Transynd Fluid?

Hi Whitewold
I have not posted here in a long time anyway if Whitewolf says Dex 6 is the best take that to the bank.

bruce CLS
 
Originally Posted By: bruce381
Hi Whitewold
I have not posted here in a long time anyway if Whitewolf says Dex 6 is the best take that to the bank.

bruce CLS


It's not that I disagree with him- I don't.

I just want to see some info that goes beyond "it doesn't meet the spec". That doesn't tell us a whole [censored] of a lot.
 
Quote:
Also, cooling efficiency drops due to reduced flow in the cooling circuit because the fluid is thinner.


OK, we know some of the older ATF fluids decreased in viscosity primarily due to the lower quality Viscosity index improvers and the fact the base fluids themselves did not have good viscosity indices.

But a fluids ability to transfer heat is primarily determined by it's specific heat capacity and mass density, and both are taken as constants.
 
I thought that was a strange one too. The only thing I could come up with was that flow was reduced due to the oil pump losing efficiency when viscosity dropped.
 
I would think pump efficiency, in terms of volumetric flow, would increase due to less viscous drag.

In an AT we can consider the fluid system to be mostly isobaric or constant pressure.

For lubricating fluids, Viscosity is mostly temperature dependent and virtually pressure independent.

The only place I know where the ratio of specific heats vary significantly is at the high temps and pressures encountered in a turbine engine, but these are for gases and not liquids.
 
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
Thanks Bruce for your welcome input.

For the rest of you try reading SAE 2007 01 3987.


Yeah, requiring me to read a paper that costs $22... that'll shut me up.
lol.gif


I'm trying to get it for free via the local university library. We'll see if that pans out.

[censored] SAE and their copyrights.
 
In a high pressure pump of 2500 to 4000 psi, anytime a fluid thins one can have cavitation and leakage. There is always some leakage in a pump, especially at high pressures since no pump is perfect, and this effect becomes more pronounced at high pressures.

In our case the pressures are around 150 psi for AT's and 50 psi for engines.

The statement made earlier
Quote:
Also, cooling efficiency drops due to reduced flow in the cooling circuit because the fluid is thinner.


just didn't make me feel the author was overtly qualified, since 1) he didn't mention any sources of info to back up his statement, 2) the sentence led me to believe he was referring to the fluid's characteristics, 3) all texts on thermal-fluid interactions I have read show viscosity is only lightly dependent on pressure.

Had he said "cooloing system efficiency" it would have been more specific which would then have included the pump. I know, I am nitpicking but words and sentences DO have meaning.
 
Last edited:
More info by Tom Johnson who wrote the TES-295 specs:


With regard to what to put into an Allison 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Series, my recommendation will always be TranSynd or another TES-295 approved product (and not just because I approved all of these products). TranSynd (and the other TES-295 products) cannot lose viscosity because there's nothing to shear (no IV improvers). ALso, it's formulated with only PAO (polyalphaolefin) base oils so there's also very little oxidation over many many hours and miles of use. We tested TranSynd for thousands of hours in city buses with retarders and garbage trucks (refuse packers) and never saw any sign of oxidation or shear. TranSynd and the TES-295 specification (which I wrote) did wonders to fix all the problems we (Allison) used to have with C4 oils and DEXRON-IIIH transmission fluids. So, whether it's an RV with a 4000 Series or a pickup with a 1000 Series, you should be running TranSynd for the highest possible performance and durability. It really is worth the money.

About Seals Compatibility - TranSynd has never been associated with seal problems in any Allison lab tests or in any Allison field/fleet tests. So, I don't believe leaks are associated with TranSynd. ALso, when GM first came out with DEXRON-VI, Allison found it was incompatible with older Viton type seals. So, Allison does not recommend the use of GM DEXRON-VI ATF except in GM pickups with the Allison 1000 Series transmission. Allison seal materials were later updated to be compatible with DEXRON-VI. GM sold Allison and after that Allison no longer had a seat on the GM ATF Committee (a seat I used to hold). So, Allison ended its association with GM and removed DEXRON-VI from all recommendations.

One more thing. When changing from a DEXRON-IIIH product, always drain and fill twice to ensure maximum TranSynd content. Flushing machines are not typically recommended and usually give the same results as a double drain and fill (per a test we ran at Allison).

If you're only operating for 4000 miles or so per year, you'd be able to run TranSynd out past the calendar year restrictions. However, you should use oil analysis to verify it. Not just because I now do oil and coolant analysis, but because it's the only way to ensure that the fluid remains stable (from an oxidation, shear, and contaminants standpoint) and that the transmission wear metals are OK.

Amsoil has never ran against the TES-295 spec to my knowledge. I was never asked to test it

TES-389 is strictly DEXRON-IIIH fluids. I wrote the specification after Allison had Viton seal problems with DEXRON-VI. We wanted to "weed out" any DEXRON-IIIH that had the same seal compatibility issues as DEXRON-VI. The TES-389 specification required proof of a DEXRON-IIIH license plus running of a special Viton seal test. Any DEXRON-IIIH products that passed the tests were granted the TES-389 approval.

