MolaKule
Staff member
Driveline News Supports the Use of Dedicated MTLs
- Thread starter MolaKule
- Start date
- Status
Nicely detailed.
I always was suspicious of using a general purpose transmission fluid that was possible for use in BOTH manual and auto units.
Way too many high pressure situations in manual units to think that automatic atf would be suitable, and even if you could use it I would think it would be worn out in short order. (sheared down)
I always was suspicious of using a general purpose transmission fluid that was possible for use in BOTH manual and auto units.
Way too many high pressure situations in manual units to think that automatic atf would be suitable, and even if you could use it I would think it would be worn out in short order. (sheared down)
I still don't think this addresses the whole ATF vs MTF question.
From the sounds of it, this article seems to be implying that possibly a more heavy EP or AW dosing in MTF vs. ATF. However, sycros do need some "wear" so they can grip. So how much is too much?
I personally have ran an EP gear fluid (differential case fluid), ATF, and OEM MTF in my Mazdaspeed3 manual transmission. I've noticed the ATF I use works well. The EP gear fluid did work great, and UOA showed no increases in wear metals. However, I still still a bit concerned about the brass, so I went back to an ATF. Been using it for about 25,000miles now and I think it works great.
I'd like to see some more input on this conversation.
From the sounds of it, this article seems to be implying that possibly a more heavy EP or AW dosing in MTF vs. ATF. However, sycros do need some "wear" so they can grip. So how much is too much?
I personally have ran an EP gear fluid (differential case fluid), ATF, and OEM MTF in my Mazdaspeed3 manual transmission. I've noticed the ATF I use works well. The EP gear fluid did work great, and UOA showed no increases in wear metals. However, I still still a bit concerned about the brass, so I went back to an ATF. Been using it for about 25,000miles now and I think it works great.
I'd like to see some more input on this conversation.
It really depends on the design and the materials used in the design. ZF used D-21065 ATF for years without problem but that doesn't mean that it would be good for all. The variations in design, the materials used and the opinion of the individual manufacturers are the factors that mean that we end up with such a variety of fluids. I don't see an opportunity for any common fluid in the near future.
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: camelCase
I still don't think this addresses the whole ATF vs MTF question.
From the sounds of it, this article seems to be implying that possibly a more heavy EP or AW dosing in MTF vs. ATF. However, sycros do need some "wear" so they can grip. So how much is too much?
I personally have ran an EP gear fluid (differential case fluid), ATF, and OEM MTF in my Mazdaspeed3 manual transmission. I've noticed the ATF I use works well. The EP gear fluid did work great, and UOA showed no increases in wear metals. However, I still still a bit concerned about the brass, so I went back to an ATF. Been using it for about 25,000miles now and I think it works great.
I'd like to see some more input on this conversation.
Quote:
GL-4 is a level of protection rating for gears and is generally applied to manual transmissions and to manual transaxles that do not have hypoid designs.
The older formulations in GL-4 MT lubes had about 1200 to 1500 ppm of phosphorous and zinc or ZDDP as the primary Anti-Wear additive. Some simply contained a lower level of phosphorous-sulfur EP additives like those used in differential (GL-5) lubes.
GL-4 MT lubes don't need a strong EP additive level like the phosphorous-sulfur EP levels in a differential lubricant because of the type of gearing and gear-tooth loading.
If you care to read the White Papers you will see that gear lubes, whether GL-4 or GL-5, have more than just Anti-Wear (AW) or Extreme-Pressure (EP) additives.
ALL Gear lubes contain anti-rust, anti-foam, and Metal Deactivator chemistries.
Metal Deactivator chemistries are chemical compounds that keep an additive component or contaminant from reacting with metals in the gear box.
The important thing to keep in mind about the Specific Application GL-4 MT lubes is that they contain the proper friction modifier chemistries to assist with better shifting and synchro engagement.
Personally, I relegate GL-5 rated lubes to hypoid differentials only.
Quote:
Here is what application-specific (Dedicated) MTLs consist of:
1. Base oils of various types and viscosities to make a specific viscosity and have anti-shear properties
2. GL-4 Performance Improvement (PI additive package) chemistry which consists of the following
a) GL-4 anti-wear (AW) additives
b) anti-rust additive
c) copper and aluminum metal deactivator/buffering agent
d) anti-foamant
e) special friction modifier (FM)
f) dye
Application Specific = Dedicated.
I still don't think this addresses the whole ATF vs MTF question.
From the sounds of it, this article seems to be implying that possibly a more heavy EP or AW dosing in MTF vs. ATF. However, sycros do need some "wear" so they can grip. So how much is too much?
