will tell you that they are "SNAKE OIL" and stay away from them. A quality engine oil should be sufficient for 99.9% of the driving public.
.....because I should've written down all these web sites, and now I can't remember how to find them! An independant lab tested many of the conventional motor oils, the synthetics, and the majority of the engine additives and engine treatments available. Their bottom line was to stay away from all of the engine treatments. They said that none of them provided any benefits whatsoever, and they could actually damage your engine by clogging up your oil filter. They said the absolute best thing you can do for your engine is to run nothing but full synthetic. Engine treatments ARE snake oils!
how many of you remember the stuff that use to be in the J.C.Whitney catalog called "engine overhaul?" it was a kit that consisted of a qt. of "special" oil, and some pellets that you dropped into the cylinder through the spark plug hole. 1 for worn engines or 2 for "really worn" engines. anyways, it claimed to replate the cylinders under the combustion cycle and bring the engine back to new specifications........LOL last time i saw the kit in real life was at a Grand Auto store. it also guarenteed to stop oil burning.......yeah right.
Some of the snake oil characteristics strike a little close to home on the synthetic lubricant front, eh? Get real honest with yourself, and I think even the zealots will have to admit to this... and I am currently using full synthetic GL5 in an expensive application. I am convinced that it runs cooler.
Has anyone done the cold pour point test recently? I put two small cups with 5W-30 Mobil 1 synthetic and 5W-30 conventional oil in my freezer which is 20 degrees F at the front of the freezer. I left them in the freezer for about 16 hrs. When I poured them out, they poured almost identical. I could not tell that the synthetic poured out any faster or easier than the regular oil. I don't know if this means anything, but found it kind of interesting. I'll have to try this again this winter when it gets colder than 20 F outside.
But it was on my deck at -30F. Pennzoil 5w30, Mobil1 5w30 and Amsoil 5w30. The two synthetics moved like river water, the Pennzoil moved like pond water.
Comments
http://mobil1.com/index.jsp
Apparantly some synchros can use GL-5 which is what their stuff is. Actually I did try it for 50 miles in my son's Cavalier before I realized the GL-5 would alow wear on the brass synchronizers. It worked ok (for summer)
didnt notice a difference.
'plan to try redline mt90 next month
sdayalani, what kind of car? MTL will give you the best shift feel (especially in the cold)... but MT-90 is better for long term, high-temp protection. MTL is a 70W80 while MT-90 is 75W90 ... but both are considered GL-4. As Armtdm pointed out a while back, some people mix the two 50/50. I've only used MTL because I live fairly far north (Saratoga, NY) and its the cold weather performance that makes all the difference to me.
vidtech, are you kidding me?? Ford didn't even give you an oil weight? What an outrage! I suppose you could ask Redline or a dealer for a cross-reference ...
Tech@RedLineOil.com
... but Ford should be ashamed that they can't provide you with the most basic maintenance information. I wouldn't order/buy anything until you get a firm answer from someone. One could argue that picking out an "OK" motor oil these days is nearly goof proof ... but the same cannot be said for transmissions lubes.
I tell this to all the kids at Honda-Acura.net but so many of them never listen and insist on running Mobil 1 and Castrol Syntec in their 5-speeds. Tsk, tsk ...
Hmmm ... and I see so many "It grinds going from 1st to 2nd. What do I do?" questions. I wonder why? >;^)
--- Bror Jace
i emailed redline for the appropriate fluid to use and they suggested mt-90.
i live in the northeast ..gets to around -30 C
brorjace: Thats a strange web page, the link does not change the address. Anyway on the home page at the top, select "Mobil 1 Products", then "Gear Lubricants", then at the bottom of the page, "Product Data Sheet"
bluedevils: Thanks for the info. Pretty well agreed with your posts. Your probably right-they don't set their own specs. The oil manufactures may have a generic syn that they sell for bottleing under another label.
mobil1 syn gear oil is GL-5
Has anyone ever used that proceedure that most dealers offer of sucking out the sludge without dropping the pan? I was planning on dropping the pan every 50k miles and getting the sludge out. Yeah, I know it's obsessive. But I plan on keeping and driving my ride for a long time. But if this process is cheaper and easier, I'd go for it.
I live in Connecticut. A hilly state, and hilly terrains are listed as one of severe driving conditions. To play safe, changed the fluid this summer @40,000 miles at local Firestone. Put in the Mobil-1 transmission fluid.