TES-389 is not as good at TES-295 fluids. Much less oxidation resistance and tons more viscosity loss. That's why the drain intervals are so much shorter for TES-389 fluids.

At the low mileage you're putting on the TranSynd, I'd say do an oil analysis at the beginning of each travel season and don't change it until the oil analysis says to. Your only concern should be contamination from water or glycol but it's a low probability on both. Change if water gets to over 0.2%.

I think you can get the dipstick "TranSynd Only" labels from Allison on their website.

The easiest way to collect a sample is down through the dipstick tube. You'll want to sample the fluid warm or at normal operating temperature.

Yes. TranSynd is OK for the HT740 series

Here's the deal. I believe you can run filters longer but you'll need to run oil analysis and it "must" include particle count and should include ISO Cleanliness Code. Oil analysis will tell you all you need to know about the fluid life (provided you're also getting the TAN (Total Acid Number) information. The only thing a typical oil analysis won't tell you is how much debris (particles/millileter) and the size of the particles (micron sizes) that are circulating through your system. Allison filters are sized to pass finer particles (approximately 30 microns or smaller)so that the filters won't "load up" in a short amount of time. Anything above 30 microns should be trapped by the filter. Generally, the larger the particle, the less there are of them. Tiny particles (around 4-14 microns in size) are abundant in most systems. These tiny particles generally due little harm the transmission unless they are very hard particles like sand (which shows up as excessive "silicon") in an oil sample.

Bottom Line: All systems are different in the way the collect debris and your duty cycle and location are a big part of what gets picked up through the breather. So, filters are kind of difficult to manage. It can be done but it takes particle count data at a bare minimum to do it. Most folks may not want to take that on.

Nope !!! I no longer recommend anyone use DEXRON-III. Use TranSynd or another TES-295 for the best possible performance and durability. DEXRON-III is an obsolete spec so anything these days is being manufactured under the label D3/M meaning DEXRON-III/MERCON. These fluids are manufactured and sold but have no license and are no longer approved by either GM or Ford. I used to sit on the GM DEXRON-III committee and I can tell you that these fluids are no longer evaluated by anyone at GM. So, it's sort of like "buyer beware" when it comes to any DEXRON-III (D3M) products on today's market. Also, do not use DEXRON-VI due to possible seal issues with your older MT transmission.

PS: D3M fluids (DEXRON-III) tend to lose viscosity so cooling won't be as good due to lower cooling circuit flow. Unless you change it every 25,000 miles. So, just put in TranSYnd adn you should be good for at least 100,000 miles. Don't forget to change the filters too.

I agree completely with wny_pat !!! I couldn't have said it better myself. I came up with the concept of TranSynd and wrote the TES-295 spec to fix two distinct problems we were having with transmission fluids. We were experiencing short lives with DEXRON-III fluids and with Allison C4 oils. The DEXRON-IIIs were losing too much viscosity and the Allison C4 oils (mostly engine oils) were oxidizing too quickly. TranSynd and the TES-295 specification fixed both problems and it truly is a great product. So, I'm not sure why anyone would put anything in an Allison accept TranSynd or a TES-295 approved product unless I can come up with something almost as good (with a life around 100,000 miles and about $10/gal cheaper). Would such a product be attractive to you all?

Allison did approve DEXRON-III ATF for many years until I saw a need to change that. The problem was always viscosity loss in DEXRON type fluids. They were good fluids from every other aspect but they tended to lose viscosity (some could lose as much as 50-60%). So the problem we had was keeping the drain intervals low enough to avoid significant viscosity loss that could affect transmission durability. If you use a TES-389 fluid (DEXRON-IIIH) you need to drain it per recommendations. These fluids lose viscosity and could result in wear if you run them too long. Also, cooling efficiency drops due to reduced flow in the cooling circuit because the fluid is thinner. So, as long as you're following recommended TES-389 drain intervals, you'll be OK. However, unless you're changing it yourself, the labor to change fluid will eventually be more than the TranSynd since you can run it 150,000 miles in the 1000/2000 Series and 300,000 miles in the 3000/4000 Series.

PS: That's why I'm on this forum. I'm here to settle all the arguments concerning Allison fluid recommendations and specs since I'm the guy that wrote all of them.

PSS: TES-389 fluids are all DEXRON-IIIH fluids. That's why the drain intervals are so short compared to TranSynd and TES-295 fluids. We launched the TES-389 specification because some folks just could not bring themselves to spend the extra money for TranSynd or another TES-295 fluid. But, it's false economy .... TranSYnd and the other TES-295 fluids are worth it (by a large margin).

I would say you could let it get to 250F but only intermittently.

