2004 Chevy 2500HD, 51k Amsoil ATF, 184K

[TXHunter]

Changed the external spin-on filter after taking the sample. First run on Amsoil ATF after running the Allison/Castrol fluid in previous fill.

Make/Model: Allison 1000
Vehicle: 2004 Chevy 2500HD

Code:


OIL Amsoil ATF Allison Allison Allison ATF

MILES IN USE 50,547 55,999 45,909 22,681

MILES 183,861 133,314 123,224 99,996

SAMPLE TAKEN 10/7/15 12/8/12 6/13/12 7/19/11



ALUMINUM 11 13 11 9

CHROMIUM 0 0 0 0

IRON 36 34 28 23

COPPER 23 25 23 19

LEAD 26 42 37 34

TIN 0 0 0 2

MOLYBDENUM 0 0 0 0

NICKEL 0 1 1 0

MANGANESE 1 1 1 1

SILVER 0 1 0 0

TITANIUM 0 0 0 0

POTASSIUM 4 2 1 0

BORON 164 133 116 123

SILICON 7 5 4 3

SODIUM 6 6 4 5

CALCIUM 139 72 65 57

MAGNESIUM 1 2 1 1

PHOSPHORUS 412 349 310 298

ZINC 10 11 9 9

BARIUM 1 1 1 1



SUS @ 210 52.7 45.5 46.0 45.1

cSt @ 100 8.08 5.87 6.03 5.77

FLASHPOINT 405 410 375 390

WATER % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

INSOLUBLES % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TAN 2.6 1.7 2.1


Blackstone Comments:
Thanks for the note about changing the spin-on filter. No insolubles are present in our tests, so the old filter certainly got the job done. Wear metals look great here and lead dropped quite a bit compared to last time. That's nice to see seems how lead was the only metal on the high end back in 2012. The viscosity did measure a bit thick for Amsoil ATF, but we really don't think that's a problem. It certainly didn't cause any excess metal that we can see. There's no moisture or antifreeze either. Put another 10K miles on this oil and filter and just check back.

 

[dnewton3]

This is the "ATF" and not "ATD", right?

Of all the UOAs I've seen for the Alli 1000 tranny (I have over 100 IIRC), it's not unlike the Dmax engine it sits behind. They generally don't care what fluid is used as long as it's a decent ATF. AS much as people what to believe that these trannies need a licensed TES-295 syn, the data just doesn't support that; people profess the "Transynd" is the "best", but there's no evidence it does any better than many other quality choices.

Further, you've got enough evidence to show that you could safely double the OCI; your wear numbers are in-line with all my data, and there's nothing but a very wide safe margin in front of you. 100k miles is easily doable; the TAN is no where close to being an issue and the wear metals are low on a "per mile" basis. EXTEND YOUR OCI!

Thanks for posting!


PS - did Blackstone really expect to find coolant in your tranny?

 

[TXHunter]

Yes, this is the Amsoil ATF product. I looked at the ATD for a while, but had good luck with the ATF line in other equipment so wanted to keep things simple.

Yeah I posted their comments, but no idea why they felt the need to confirm it was anti-freeze free. Had it not been, that would have made for a pretty interesting post!

 

[dnewton3]

I've been busy of late, but finally got around to looking at your micro data versus macro data for the Alli 1000 (I have about 135 samples for comparison/contrast from Blackstone). Of all my samples, about half are dino and half are various brands of syns (TES295 and the clones such as ATD and general DEX/Merc type syns such as ATF, Mobil 1, MaxLife, etc). So I have plenty of samples to see both sides of the equation.

Generally, your Alli is right in line with "normal" expectations. The syns are giving you slightly better performance, but probably not anywhere near the ROI. You'd have to just about double your OCI to make the cost differences worthwhile.

Because you have only 4 samples, we have no ability to understand your variation; we cannot know your std dev. But we can look at your averages and make some rudimentary projections.

Here is the data:
Macro data averages and std dev for traditional Dex/Merc type fluids; averaged 33k miles ...
Al 4.4ppm / 1k miles; norm var +/- 1
Cr (generally not present); n/a
Fe 1.2 ppm / 1k miles; norm var +/- 2
Cu 1.1 ppm / 1k miles; norm var +/- 3
Pb .7 ppm / 1k miles; norm var +/- 1
The variance between syns and dinos are insignificant for these exposure levels, for reference.

Here are your syn ATF averages; your average of 43k miles
Al 3.9ppm / 1k miles
Cr (not present)
Fe .7 ppm / 1k miles
Cu .5 ppm / 1k miles
Pb .8 ppm / 1k miles



As you can see, your wear rates are right in line with those whom chose to run other syn/dino fluids. You are able to run a longer OCI with the syn, but you're not really getting any less wear; you're just getting more miles. The wear rates are all within normal expectations for your rig compared to the mass of DEX/Merc users. You are averaging 10k more miles in your samples, but it's not really bringing out any disparity in performance; the dinos are doing what your syns are doing. This is not because your syn is failing, but rather because people are changing their dino oils often enough that their OCI has not been stretched out to a point of seeing the lube degrade enough to affect the trans.

