I'm really pleased with the way this is working out. Currently have the 5w30 HM M1 oil. When the temps are in the +60fs it's great. I don't drive the car much in cold but the next change will be going to 5w20 HM M1 as I feel it would be better when it is cold and first starting out.
5w30 synthetic oil in a manual transmission
- Thread starter SHOZ
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I'm really pleased with the way this is working out. Currently have the 5w30 HM M1 oil. When the temps are in the +60fs it's great. I don't drive the car much in cold but the next change will be going to 5w20 HM M1 as I feel it would be better when it is cold and first starting out.
Shoz, your immediate issues at hand appears to have been sorted out , for now .......
by defying against 'logics' expounded by 'expert' in this particular thread.
I'm really pleased with the way this is working out. Currently have the 5w30 HM M1 oil. When the temps are in the +60fs it's great. I don't drive the car much in cold but the next change will be going to 5w20 HM M1 as I feel it would be better when it is cold and first starting out.
Shoz, your immediate issues at hand appears to have been sorted out , for now .......
by defying against 'logics' expounded by 'expert' in this particular thread.
Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I'm really pleased with the way this is working out. Currently have the 5w30 HM M1 oil. When the temps are in the +60fs it's great. I don't drive the car much in cold but the next change will be going to 5w20 HM M1 as I feel it would be better when it is cold and first starting out.
Shoz, your immediate issues at hand appears to have been sorted out , for now .......
by defying against 'logics' expounded by 'expert' in this particular thread.
It really is a night and day difference in the transmission.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
I'm really pleased with the way this is working out. Currently have the 5w30 HM M1 oil. When the temps are in the +60fs it's great. I don't drive the car much in cold but the next change will be going to 5w20 HM M1 as I feel it would be better when it is cold and first starting out.
Shoz, your immediate issues at hand appears to have been sorted out , for now .......
by defying against 'logics' expounded by 'expert' in this particular thread.
It really is a night and day difference in the transmission.
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Any thoughts?
Sure do.
http://amzn.com/B0026JK8FK
This will alleviate the issues you're experiencing.
Report back once you've made the change.
Can't believe you had posted this right after the video where drivetrain design engineer with 30 years of experience working for GM and Chrysler said IT WILL EAT SYNCHRONISERS!
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Any thoughts?
Sure do.
http://amzn.com/B0026JK8FK
This will alleviate the issues you're experiencing.
Report back once you've made the change.
Can't believe you had posted this right after the video where drivetrain design engineer with 30 years of experience working for GM and Chrysler said IT WILL EAT SYNCHRONISERS!
"Organic stuff", huh...
Your 'appeal to authority' fallacy is noted. Please tell us, in your own words, how a fully-formulated MTF is damaging to synchros.
But hey...I'm just glad that SHOZ listened, made the change and is experiencing good results.
Your 'appeal to authority' fallacy is noted. Please tell us, in your own words, how a fully-formulated MTF is damaging to synchros.
But hey...I'm just glad that SHOZ listened, made the change and is experiencing good results.
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: davison0976
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Any thoughts?
Sure do.
http://amzn.com/B0026JK8FK
This will alleviate the issues you're experiencing.
Report back once you've made the change.
Can't believe you had posted this right after the video where drivetrain design engineer with 30 years of experience working for GM and Chrysler said IT WILL EAT SYNCHRONISERS!
Yes, please tell us how a formulated MTF will damage synchronizers.
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Any thoughts?
Sure do.
http://amzn.com/B0026JK8FK
This will alleviate the issues you're experiencing.
Report back once you've made the change.
Can't believe you had posted this right after the video where drivetrain design engineer with 30 years of experience working for GM and Chrysler said IT WILL EAT SYNCHRONISERS!
Yes, please tell us how a formulated MTF will damage synchronizers.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
For the record I did go to the AC Delco 10-4014. it is performing well. I will leave it in for cold weather testing.
Glad that Ramblejam's one and only suggested oil in 10-4014 works .................
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I would use any one of the above dedicated MTF's since they have more AW chemistry than most PCMO's by a factor of 2.5.
While these products are superb in regards to wear protection, they lack proper FM to achieve desired results in this application.
ACDelco 10-4014 (Friction Modified Synchromesh) is what's needed here.
Sorry, not correct.
