CAT TO-4(M) vs engine oil and API GL4 fluids

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
1,855
Location
Australia
This is a bit of a follow up to the Q I posted the other day.

I've looked and can't find a comparison between these specs on gear, bearing wear and spiral bevel gear wear (comparing between the CAT and API spec)

I realise that the CAT spec also addresses wet clutch/brake performance, but I'm not interested in that ATM, purely gear and diff (not hypoid) protection.

It's obviously possible to meet the GL-4 spec without using a sulphur based add package, ie. using a zinc based package more suited to hydraulic use as there are a few (limited) STOU's out there, but how compromised are they trying to meet an engine spec (usually CF or CF-4) as well as the gear/hydraulic requirements ?

How does an MT1 oil rank compared to the previously mentioned specs ?

The older tractor I'm trying to find a fluid for has a dry clutch and brakes and specifies an xW-40 fluid (CD engine oil) for the combined hydraulics/transmission/diff and I'm just trying to find the best compromise I can ATM.

thanks.
 
I cant really ansver your questions but i´ll give my
own findings.
-Stou worked great in my atos gearbox.
-used it in my sons audi, even the servo wich called for sumting special and expensive. No ill effects, i cant blame the oil for the car rusting out can i?
-my ford 4000 tractor from -68 uses it everywere and it just works.
-ive used as top up and exchange oil in both my dodge v8 and atos 1 litre engine, seems to work.
-used it in my aircooled atv, lawn mover etc(engine and tranny combined) it gets hot as [censored] but it seems to work.
If i was forced to use just one oil...stou.
 
Somewhere I have the original of this in English, but can't find it right now. It shows the piñon wear with 15W-40 and 30 engine oils compared to TO-4 formulations.
98-Desgaste_de_TO-4.png
 
I'm impressed. I had a sneaking suspicion that there was such a lube. TO-2 was usable as an engine oil.

And the CAT specs says that you should now use TO-4, as TO-2 is obsolete. CAT says use TO-4 anywhere TO-2 is called for. For a lot of older tractors, that includes the crankcase ...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: widman
Somewhere I have the original of this in English, but can't find it right now. It shows the piñon wear with 15W-40 and 30 engine oils compared to TO-4 formulations.
98-Desgaste_de_TO-4.png


Thank you, Richard.

Look at the superior performance of a dedicated Cat Transmission Drain Train Oil TDTO TO-4 SAE 30, over engine oil SAE 15W40 and TO-2 SAE 30(CD diesel engine oil ...............
in a typical gear train drive system, with or without wet clutches.

I'm of the opinion that it's actually suitable for DD transfer cases without synchronisers.
JMHO
blush.gif
 
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
I'm impressed. I had a sneaking suspicion that there was such a lube. TO-2 was usable as an engine oil.


Not true, my friend.

Quote:
And the CAT specs says that you should now use TO-4, as TO-2 is obsolete. CAT says use TO-4 anywhere TO-2 is called for. For a lot of older tractors, that includes the crankcase ...


Not in a crankcase.

In gear train drive systems with gears , yes.
blush.gif
 
Why not Zeng?
CD is an old Diesel engine oil classification.
TO-4 might pass CE,CF,SA, SB, SC, and maybe SD.
That brings us up to 1972 is spark, and later in Compression ignition.
 
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
Why not Zeng?
CD is an old Diesel engine oil classification.
TO-4 might pass CE,CF,SA, SB, SC, and maybe SD.
That brings us up to 1972 is spark, and later in Compression ignition.

Userfriendly,

A little bit of history .....
a )API CD motor oil specifications were introduced into markets in the States in 1955 (MIL-L-2104C/D) for use in (Naturally Aspirated;Supercharges or Turbo) diesel engines.
b )After which Caterpillar adopted Shear-Stable (powershift) Transmission Oil Specifications in TO-2 (in year 19xx,anybody?) whose approved list includes only Monograde SAE 10W/30/40/50 SAE CD Motor Oils, not multigrade SAE CD if it existed (since year 19xx,anybody).
c )Then comes SAE CE motor oil specs in 1983 (MIL-L-2104D/E) whose Monogrades are similarly approved to Shear-Stable TO-2 specs.
d )In 1989, SAE CF-4 motor oil specs was introduced only in multigrades form , no monogrades were included.
Therefore there wasn't any TO-2 approval for any CF-4 motor oils due to non-compliance of TO-2's requirement of Shear-Stability.
e )Meanwhile, in mainly overcoming short wear life of powershift transmission friction clutch discs with use of TO-2/SAE CD and SAE CE monogrades oils ....
then comes a new superceding specs in Shear-Stable TDTO TO-4 of viscosity grades SAE 10W/30/40 and SAE 50.
No motor oils in any SAE Cx class were ever approved to TDTO TO-4 specifications.
f )These Transmission Drive Train Oil (TDTO) TO-4 are gear train oils and replaces TO-2 in gear train systems and this TO-4 does NOT replace the so-called TO-2 in engine crankcase which belongs to SAE CD/CE monogrades or CF-4 multigrades.
The TO-4 oils are NOT motor engine oils (which falls under SAE CD/CE and CF-4 then).
Hence my remarks in all my previous postings above and other threads as well.
Just my 2 cents.
blush.gif
 