Now it leaks. Not much, but enough to stain the parking lot. Brought the car back to Firestone; they tightened the pan, but the leak continues. Yesterday repeated the procedure.
The mechanics told me the leak is very small, they did not need to add any liquid. I do not feel the transmission to slip either.
Can the leak be related to synthetic? Or this is just bad luck, an inferior gasket or something of this kind?
adc100, thanks for the directions. The two things that stick out on the page (to me) is the mention of sulphur-phosporous compounds and the LACK of a mention about corrosivity. If I had a transmission like n8wi's, I'd be fearful of using this stuff and cutting down on my synchronizers' life. I'd use the Mobil 1 in rear-ends and Redline everywhere else for that reason alone.
one2one, I can't see that slurp method doing a good job. If you want to be obsessive ... be OBSESSIVE! Drop that pan and get in there with your fingers, man! >;^)
csandste, yes, this is talking a lot about trannies lately ... but the transmission topic is almost exclusively for automatics ... and we're talking synthetic tranny lubes, besides. >:^)
aspenwhite, ain't it sumthin'? With all the expensive aftermarket junk out there for sports/sporty cars, I'm surprised more people don't invest in $15-25 for a better transmission lube.
--- Bror Jace
armtdm: My Toyota calls for GL-4 or GL-5 and 75W-90 or 80W-90.I have Amsoil gear lube in it. Is Amsoil's 80W-90 Gear oil suitable for GL-4 only requirements?? I'm wondering whether I should go to a GL-4 Gear oil to be safe.
Also, didn't you say the GM factory fluid is about $10 per quart? Gee, you know something's wrong when Redline's $7-9 premium price per quart is looking like a bargain by comparison! >;^) And what are the chances the GM factory fluid is better than anything Redline has to offer? I highly doubt it.
--- Bror Jace
Honda for years recommended using 10W30 motor oil in their 5-spd transmissions but a couple years ago they came out with their own specific manual transmission fluid and now sell it for about $4-5 per quart. If this is the factory stuff that came in my '95 Civic's tranny, I am not terribly impressed with it. When I drained that stuff at around 10,000 miles, it smelled a little like gear oil but wasn't quite so thick. Still, it was at least as thick as 10W30 motor oil ... conventional, that is. When I switched to Redline MTL it was a marked improvement, especially in the cold which is a dead giveaway that the factory fluid was some mineral oil with proper anti-wear additives. Taking a guess, I'd suspect GM's fluid to be similar ... but that's just an educated guess. If so, that $10 per quart figure is a mega rip-off. That's high even if they merely repackaged one of Redline's fluids. >:^O
I argue continuously on the Honda boards with two different groups: the ones that say using anything other than Honda MTF will transform your manual transmission into a fragmentation grenade and others who insist upon using their favorite brand of synthetic motor oil in their manual tranny, saying that the stuff is all the same and the tranny shifts fine (which I know isn't true). I even had a kid tell me that he was positive that Honda MTF was merely repackaged Mobil 1. Some local idiot "Porsche-Certified" mechanic told him so! Some days, it's all I can do to keep from throwing up my arms in disgust. <|^(
If I couldn't get Redline, I would take a careful look at Motul tranny fluid. The one person I talked to who had used it (some other kid) said it was at least as good as Redline. Take that for the tiny bit that it's worth. BUT, I've never stumbled upon a dealer who sold Motul. I suppose a search on the 'net would yield some results ... but I'm happy with what I have now. >;^)
--- Bror Jace
Post Script Update: I took a look at Motul's site (Motul.com) and they have a number of gear oils, both mineral-based as well as synthetic. Their best stuff for synchromesh transmissions (Motul Gear 300) is a 100% esther based 75W90 - GL-4/5 oil which sounds equivalent to Redline's MT-90, except it costs a little more. Pricing I found at northstarmotorsports.com is $6.25 per half liter. I don't know if that includes shipping. Anyone want to do a conversion and exact cost comparison to the ounce or milliliter? >;^)
I would not use a GL-5 rated oil where GL-4 is specified.
Just filling the group in on my experience. Amsoil 10W30 with an Amsoil filter.
Yes, I noticed that difference, too. >:^)
"I would not use a GL-5 rated oil where GL-4 is specified."