The Redline fluids, the Amsoil fluids, the Pennsoil Synchromesh, the Valvoline MTF, ACDelco, are ALL dedicated MTF fluids with GL-4 gear and bearing protection ratings, and ALL contain friction modification chemistry needed for the synchro essemblies.
For the record I did go to the AC Delco 10-4014. it is performing well. I will leave it in for cold weather testing.
Glad that Ramblejam's one and only suggested oil in 10-4014 works .................
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I would use any one of the above dedicated MTF's since they have more AW chemistry than most PCMO's by a factor of 2.5.
While these products are superb in regards to wear protection, they lack proper FM to achieve desired results in this application.
ACDelco 10-4014 (Friction Modified Synchromesh) is what's needed here.
Sorry, not correct.
The Redline fluids, the Amsoil fluids, the Pennsoil Synchromesh, the Valvoline MTF, ACDelco, are ALL dedicated MTF fluids with GL-4 gear and bearing protection ratings, and ALL contain friction modification chemistry needed for the synchro essemblies.
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
"Organic stuff", huh...
Your 'appeal to authority' fallacy is noted. Please tell us, in your own words, how a fully-formulated MTF is damaging to synchros.
...
In most transmissions it won't be damaging. But it some it will most certainly be true. If you own "some" of those transmissions, that's a problem.
I've read thousands of posts on people switching between different formulations for their manual transmissions (from ATF's to stout "fully formulated" MTL's). There's no doubt that "most" people have good luck with most anything (60-80%). But there's also a very significant percentage that don't have good luck with everything. Some of the Synchromeshes, MTL's, and even synthetic ATF's don't work well in some vehicles designed for conventional ATF's. "Fully formulated" MTL's may not be fully formulated, even if the mfg says they are. Did they test their fluids on every transmission out there for 100,000 miles?
The MTL friction modifiers may not allow the synchros to quickly speed up or slow down as they were designed to, hence more synchro wear. And the thicker fluids may not fully lubricate the tighter passages in the synchros and bearings. Minimizing gear wear is great, as long as you don't end up with your synchro's and bearings failing long before the gears do which seems to be the norm. For my own T56 I've yet to find anything other than conventional ATF's that are fool proof in these transmissions. There are just too many instances of users of any product you can name (Redline D4, Amsoil ATF/ATD, Pennz/GM Synchromesh, RP synchromax, M1 ATF, motor oils, GL4 oils, etc. ) that either initially cause poorer/notchier shifting of the transmission or eventually ruin the synchros. It's clear that many of these fluids will give you better shifting capabilities, initially. But, what about 10,000 to 30,000 miles down the road? I've yet to read a single account from anyone using a mfg recommended ATF that felt it led to the demise of that transmission. There's no shortage of negative results from all the fluids listed above. Too many instances of people trying them, and then going back to plain old conventional ATF.
A fully formulated MTL can literally blind the synchro's over time by filling in the friction surface with other chemicals. Do it long enough and you have a smooth/non-friction surface. Some of the synthetic MTL's can break the bonds of some synchronizer material and cause it to shed or break down. Too many instances showing it occurring. Too many instances of transmission builders recommending ATF over MTL's, and in some cases only conventional ATF's, no synthetics. Has to be a reason. I'll let the thousands of posts (thousands of manual trans owners) do the talking. At least once per year I go back and re-read anything new to see if things have changed. These results have not changed over the past 4 years.
The thicker MTL's don't get squeezed out of the friction material lubricating/cooling gaps as quickly as ATF's....leading to more wear. For single brass ring synchros and probably the later carbon synchronizers the MTL's probably work just fine. Not all synchro's are made the same. The triple ring syncro's have some pretty tight clearances, where the thinner ATF can get in and out much better than the thicker MTL's. In my T56 the synchro's and shift forks/pads are the weaker links, not the gears. Keeping the clutch in good working order is imperative for optimum synchro life. The ATF will be adequate in keeping the gears lubricated as long as your synchro's are working fine.
"Organic stuff", huh...
Your 'appeal to authority' fallacy is noted. Please tell us, in your own words, how a fully-formulated MTF is damaging to synchros.
...
In most transmissions it won't be damaging. But it some it will most certainly be true. If you own "some" of those transmissions, that's a problem.