I personally have ran an EP gear fluid (differential case fluid), ATF, and OEM MTF in my Mazdaspeed3 manual transmission. I've noticed the ATF I use works well. The EP gear fluid did work great, and UOA showed no increases in wear metals. However, I still still a bit concerned about the brass, so I went back to an ATF. Been using it for about 25,000miles now and I think it works great.
I'd like to see some more input on this conversation.
Quote:
GL-4 is a level of protection rating for gears and is generally applied to manual transmissions and to manual transaxles that do not have hypoid designs.
The older formulations in GL-4 MT lubes had about 1200 to 1500 ppm of phosphorous and zinc or ZDDP as the primary Anti-Wear additive. Some simply contained a lower level of phosphorous-sulfur EP additives like those used in differential (GL-5) lubes.
GL-4 MT lubes don't need a strong EP additive level like the phosphorous-sulfur EP levels in a differential lubricant because of the type of gearing and gear-tooth loading.
If you care to read the White Papers you will see that gear lubes, whether GL-4 or GL-5, have more than just Anti-Wear (AW) or Extreme-Pressure (EP) additives.
ALL Gear lubes contain anti-rust, anti-foam, and Metal Deactivator chemistries.
Metal Deactivator chemistries are chemical compounds that keep an additive component or contaminant from reacting with metals in the gear box.
The important thing to keep in mind about the Specific Application GL-4 MT lubes is that they contain the proper friction modifier chemistries to assist with better shifting and synchro engagement.
Personally, I relegate GL-5 rated lubes to hypoid differentials only.
Quote:
Here is what application-specific (Dedicated) MTLs consist of:
1. Base oils of various types and viscosities to make a specific viscosity and have anti-shear properties
2. GL-4 Performance Improvement (PI additive package) chemistry which consists of the following
a) GL-4 anti-wear (AW) additives
b) anti-rust additive
c) copper and aluminum metal deactivator/buffering agent
d) anti-foamant
e) special friction modifier (FM)
f) dye
Application Specific = Dedicated.
Last edited:
MolaKule
Couldn't we assume that an ATF would contain a similar FM to the MTF? Granted - chemistries and concentrations vary. I'd like to imagine that the FM requirements for syncros in a MT would be similar to the FM requirements in an ATF?
If so - then is their proposal for a dedicated MTF simply an ATF with additional AW?
Couldn't we assume that an ATF would contain a similar FM to the MTF? Granted - chemistries and concentrations vary. I'd like to imagine that the FM requirements for syncros in a MT would be similar to the FM requirements in an ATF?
If so - then is their proposal for a dedicated MTF simply an ATF with additional AW?
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: camelCase
MolaKule
Couldn't we assume that an ATF would contain a similar FM to the MTF? Granted - chemistries and concentrations vary. I'd like to imagine that the FM requirements for syncros in a MT would be similar to the FM requirements in an ATF?
We cannot assume that an ATF contains the same FM chemistry as an MTL. The FM requirement for an MT is much different than that for an ATF with wet clutches.
The chemistry used for each type of lubricant is very different.
Quote:
If so - then is their proposal for a dedicated MTF simply an ATF with additional AW?
No, because there is more to each type of formulation than just the AW component.
Quote:
One thing you should be aware of is that when manf. speak of Friction Modifiers they are speaking of the friction modifiers for that specific fluid, in this case an ATF.
There are different friction modifiers for ATFs, MTLs, differentials, and engine oils.
Quote:
An ATF friction modifier is not the same as an MTL friction modifier, is not the same as a PCMO friction modifier, is not the same as a differential lube friction modifier.
Good questions.
MolaKule
Couldn't we assume that an ATF would contain a similar FM to the MTF? Granted - chemistries and concentrations vary. I'd like to imagine that the FM requirements for syncros in a MT would be similar to the FM requirements in an ATF?
We cannot assume that an ATF contains the same FM chemistry as an MTL. The FM requirement for an MT is much different than that for an ATF with wet clutches.
The chemistry used for each type of lubricant is very different.
Quote:
If so - then is their proposal for a dedicated MTF simply an ATF with additional AW?
No, because there is more to each type of formulation than just the AW component.
Quote:
One thing you should be aware of is that when manf. speak of Friction Modifiers they are speaking of the friction modifiers for that specific fluid, in this case an ATF.
There are different friction modifiers for ATFs, MTLs, differentials, and engine oils.
Quote:
An ATF friction modifier is not the same as an MTL friction modifier, is not the same as a PCMO friction modifier, is not the same as a differential lube friction modifier.
Good questions.
- Status