Converter out ("To Cooler") will be the highest temperature. Allison allows 330F max converter out temperature before the electronics will inhibit functionality to try to cool the transmission. Sump will be typically between 180F and 220F. The lowest temperature should be "From Cooler". The temperature drop across the cooler is dependent upon air flow, surface area and cooler flow. I would pay the most attention to the sump temperature since it is a function of the cooler circuit design and flow. It should be the most stable since cooler in and cooler out temperatures vary more depending on how much you operate in converter mode vs. lockup mode and have less of a "heat sink" affect meaning the heat disipation rate (heat transfer) will be more efficient in the smaller mass of the converter in and out sensors.

It could get contaminated with water but that's about it. The fluid won't go bad (from a performance standpoint) by just sitting. I never believed in the calendar time limit but got voted down on this. The fluid if just left to sit and without contamination should be good for 10 years or more

Sorry but they're all expensive because they're all true synthetics (PAO, polyalphaolefin) based. That's what's keeping the cost high; however, if you take full advantage of the drain intervals, you'll still be money ahead. I wouldn't change your fluid unless oil analysis condemns it. If it's a mixture, that will show up in the viscosity. If it's above 6.5 cSt (centiStokes) at 100C then it's probably still good. If you change filters, just top it off with TranSynd or a TES-295 product and you should be OK. Oil analysis will tell you.

Tests are run in accordance with ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) procedures. Typical tests are ICP (Inductive Coupled Plasma) for wear, contamination, and additive metals. Viscosmeters for viscosity at 100C. Contaminants by GC (Gas Chromotography) and FTIR (Fourier Transform Infra-Red). Total Acid Number (TAN) and/or Total Base Number (TBN) for titration of KOH (Potassium Hydroxide) and Oxidation/Nitration by FTIR. Condemning limits are set based on an historical database of like equipment and like oils.

DEXRON-VI is a mix of Group II and Group III base oils plus additives. A true synthetic will contain Group IV base oils which are called PAO (polyalphaolefins). TranSynd and the other TES-295 fluids all contain PAO only. Base oils are divided into these groups based on sulfur content, viscosity index, and amount of saturates.

To learn more about Base Oil Groups, go to API.org (American Petroleum Institute).
 
At the end of the day just cut the [censored] and tell me and all of us what the Transynd approval number was for DEXRON-II(H)!
 
The comments above appear to be a compilation of responses to questions, and don't have smooth transition between topics. Since the questions aren't printed, it requires intuition to establish context in places.
 
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
At the end of the day just cut the [censored] and tell me and all of us what the Transynd approval number was for DEXRON-II(H)!


Do you know it was ever submitted for Dex IIIH approval?

Mr Johnson might find it laughable to question if a fluid designed and intended to surpass Dex IIIH performance wouldn't even meet the original fluid's specs.
 
Given the commentary about dex vi not being suitable for viton seals, and seemingly that transynd tes-295 is a superior, quality-controlled replacement for dex III...

Which is better for 20-30yo NON-GM ATs specced for dex II?

Thanks!
 
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
Yes I do happen to know.


Awesome. Now could you give us some detail as to what specific criteria Trasnynd failed to meet? And some data to go along with it?

Thanks.
 
Originally Posted By: onion
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
Yes I do happen to know.


Awesome. Now could you give us some detail as to what specific criteria Trasnynd failed to meet? And some data to go along with it?

Thanks.


I think that I have already done that and quoted SAE papers to support my opinion.
 
So whitewolf if I may,

My 2006 GMC 3500 Allison transmission came factory filled with DexVI, but according to the serial number cutoffs issued by Allison my seals are NOT Dex VI compatible. At 66,000 miles I had no idea what previous service/fluid type had occured. I did two drain and refills with Castrol HD MP ATF which is TES 389 approved. I was considering going to Transynd for the extended drain interval. What would you suggest?
1. Dex III(tes 389)
2. Dex VI
3. Transynd or any other tes295 fluid

Thanks,
 
I worked with TJ at Allison and ran a lot of the dyno durability tests on TES-295 fluids.

Dex VI was intended @ GM for automotive fuel economy (a big deal when scrambling for every tenth of CAFE mpg).

TES-295 was intended @ Allison for best durability in city transit buses and trash trucks. Those are the toughest vocations.

We took TES-295 (Castrol) that had run for 100,000 miles in NYC trash trucks, drained it out, and used it for our dyno durability test on the pickup truck trans. Came out great.
 
Originally Posted By: nascarnation
I worked with TJ at Allison and ran a lot of the dyno durability tests on TES-295 fluids.

Dex VI was intended @ GM for automotive fuel economy (a big deal when scrambling for every tenth of CAFE mpg).

TES-295 was intended @ Allison for best durability in city transit buses and trash trucks. Those are the toughest vocations.

We took TES-295 (Castrol) that had run for 100,000 miles in NYC trash trucks, drained it out, and used it for our dyno durability test on the pickup truck trans. Came out great.


So I'm guessing Transynd is your choice.
What is your take on Transynd not passing the DexIIIh specs? I know they mean nothing anymore, but the tes389 fluids had to meet the IIIh requirements.Why not the Transynd?
Thanks
 
Back
Top