I've read thousands of posts on people switching between different formulations for their manual transmissions (from ATF's to stout "fully formulated" MTL's). There's no doubt that "most" people have good luck with most anything (60-80%). But there's also a very significant percentage that don't have good luck with everything. Some of the Synchromeshes, MTL's, and even synthetic ATF's don't work well in some vehicles designed for conventional ATF's. "Fully formulated" MTL's may not be fully formulated, even if the mfg says they are. Did they test their fluids on every transmission out there for 100,000 miles?
The MTL friction modifiers may not allow the synchros to quickly speed up or slow down as they were designed to, hence more synchro wear. And the thicker fluids may not fully lubricate the tighter passages in the synchros and bearings. Minimizing gear wear is great, as long as you don't end up with your synchro's and bearings failing long before the gears do which seems to be the norm. For my own T56 I've yet to find anything other than conventional ATF's that are fool proof in these transmissions. There are just too many instances of users of any product you can name (Redline D4, Amsoil ATF/ATD, Pennz/GM Synchromesh, RP synchromax, M1 ATF, motor oils, GL4 oils, etc. ) that either initially cause poorer/notchier shifting of the transmission or eventually ruin the synchros. It's clear that many of these fluids will give you better shifting capabilities, initially. But, what about 10,000 to 30,000 miles down the road? I've yet to read a single account from anyone using a mfg recommended ATF that felt it led to the demise of that transmission. There's no shortage of negative results from all the fluids listed above. Too many instances of people trying them, and then going back to plain old conventional ATF.
A fully formulated MTL can literally blind the synchro's over time by filling in the friction surface with other chemicals. Do it long enough and you have a smooth/non-friction surface. Some of the synthetic MTL's can break the bonds of some synchronizer material and cause it to shed or break down. Too many instances showing it occurring. Too many instances of transmission builders recommending ATF over MTL's, and in some cases only conventional ATF's, no synthetics. Has to be a reason. I'll let the thousands of posts (thousands of manual trans owners) do the talking. At least once per year I go back and re-read anything new to see if things have changed. These results have not changed over the past 4 years.
The thicker MTL's don't get squeezed out of the friction material lubricating/cooling gaps as quickly as ATF's....leading to more wear. For single brass ring synchros and probably the later carbon synchronizers the MTL's probably work just fine. Not all synchro's are made the same. The triple ring syncro's have some pretty tight clearances, where the thinner ATF can get in and out much better than the thicker MTL's. In my T56 the synchro's and shift forks/pads are the weaker links, not the gears. Keeping the clutch in good working order is imperative for optimum synchro life. The ATF will be adequate in keeping the gears lubricated as long as your synchro's are working fine.
MolaKule
Staff member
I think some clarifications are in order here because there seems to be some misunderstanding of MTF's.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Some of the Synchromeshes, MTL's, and even synthetic ATF's don't work well in some vehicles designed for conventional ATF's. "Fully formulated" MTL's may not be fully formulated, even if the mfg says they are. Did they test their fluids on every transmission out there for 100,000 miles?
The more correct term for light truck and passenger car MT's is "Application Specific" or "Dedicated MTF" fluids for manual transmissions. If a commercial additive package is used, the commercial additive package manufacturer tests that package with various base oils to determine which transmissions are suitable for the resulting mix.
Since most light truck and passenger car MT's have synchronized gear assemblies, dedicated MTF's are by definition, synchromesh fluids and are protection rated for GL-4. The exception are those fluids designed for MT-1 commercial truck service and are usually rated GL-5.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
The MTL friction modifiers may not allow the synchros to quickly speed up or slow down as they were designed to, hence more synchro wear. And the thicker fluids may not fully lubricate the tighter passages in the synchros and bearings. Minimizing gear wear is great, as long as you don't end up with your synchro's and bearings failing long before the gears do which seems to be the norm. For my own T56 I've yet to find anything other than conventional ATF's that are fool proof in these transmissions. There are just too many instances of users of any product you can name (Redline D4, Amsoil ATF/ATD, Pennz/GM Synchromesh, RP synchromax, M1 ATF, motor oils, GL4 oils, etc. ) that either initially cause poorer/notchier shifting of the transmission or eventually ruin the synchros. It's clear that many of these fluids will give you better shifting capabilities, initially. But, what about 10,000 to 30,000 miles down the road? I've yet to read a single account from anyone using a mfg recommended ATF that felt it led to the demise of that transmission. There's no shortage of negative results from all the fluids listed above. Too many instances of people trying them, and then going back to plain old conventional ATF.