As I stated before, I'm pretty happy with what I'm running right now (MTL) but if I were serious about switching, I'd do a little more research. I don't know enough about gear oils to be sure but I would think that if the oil was rated GL-4 and GL-5 as the Motul is, it would be safe for both ... but I could be wrong. With the GL-5 rating, are you worried about possible corrosion of the synchros? I know the stuff is a racing formula so it might not be ideal for long term street use. Most racing gearboxes don't have synchronizers and even if they did, the average team or weekend racer isn't worried about the synchros lasting hundreds of thousands of miles ... just a few weekends or a season at most.
--- Bror Jace
I thought I'd move this thread up since there seems to be so much synthetic oil discussion in the oil filters thread all of a sudden. I assume new people just never scrolled down far enough to see that this thread even exists.
bd21 wrote that wide spread oil formulas/weights offer the user the best of both worlds. While this can be true to some degree, there is one major pitfall. These wide spread oils like 0W30 and 5W50 are heavily dependent on a polymer goo (like STP) which reacts to engine heat and forming a thicker, more viscous film of oil in the motor. So at 0F degrees, these oils flow like a 5W (or even a little thinner for a 0W) but at 212F degrees it should act/protect like a 30W oil. Well, this may be true for a medium performance V-8 or V-6 driven conservatively in a temperate climate, it is a poor choice for an engine that is really put through its paces. This could be a kid with a high-revving 4 cylinder, a businessman who travels on the highway at 75-80+mph for hours at a time, a vehicle towing a trailer or any engine with a turbocharger. Plus, as everyday engines are expected to run cleaner (as far as emissions are concerned), they are running hotter. The number of oil-friendly engines on the road these days is decreasing every year.
High heat and RPMs break down the long chain molecules which make up these polymer viscosity improvers and then the oil will begin to thin out so a 5W50 might only protect like a straight 30 or less once it's been put under some stress. Plus, these polymers, once broken down, can form varnish and engine sludge once they are broken down. This begins to happen after only a few thousand miles. They really are the weak link in most multi-viscosity oils. As is usually the case in life, there is a downside ... or else every company would have abandoned most of their weights in favor of a few wide-spread formulas.
So, if you want to change your oil and filter every 3,000 miles, you'll probably have decent luck with oils featuring a comparatively wide spread. But, as was pointed out in the other thread, it's a waste of synthetic oil to drain it out after less than 5,000 miles. It's expensive and usually has a lot of life left to it. Not only that but it's time consuming as well. Not only for doing the change, but also running to the store to buy the oil and then properly return the waste oil after it's been drained.
If you want to get the most out of a synthetic, you'd be better off with a 5W30 or better yet a 10W30 if it's warm most of the year where you live. Even then, if you look at the back of a bottle of 10W30, it will flow at some ridiculous temperature of -40F or so which is overkill for 90% of the United States. So, most cars will be perfectly happy with this stuff ... and most synthetic 10W30s contain ZERO polymer viscosity improver making it a stable, ideal choice for most vehicles as well as extended drain intervals.
--- Bror Jace
Still, most synthetic blends are priced as though they are 50% synthetic ... when they are in actuality only about 15-25% synthetic ... MAX! So, they aren't usually a good value. Sure, you can always mix your own but there is a tiny chance that the additive packages won't get along and the total value of the oil will be less than the sum of its parts.
armtdm said that one doesn't really see benefits from synthetics unless you leave it in for at least 7,500 miles. Well, I agree with him in theory/principle but I'd reduce that threshold to about 6,000 miles or so.
I set up a spreadsheet tracking these costs over a year and 3,000 miles+dead dino oil+$3 filters was roughly equivalent to 6,000 miles+Mobil 1+$5 filter. There are other inputs such as the price of gas, the amount of fuel saved using synthetic (I factored in a modest 2% gain), finding oil on sale, the number of miles traveled in a year, etc ...
Using these values, I usually find a tiny cost advantage in favor of using an oil like Mobil 1. But either way, the difference amounts to only $5-10 annually which is insignificant when compared to the total cost of keeping a car on the road for a year (depreciation, insurance, gasoline, repairs, other maintenance, etc ...
--- Bror Jace
http://www.unofficialbmw.com/all/misc/all_oilfaq.html
i like to post the real thing, not a bunch of opinion.
So, for the same driver synthetics will probably extend the life over what that driver may have seen with dino, but sooooooo many factors to play with. Like life, puting a 75 year old on cholesterol lowering drugs to me is a waste of money, you may extend that persons life by what, a few months, maybe years, hell, at that age eat and drink what you want and enjoy it. Same with putting synthetics in a 200,000 mile engine that was run on dino for its life.