Yet another perfect example of my mantra regarding syns and dino lubes. The debate about which is "better" is ill-conceived. This is about which one will last longer in service.

To this point, you've not really stretched out your OCI far enough to get the lube to pay back. I would estimate that your syns cost 2x as much as a store brand Dex/Merc, but you're not pushing the OCIs out far enough to get your money back.

You're not hurting your truck, but your wallet.

 

[userfriendly]

After I remove transmissions from vehicles, I turn the torque convertors upside down in a pail for a few days and 3 or 4 liters drain out. That would equate to about 33% of the total ATF in the system that is left behind at every drain interval.
The fact that new oil in Diesel engines turns black in 10 minutes suggests that residual oil is left behind during oil changes too.

 

[TXHunter]

DNewton,

Thanks for the data, good info. Keep in mind this the first fill on the Amsoil product and has not been changed out yet. Will keep you posted on how long this one stays in before being replaced. Agreed, the stuff is quite a bit higher than dino alternatives. It is quite a bit cheaper than the Allison ATF though, which is why I made the switch.

 

[dnewton3]

Yes - I think the ATF from Amsoil is a great lube and can be used in a broad list of applications. The market for ATD (the clone of the TES-295 approved line) is yet more expensive, but less cost than true licensed Allison fluids. I applaud your approach if you're sampling prior to OCI! Generally I think you do a good job of tracking your fluids, and I particularly look for your UOAs when posted.

I would easily believe the Amsoil ATF could go 100k miles without blinking an eye, presuming the tranny does not suffer a mechanical failure. At that 100k mark, I'd pull a UOA and it might well still be serviceable. The official TES-295 fluids have a LONG OCI offering, and I see no reason the ATF from Amsoil would do any different in real world applications.

The size of the sump, plus the cost of ATF, makes this different from a typical small engine. At such long intervals, UOAs do become important, as the cost of ATF and the quantity used, because it's cheaper to UOA than OCI! So it pays to know before you dump!



Interestingly, I started collecting that Alli 1000 info because of my interest in the whole debate of TES-295 (and similar DEX III type fluids) versus the Dex VI. And what I found, without any doubt, is that DEX VI does every bit as well as TES-295 fluids in terms of wear control, as applied in real world UOAs. Now, I always am careful to qualify that by stating my data has limits; I cannot speak to OCIs that would run longer than my data can express. It is "possible" that a TES-295 may outperform DEX VI at 150k or 200k miles ... But I have yet to find a person that runs their tranny fluid that far anyway. In fact, that is why I believe that even dino DEX III products do as well. When you OCI frequently enough, the DEX/Merc products do every bit as well in terms of wear control. I know guys that use licensed TES-295 lubes, and OCI every 25k miles, thinking it's the "best". WOW - I wish I had that kind of money to toss down the drain! And the UOA data proves conclusively that they are getting absolutely no "better" wear control; none whatsoever. There will be a drop in vis for dino fluids, but there is no corresponding loss of wear protection as long as the OCIs are short-to-moderate in duration. The topic is, in reality, exactly the same as engine oils. Syns offer no advantage in terms of wear if you don't extend the OCIs.

 

[userfriendly]

My point was the factory fill would be around 4 US gallons including the torque convertor and cooling system. If you are using 8 quarts for a drain and refill, close to 50% of the old fluid is left in the transmission. Why GM doesn't use a TES-295 factory fill is one of the great mysteries of the 21st century. It would be considered a life time fill with only filter changes for 90% of the light duty trucks out there.
My take on the above few posts is that Allison transmissions are not fussy about what fluid goes in them as long as it's red.

 

[dnewton3]

Looking at all the UOA I have, I can agree that generally the Alli 1000 units are not terribly particular on fluids as long as they are for that intended market (i.e. Dex/Merc type fluid).


Why does GM not fill with TES-295? Cost and greed.
They don't own Allison (haven't for several years now). So why buy/use a product that has license royalties going to another company when you can use your own (GM = DEX VI)?


The Alli 1000 units built for the GM light-duty trucks are made in Baltimore at the GM plant; they are filled with DEX VI.
The Alli 1000 units build for other applications are made in Indy by Allison; they are filled with TES-295.


Allison states that two drain/fill cycles moving to a TES-295 product is good enough to consider the exchange fully factored and states as such on their website. Admittedly that won't be a 100% exchange, but apparently it's enough to make them satisfied that the remaining fluids aren't a hindrance.

 

[CT8]

dnewton3, Do you include the first oil change with all the break in material for your averages?

 

[dnewton3]

I include all data, but typically ignore "young" equipment. The data is data, and is a basis for info that might be helpful at lower accumulations.

With engines, it's easy to know when there is an OCI early on. With a tranny, it's often assumed that the OEM load lasts a long time, because folks just don't think of it that often. You can almost always tell when it's the original load; the metals are always high. But the "average" is also representative of real world data; I don't delete it. I may well ignore it, but I don't toss it out.