The specialized friction modifiers used in dedicated MTF's operate on a "dynamic friction" coefficient principle. That is, the coefficient of friction changes with applied pressure AND relative gear speed to match rotational velocities.
Synchro assembly parts and bearings always wear faster than the gear teeth for obvious reasons.
"Notchy shifting" can be the result of a number of factors occurs including bearing wear (causing tranny vibration), clutch clearance or lack thereof, incorrect fluid viscosity for the temperature, and using a fluid with little or no friction modifier.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
A fully formulated MTL can literally blind the synchro's over time by filling in the friction surface with other chemicals. Do it long enough and you have a smooth/non-friction surface. Some of the synthetic MTL's can break the bonds of some synchronizer material and cause it to shed or break down. Too many instances showing it occurring. Too many instances of transmission builders recommending ATF over MTL's, and in some cases only conventional ATF's, no synthetics. Has to be a reason. I'll let the thousands of posts (thousands of manual trans owners) do the talking. At least once per year I go back and re-read anything new to see if things have changed. These results have not changed over the past 4 years.
There is no such thing as friction modifier chemistry "blinding' the synchronizer surfaces.
"The specialized friction modifiers used in dedicated MTF's operate on a "dynamic friction" coefficient principle. That is, the coefficient of friction changes with applied pressure AND relative gear speed to match rotational velocities."
It has never been shown that any dedicated MTF can break the thermoresin bonds of composite synchro materials, and have worked well in both metallic and composite synchro assemblies.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
The thicker MTL's don't get squeezed out of the friction material lubricating/cooling gaps as quickly as ATF's....leading to more wear. For single brass ring synchros and probably the later carbon synchronizers the MTL's probably work just fine. Not all synchro's are made the same. The triple ring syncro's have some pretty tight clearances, where the thinner ATF can get in and out much better than the thicker MTL's. In my T56 the synchro's and shift forks/pads are the weaker links, not the gears. Keeping the clutch in good working order is imperative for optimum synchro life. The ATF will be adequate in keeping the gears lubricated as long as your synchro's are working fine.
More Information on Manual Transmission and lubricants can be found here:
Manual Transmissions and Lubricants
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Some of the Synchromeshes, MTL's, and even synthetic ATF's don't work well in some vehicles designed for conventional ATF's. "Fully formulated" MTL's may not be fully formulated, even if the mfg says they are. Did they test their fluids on every transmission out there for 100,000 miles?
The more correct term for light truck and passenger car MT's is "Application Specific" or "Dedicated MTF" fluids for manual transmissions. If a commercial additive package is used, the commercial additive package manufacturer tests that package with various base oils to determine which transmissions are suitable for the resulting mix.
Since most light truck and passenger car MT's have synchronized gear assemblies, dedicated MTF's are by definition, synchromesh fluids and are protection rated for GL-4. The exception are those fluids designed for MT-1 commercial truck service and are usually rated GL-5.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
The MTL friction modifiers may not allow the synchros to quickly speed up or slow down as they were designed to, hence more synchro wear. And the thicker fluids may not fully lubricate the tighter passages in the synchros and bearings. Minimizing gear wear is great, as long as you don't end up with your synchro's and bearings failing long before the gears do which seems to be the norm. For my own T56 I've yet to find anything other than conventional ATF's that are fool proof in these transmissions. There are just too many instances of users of any product you can name (Redline D4, Amsoil ATF/ATD, Pennz/GM Synchromesh, RP synchromax, M1 ATF, motor oils, GL4 oils, etc. ) that either initially cause poorer/notchier shifting of the transmission or eventually ruin the synchros. It's clear that many of these fluids will give you better shifting capabilities, initially. But, what about 10,000 to 30,000 miles down the road? I've yet to read a single account from anyone using a mfg recommended ATF that felt it led to the demise of that transmission. There's no shortage of negative results from all the fluids listed above. Too many instances of people trying them, and then going back to plain old conventional ATF.
The specialized friction modifiers used in dedicated MTF's operate on a "dynamic friction" coefficient principle. That is, the coefficient of friction changes with applied pressure AND relative gear speed to match rotational velocities.
