Here's some more for everyone to digest...
VOA's: Mobil 1 Syn ATF, Redline D4 ATF, GM MTF
- Thread starter 4wheels
- Start date
- Status
Thankyou!!!!
Originally Posted By: tig1
It looks to me the M1 is equal to Red line and both are better than the GM.
I am assuming that more additive = better...but how do we know that this is actually the case? How would these additives affect clutch friction or gear/pump/converter wear?
I have always wondered how these universal fluids perform in the different applications. Is it just that GM's fluid has been cost reduced and the additional additive is actually beneficial?
FYI - I am trying to determine if I want to go with OEM fluid next or switch to one of these universal fluids.
It looks to me the M1 is equal to Red line and both are better than the GM.
I am assuming that more additive = better...but how do we know that this is actually the case? How would these additives affect clutch friction or gear/pump/converter wear?
I have always wondered how these universal fluids perform in the different applications. Is it just that GM's fluid has been cost reduced and the additional additive is actually beneficial?
FYI - I am trying to determine if I want to go with OEM fluid next or switch to one of these universal fluids.
Originally Posted By: tig1
It looks to me the M1 is equal to Red line and both are better than the GM.
How the heck did you come to THAT conclusion???
$20 VOA's can not possibly tell you if an ATF is "better" than an MTF.
Now I will agree, for something to be called "MTF", the GM stuff looks by just pure elemental additives under additized. But if you have read more than 2 or 3 posts here, a cheapie VOA doesn't really tell you what a lubricant is.
It looks to me the M1 is equal to Red line and both are better than the GM.
How the heck did you come to THAT conclusion???
$20 VOA's can not possibly tell you if an ATF is "better" than an MTF.
Now I will agree, for something to be called "MTF", the GM stuff looks by just pure elemental additives under additized. But if you have read more than 2 or 3 posts here, a cheapie VOA doesn't really tell you what a lubricant is.
I really wish they would test for sulfur in these tests.
I will say that all 3 of these produce slightly different shift "feel" with the manual transmissions I've tried them in. In my current test vehicle, the Redline actually shifts better over a wider temperature range than the other 2. The GM shifts best when cold to warm, and the Mobil 1 is just "ok" but not great at any temp.
Another post of mine with the BMW MTF-LT-2 shows it looking similar to the Mobil 1 ATF with a couple minor differences, but yet it produces another slightly different shift feel. Next on my list will be some regular dino Dex/Merc ATF's and some fancy BMW MTF-LT-3. Possibly the RLI as well, depending on when I get tired of testing or settle on a fluid.
Keep in mind that the "GM Manual Trans & Transaxle Lube" tested above is only suggested for use in vehicles where ATF is the suggested lube. From everything I've seen this stuff appears to be a repackaged Dexron 3 ATF, since GM is now pushing only Dex 6 for automatics.
Another post of mine with the BMW MTF-LT-2 shows it looking similar to the Mobil 1 ATF with a couple minor differences, but yet it produces another slightly different shift feel. Next on my list will be some regular dino Dex/Merc ATF's and some fancy BMW MTF-LT-3. Possibly the RLI as well, depending on when I get tired of testing or settle on a fluid.
Keep in mind that the "GM Manual Trans & Transaxle Lube" tested above is only suggested for use in vehicles where ATF is the suggested lube. From everything I've seen this stuff appears to be a repackaged Dexron 3 ATF, since GM is now pushing only Dex 6 for automatics.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: tig1
It looks to me the M1 is equal to Red line and both are better than the GM.
How the heck did you come to THAT conclusion???
$20 VOA's can not possibly tell you if an ATF is "better" than an MTF.
Now I will agree, for something to be called "MTF", the GM stuff looks by just pure elemental additives under additized. But if you have read more than 2 or 3 posts here, a cheapie VOA doesn't really tell you what a lubricant is.
I was wondering if anyone would bite on that. Just the numbers are simular with M1 and Red line. It's possible RL may be as good as M1 in the real world, never used RL, Used M1 ever since they invented the stuff and it's good.
Originally Posted By: tig1
It looks to me the M1 is equal to Red line and both are better than the GM.
How the heck did you come to THAT conclusion???
$20 VOA's can not possibly tell you if an ATF is "better" than an MTF.
Now I will agree, for something to be called "MTF", the GM stuff looks by just pure elemental additives under additized. But if you have read more than 2 or 3 posts here, a cheapie VOA doesn't really tell you what a lubricant is.
I was wondering if anyone would bite on that. Just the numbers are simular with M1 and Red line. It's possible RL may be as good as M1 in the real world, never used RL, Used M1 ever since they invented the stuff and it's good.
The GM fluid is their replacement for mineral Dexron-III gearboxes that can't use Dexron VI. But, the boron is higher(almost double) than most cheapie mineral D3's were. So, GM 'might' have created a slightly better gearbox oriented Dexron-III replacement. But, it still looks 'weak'.
Mobil1 and Redline D4 have always been excellent ATFs and its shows with a stout additive package.
Mobil1 and Redline D4 have always been excellent ATFs and its shows with a stout additive package.
Originally Posted By: unDummy
Mobil1 and Redline D4 have always been excellent ATFs and its shows with a stout additive package.
I would say the additive pack is similar if not the same. The VI and thus base oils are different though (obviously not shown in the results).
Mobil1 and Redline D4 have always been excellent ATFs and its shows with a stout additive package.
I would say the additive pack is similar if not the same. The VI and thus base oils are different though (obviously not shown in the results).
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: tig1
It's possible RL may be as good as M1 in the real world
Better
How so and how can it be proved? I am wondering.
Originally Posted By: tig1
It's possible RL may be as good as M1 in the real world
Better
How so and how can it be proved? I am wondering.
MolaKule
Staff member
Thanks for the VOA's.
Quote:
It can be proved with testing. But, that would cost plenty.
Until then, they are both excellent ATFs.
Very true.
Quote:
I am assuming that more additive = better...but how do we know that this is actually the case? How would these additives affect clutch friction or gear/pump/converter wear?
No, this is a common misconception.
What this shows is that with their combination of base oils, these additives and additive dosages perform best in their testing and analysis results.
You will never see the friction modification chemistry detected in these low cost analyses.
Quote:
It can be proved with testing. But, that would cost plenty.
Until then, they are both excellent ATFs.
Very true.
Quote:
I am assuming that more additive = better...but how do we know that this is actually the case? How would these additives affect clutch friction or gear/pump/converter wear?
No, this is a common misconception.
What this shows is that with their combination of base oils, these additives and additive dosages perform best in their testing and analysis results.
You will never see the friction modification chemistry detected in these low cost analyses.
Last edited:
M1 is more available and will likely protect well. In my experience I noticed the Redline D4 seems to have better shift feel in manual transmissions though.
- Status
Similar threads