Like adc100 stated, I frimly believe in synthetics for better protection and longevity, however, I have been unable to convince co-workers (even with reams of oil analysis results) that they are better. Co workers change their oil at 3000 or 5000 miles, have not had an oil related problem, are content to go 100,000-150,000 miles and do not see any justification. The price is the determining factor for them especially as they have someone else do the changes so the cost for synthetics is quite high. They just do not see the pay off. And, hard to show one!
I like the effort that went in to Hacket's little study. I've printed it out and poured over it many times in the past few years ... but there are a couple things I'd like to point out:
1) Most importantly, the info is quite dated despite being "updated" at one point. The oils he's showing are rated "SG" ... in other words the figures are well over a decade old. Each brand of oil has undergone numerous reformulations since then as we are currently transitioning from SJ to SL. Simply put, the data in the study no longer applies to what we're buying on the shelves.
2) The range of data is of limited value and he even explains this. The pour points of all 10W30 and 5W30 synthetics, for example are overkill for 90+% of the cold weather in the continental United States. What's the point in trying to infer that one oil will flow/pour at -52 versus -58? Besides, won't an oil that pours at the lowest point thin out quicker when the heat gets turned up? Probably. All things being equal (and I know there are other variables) you'd think this was true. Flash point and amount of zinc are certainly useful numbers ... but the numbers listed are no longer true because the oils have changed. What about a number for resistance to shearing? Percentage of viscosity improver by volume? What about thermal breakdown over time? Resistance to fuel dilution? Those are things most of us would like to know and they are absent from this report. So, trying to decide which oil listed is actually better than another is still largely a guessing game.
3) Lastly, where did Ed get his info? Did he actually get every brand of oil and test them himself? I know I made an attempt to re-create the information using the internet to search current manufacturer MSDS sheets and about 1/2 of the way through the project, I gave up. The data on those sheets was not uniform and it was obvious that different manufacturers were using different criteria for their oils. There was no pattern, for example, to 'pour points'. If I remember correctly, one manufacturer had very similar pour points for 3 different weights of their conventional motor oils ... which we all know isn't likely to be true. Also, the disparity among pour points for different brands was as wide as the disparity between the average conventional and the average synthetic. Obviously, something was very wrong with using manufacturer published data ... even simple, objective data that should have had a great deal of uniformity to it. So, despite my intention to make an updated version of the often-cited Hackett study, I could see it wasn't going to happen. <:^( And more importantly, If Ed Hackett got his info from MSDS sheets or similar industry information, it casts doubt on the entire study.
But, having said that, I still treat that study as an interesting 'snapshot in time' and perhaps an indicator of past oil qualities (which may or may not indicate current and future quality).
--- <b>Bror Jace
I use synthetics in a limited fashion at present, going for synthetic hypoid. I have returned to using petrobase oil in my engines for several reasons, not the least of which is that in my family we don't seem to ever keep a vehicle long enough to REALLY reap the harvest of synthetic usage. I also see the evolution of dino moving it closer to the syn in overall quality, but I do not see syn pricing as appealing. The nebulous nature of information concerning syn oil and some of the "trickery" extant further pushes me away. Overall, I do not see the scales tipping toward me using syn engine oil. I certainly used to use it, and enjoyed the technology of it greatly. Now I see it as an industry failing to mature and set proper standards for the long haul.
Once I brought my car in to have a flat fixed and have the oil and filter changed. I could have fixed the flat myself with one of those do it yourself expresso plug kits but figured why not have it done right seeing I needed an oil change anyway. So I left the car with the grease monkey and came back to pick it up at the end of the day. Charged me $12 for the flat repair and $23 for the oil change. The guy that worked on my car wrote up the bill. I paid the bill and headed home. Once home, I checked the dip stick to make sure he filled it up to the proper level. The stick had oil on it as black as coal---the oil obviously wasnt changed. I checked the tire repair and found that he had just inserted a plug like I could have done myself in 2 minutes instead of the proper inner patch. Well, I headed back and asked him why he didnt change the oil. He stated that he must have forgot. I said to him: "Yeah, but you didnt forget to charge me!" I also mentioned the improper flat repair and demanded a full refund which I received. Needless to say, I will not be heading back to that station for any future repair or maintenance work. Some unsuspecting customer would have driven the car for another 3,000 to 7,000 miles with dirty oil and a clogged filter. Dont think that would be too good for your engine.--Motto: Buyer Beware
additives are like bandaids.
last time i saw the kit in real life was at a Grand Auto store. it also guarenteed to stop oil burning.......yeah right.