Synchro assembly parts and bearings always wear faster than the gear teeth for obvious reasons.
"Notchy shifting" can be the result of a number of factors occurs including bearing wear (causing tranny vibration), clutch clearance or lack thereof, incorrect fluid viscosity for the temperature, and using a fluid with little or no friction modifier.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
A fully formulated MTL can literally blind the synchro's over time by filling in the friction surface with other chemicals. Do it long enough and you have a smooth/non-friction surface. Some of the synthetic MTL's can break the bonds of some synchronizer material and cause it to shed or break down. Too many instances showing it occurring. Too many instances of transmission builders recommending ATF over MTL's, and in some cases only conventional ATF's, no synthetics. Has to be a reason. I'll let the thousands of posts (thousands of manual trans owners) do the talking. At least once per year I go back and re-read anything new to see if things have changed. These results have not changed over the past 4 years.
There is no such thing as friction modifier chemistry "blinding' the synchronizer surfaces.
"The specialized friction modifiers used in dedicated MTF's operate on a "dynamic friction" coefficient principle. That is, the coefficient of friction changes with applied pressure AND relative gear speed to match rotational velocities."
It has never been shown that any dedicated MTF can break the thermoresin bonds of composite synchro materials, and have worked well in both metallic and composite synchro assemblies.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
The thicker MTL's don't get squeezed out of the friction material lubricating/cooling gaps as quickly as ATF's....leading to more wear. For single brass ring synchros and probably the later carbon synchronizers the MTL's probably work just fine. Not all synchro's are made the same. The triple ring syncro's have some pretty tight clearances, where the thinner ATF can get in and out much better than the thicker MTL's. In my T56 the synchro's and shift forks/pads are the weaker links, not the gears. Keeping the clutch in good working order is imperative for optimum synchro life. The ATF will be adequate in keeping the gears lubricated as long as your synchro's are working fine.
More Information on Manual Transmission and lubricants can be found here:
Manual Transmissions and Lubricants
All the MTL theory and engineering design won't help you when your transmission fails you because you put in something other than the designed for fluid. The mfg "testing" and engineering theory says they will all work. It's quite clear they don't all work in some applications, even when they should. Dailydriver is a member here and just one of thousands that have posted about their Tremec fluid experiences. In their OEM '99 T56 the RP Synchromax should have worked fine. RP said it would. Hundreds of other have used it without issue....or they never followed up years later if their trans failed early. Yet in DD's car the trans rocked and rolled as soon as the RPS was added. And as soon as it was dumped out, the grinding stopped. Pretty clear evidence it didn't work.
I'm all for lubrication theory and engineering design. I also want real life evidence with no attributable failures. Sorry, just too many examples of near term failures and issues with MTL's that should have worked in ATF designed manual transmissions yet didn't. And there are numerous examples where even the Amsoil ATD, RL D4, M1 ATF and other synthetic ATFs didn't fare as well as the conventional ATF's. Over the past 4 years I've read about everything available on the car performance blogs concerning fluids used for Tremec transmissions, especially those built prior to 2001. And those blogs often have inputs from transmission shops, fluid designers, and Transmission OEMs. Too much real world evidence to ignore. All these people can't be wrong or have an axe to grind against MTLs. A couple other people did the same type of in depth reviews that I did....and came to the exact same conclusion: use fluids other than mfg designed/recommended at your own risk. Personally, I don't care what the answer is, as long as it's correct and repeatable. I want the fluid that will give me the longest and safest transmission life possible. Until these reviews change, my T56 transmission continues to get the mfg designed conventional ATF.
I'm all for lubrication theory and engineering design. I also want real life evidence with no attributable failures. Sorry, just too many examples of near term failures and issues with MTL's that should have worked in ATF designed manual transmissions yet didn't. And there are numerous examples where even the Amsoil ATD, RL D4, M1 ATF and other synthetic ATFs didn't fare as well as the conventional ATF's. Over the past 4 years I've read about everything available on the car performance blogs concerning fluids used for Tremec transmissions, especially those built prior to 2001. And those blogs often have inputs from transmission shops, fluid designers, and Transmission OEMs. Too much real world evidence to ignore. All these people can't be wrong or have an axe to grind against MTLs. A couple other people did the same type of in depth reviews that I did....and came to the exact same conclusion: use fluids other than mfg designed/recommended at your own risk. Personally, I don't care what the answer is, as long as it's correct and repeatable. I want the fluid that will give me the longest and safest transmission life possible. Until these reviews change, my T56 transmission continues to get the mfg designed conventional ATF.
