I used strait RedLine MTF last time 75w-80, iirc. That was fine and I ran it 30k. After seeing UOAs how badly MTF shears over extended drains, I decide to bump the visc up with 1/2q of MT-90. How did I decide on a 1/2q...a visc calc? Nope. Just that I have a 1/2 leftover for next time, lol. My trans takes more oil than it should, total of 2.5q. So, can I feel the difference? Definately. I might be willing to trade a minor mpg loss for a smoother quieter trans, but the effect I'm looking for is extending it bit. Since the trans was drained oem at 7500, MTF fill run till 40k (32.5k total), how far should I go on this? 50k reasonable? I drive 30k a year so, maybe 2 years? The change job is easy, but the fluid is expensive. btw, I wanted to try AMSoil this time, but got the RL for $8/q.
Custom blended RedLine trans oil for Honda
- Thread starter Auto-Union
- Start date
- Status
Nothing wrong with blending MT fluids. Often it's the only way to get it just right for your personal wants and climate needs.
Pablo, that's good to hear. I'm not a fan of blending unless the products are as similar as can be. It's for my RSX 5-sp. Many 6-sp drivers embrace the thin GM Syncromesh as a band-aid for their grinding issues. Not a lot of strait MTL users in Honda except maybe one person here. The MTL seems like a good fit, just a hair thinner. (I don't want to quote actualy visc here and get it wrong). It does seem a universal constant that thand oils shear and my MTL trans did seem to get notchier. I'm not an expert on trans oils, not usually an easy R&R like it is on this car. So, the best plan I could come up with was a splash of MT-90.
The RL MTF sample I saw lost 1cSt after what amounts to 6 months of use for me, about 15k. If I added 1cSt by blending, all the better. Is it reasonable to believe the shearing would continue on a linear basis?
25% shearing is one of the replacement variables for gearbox fluids. 1-cst shearing(10%) at 15k miles is nothing. If wear is acceptable, you should have no problem pushing the fluid to 30-50k miles. I doubt shearing is linear but you can watch it with a UOA.
Redline MTL is thicker then Synchromesh. It should be a better starting point.
There should be no problem with blending the MTL a little thicker with MT90. But why would you want too?
And, why do you want longer change intervals? For optimum manual tranny life, I'll recommend or motor is hopped up, even 10-15k isn't excessive. IMO, anything more seems negligent.
Redline MTL is thicker then Synchromesh. It should be a better starting point.
There should be no problem with blending the MTL a little thicker with MT90. But why would you want too?
And, why do you want longer change intervals? For optimum manual tranny life, I'll recommend or motor is hopped up, even 10-15k isn't excessive. IMO, anything more seems negligent.
In my 1993 Mazda, I run MT90 at 30-50k intervals - 221k miles now and no probs. My Mom has a 1992 Nissan 1.6L - 200k miles, gearbox never opened; likely factory fill (car was bought with 116k). Her's shifts smoother with less notchy-ness than mine. Both on original clutches.
- Status
Similar threads