Last edited:
Zeng;
Thank you for the quick reply, I read all of your posts and respect your position.
I understand that Diesel CD engine oils were pressed into service as Cat TO-2,
but due to high friction plate wear, TO-4 was introduced.
Engine oils were no longer approved by Cat for use in their transmissions.
The API Cx approvals could no longer be used as evidence that mono grade Diesel engine oils
were suitable for Cat transmissions after TO-4 was developed.
But... does the TO-4 approval disqualify the fluid as being a suitable engine oil in certain applications?

Why am I asking that question?
Because I tot I taw a puddey tat.
Shannow might say, Look! A bunny.
 
Last edited:
The most interesting thing I learned here is that if you find an engine oil with TO-2 approval, you know it's not got VII...

TO-4 will likely require chemistry more akin to gear oils (low TBN, high TAN) and thus unsuitable for crankcase oils.
 
Not sure on that Jetronic, I've only found one so far in my Caltex (year 2000) product data book.

The Super tractor universal 15W40 claimed Cat TO-2, but also claimed a VI of 142.

Agri 424 (transmission and hydraulics only) in my 2009 Mobil catalogue claims TO-2 with a VI of 145 also.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Not sure on that Jetronic, I've only found one so far in my Caltex (year 2000) product data book.
The Super tractor universal 15W40 claimed Cat TO-2, but also claimed a VI of 142.
Agri 424 (transmission and hydraulics only) in my 2009 Mobil catalogue claims TO-2 with a VI of 145 also.


Correction on my statement on shear-stable TO-2 specifications (and by extension possibly includes TO-4 specification) that is inaccurate and misleading.... Thousand apologies.
18.gif

What I actually meant was TO-2 and TO-4 oils recommended by Caterpillar on my equipments fleet were only in shear-stable monogrades like SAE 10W/30/40/50 .

Yes, I'd actually used UTTO Shell Donax 5W-30 which claims TO-2 and upgrade same to monogrades.
Meanwhile there are a number of monogrades off-road 'transmission oils' that claims exceeding the requirements of SAE CF/CF-2 specs.

So Shannow, you are right with the STUO 15W40 and 424.
27.gif


Edit: http://www.mymesra.com.my/Transmission_and_Gear-@-Powertrans_T4.aspx
http://www.mymesra.com.my/Heavy_Duty_Oil-@-Urania_CF.aspx
http://www.mymesra.com.my/Heavy_Duty_Oil-@-Urania_Turbo_CF-4.aspx
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
The most interesting thing I learned here is that if you find an engine oil with TO-2 approval, you know it's not got VII...

My bad.
My above statement on shear-stable TO-2 specification is inaccurate.
27.gif

However, I would endeavour to research further on current TO-4 specification on shear-stability requirements . In so far as I know todate , mineral transmission oils claiming TO-4 compliance are only monogrades.
By monogrades, I meant mineral oils.
There could be VII-free 'multigrade' Synthetics that claims TO-4 , IDK.
21.gif
 
It looks like Shannow pulled a bunny rabbit out of a hat.

In Canada, Anglo became BA, British North America around 1960.
About 1968, Gulf Canada took over the BA service stations. and refineries.
Petro-Canada, a government invention, bought and broke up Gulf Canada into little pieces, I'll guess 1980.
About 2008, The Canuck government sold it's remaining interest to Suncor Energy.
Suncor, now owns the group III capable lube plant in Ontario, and retained the Petro-Canada brand.

The PDS shows Anglo Oil TO-4 passing both CF and CF-2, which is a stretch with it's likely high SA level.

Somebody here, but I won't say who, has been using TO-4 as an engine oil since 1998.

I did, I did see a puddy tat.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
zeng,
exactly
http://pds.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/P...uid_Arctic.aspx

Thank you for confirming my 'hunch' that there could be VII-free Synthetics Multigrades complying with shear-stable TO-4 specifications.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Found one that says it CAN be used as engine oil
http://www.anglomoil.com/cat-to-4/
http://www.anglomoil.com/wp-content/uploads/Cat-TO-4.pdf
And can get less then 10 mins away from work.

Yes, it claims to meet the requirements of :
a) SAE CF - which are monogrades meant for Indirect Direct Injection diesel engines with Pre-combustion chambers, and
b) SAE CF2 - which are meant for 2 stroke diesel engines.
blush.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top