Q: Why use automatic transmission fluid in a manual gearbox?
A: Automatic transmission fluids provide the necessary protection and lubrication, while still allowing the synchronizer to function at its best.
------
Q: Why not use a synthetic fluid?
A: Some brands of synthetic fluid contain powerful detergents and additives that can prove harmful to your transmission's synchronizers. While many synthetic fluids perform very well, in most cases, we do not recommend their use. Furthermore, they may void your warranty. For peace of mind, remember that TREMEC conducts all of its OEM validation testing using conventional fluids without issue.
------
Q: Why not use gear oil in one of your transmissions?
A: A hypoid gear oil by design does not allow mechanical surfaces to make contact with one another. A synchronizer relies on friction (much like your car's brakes) to do its job. Thus, gear oil in a synchronized transmission can be a bad combination, potentially causing a variety of shift quality issues. Furthermore, many gear oils contain sulfur additives that can damage friction materials.
Those are 3 of Tremecs FAQ's. I've probably re-read them a dozen times over the past 4 years. There's some subtle meaning buried in there that slips by you the first few times you read them.
A: Automatic transmission fluids provide the necessary protection and lubrication, while still allowing the synchronizer to function at its best.
------
Q: Why not use a synthetic fluid?
A: Some brands of synthetic fluid contain powerful detergents and additives that can prove harmful to your transmission's synchronizers. While many synthetic fluids perform very well, in most cases, we do not recommend their use. Furthermore, they may void your warranty. For peace of mind, remember that TREMEC conducts all of its OEM validation testing using conventional fluids without issue.
------
Q: Why not use gear oil in one of your transmissions?
A: A hypoid gear oil by design does not allow mechanical surfaces to make contact with one another. A synchronizer relies on friction (much like your car's brakes) to do its job. Thus, gear oil in a synchronized transmission can be a bad combination, potentially causing a variety of shift quality issues. Furthermore, many gear oils contain sulfur additives that can damage friction materials.
Those are 3 of Tremecs FAQ's. I've probably re-read them a dozen times over the past 4 years. There's some subtle meaning buried in there that slips by you the first few times you read them.
MolaKule
Staff member
BTW, the OP was NOT discussing Tremec T56's but A Honda Genesis transmission:
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The trans on the Genesis Coupe is a piece of garbage. It is a Hyundai made 6 sp copied from BMW.
People have tried all sorts of mixtures and various lubes, as have I. Last three changes were Redline super lightweight shock proof, Redline MTL and currently Redline MT 85. The MT 85 is the correct weight spec.
But one poster on my Grn Coupe forum has been using 5w30 synthetic oil for the last 30k miles and is quite pleased with how it transformed the trans from a clunking, grinding hard to shift to smooth and quiet.
I know it use to be used in the last century by Honda from the factory.
Any thoughts?
On 10/21/15 you 69GTX stated in part:
Quote:
...I read for hours on this topic with most of it coming from the LS1Tech.com website. What I came up with is that Tremec still only specifically recommends 2 choices for the T56, regular ATF DEX III and Mobil 1 synthetic ATF. This they state because they are the only 2 they have extensively tested and feel confident in approving their use. It doesn't mean other choices can't work well. Others have tried Synchromesh, synchromax, RP, Amsoil ATF, etc. with varying degrees of success. I read a number of blogs describing T56 failures using the higher grade MTL's in the pre-2001 models. I don't recall reading about any failures/problems associated with DEX III, Mobil syn ATF, or the GM MTL. ...
I surmise you still don't realize that the GM MTL, as well as the Amsoil MTL are both semi-synthetics of "Higher Grades" or higher viscosities, yet you say there are no failures associated with these fluids, which is why I answered you thus:
Quote:
You bring up a number of interesting points. I am not going to read all of the comments on some other blog, but will attempt to respond to some of your comments.
A. My information on the paper/cellulose blocker rings on the 1998-2000 Tremec T56 manual transmissions is that they are actually blocker rings of kevlar/graphite/cellulose composites, similar in composition to the clutch disc material in Allison AT's.
B. The Tremec series has always been, in my view, a problem child with respect to fluid specs. In some cases, they speced this fluid, while in other cases they spec a different fluid, supposedly with the same internals. Why? My guess is they found that, with their original specs for the higher viscosity fluids, shifting was poor in cold weather, so they dropped the viscosity and at that point in time, the only available fluid with a low viscosity was ATF - which is no longer the case.
Why weren't other fluids, such as Pennzoil Synchromesh (9.3 cSt), and other slightly higher viscosity fluids tested? My guess here is that they had some design problems, either due to shifter clearances, or due to cluster gear shaft clearances.
C.
Quote:
At B. 5 on the list of MTL's GM's Manual Transmission and Transfer Case Fluid is listed. From what I've read, this is merely rebranded ATF (no license renewal on the old stuff), probably to satisfy the need to say they have what you require.
The fluid mentioned (GM product (#88861800)) is basically a Dexron III(H) fluid with additional AW levels of a phosphate/anti-oxidant chemistry.
D.
Quote:
Others have tried Synchromesh, synchromax, RP, Amsoil ATF, etc. with varying degrees of success. I read a number of blogs describing T56 failures using the higher grade MTL's in the pre-2001 models. I don't recall reading about any failures/problems associated with DEX III, Mobil syn ATF, or the GM MTL.
And most of these comments had no definitive cause-and-effect details as to why the trannies failed. Did anyone have their trannies examined by a competent transmission shop and a determination made of the failure? Was the cause of failure due to an increase in engine HP via performance chips, was it due to tracking not covered by warranty, was it due to inadequate maintenance, U-joint vibration, transmission mounts? What?
When we were blending, marketing and supplying customers with our own versions of MTF, including a low viscosity MTF (called "MTFGlide," 7.5 cSt (75W80)), and MTL-P (MTL Purple, 11 cSt, 75W85)) customer feedback showed no problems with the Tremec series of transmissions. These fluids had the same AW additives and friction modifiers as did our 75W90 MTF called MTL-R (14.5 cSt, MTL-red).
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The trans on the Genesis Coupe is a piece of garbage. It is a Hyundai made 6 sp copied from BMW.
People have tried all sorts of mixtures and various lubes, as have I. Last three changes were Redline super lightweight shock proof, Redline MTL and currently Redline MT 85. The MT 85 is the correct weight spec.
But one poster on my Grn Coupe forum has been using 5w30 synthetic oil for the last 30k miles and is quite pleased with how it transformed the trans from a clunking, grinding hard to shift to smooth and quiet.
I know it use to be used in the last century by Honda from the factory.
Any thoughts?
On 10/21/15 you 69GTX stated in part:
Quote:
...I read for hours on this topic with most of it coming from the LS1Tech.com website. What I came up with is that Tremec still only specifically recommends 2 choices for the T56, regular ATF DEX III and Mobil 1 synthetic ATF. This they state because they are the only 2 they have extensively tested and feel confident in approving their use. It doesn't mean other choices can't work well. Others have tried Synchromesh, synchromax, RP, Amsoil ATF, etc. with varying degrees of success. I read a number of blogs describing T56 failures using the higher grade MTL's in the pre-2001 models. I don't recall reading about any failures/problems associated with DEX III, Mobil syn ATF, or the GM MTL. ...
I surmise you still don't realize that the GM MTL, as well as the Amsoil MTL are both semi-synthetics of "Higher Grades" or higher viscosities, yet you say there are no failures associated with these fluids, which is why I answered you thus:
Quote:
You bring up a number of interesting points. I am not going to read all of the comments on some other blog, but will attempt to respond to some of your comments.
A. My information on the paper/cellulose blocker rings on the 1998-2000 Tremec T56 manual transmissions is that they are actually blocker rings of kevlar/graphite/cellulose composites, similar in composition to the clutch disc material in Allison AT's.
B. The Tremec series has always been, in my view, a problem child with respect to fluid specs. In some cases, they speced this fluid, while in other cases they spec a different fluid, supposedly with the same internals. Why? My guess is they found that, with their original specs for the higher viscosity fluids, shifting was poor in cold weather, so they dropped the viscosity and at that point in time, the only available fluid with a low viscosity was ATF - which is no longer the case.
Why weren't other fluids, such as Pennzoil Synchromesh (9.3 cSt), and other slightly higher viscosity fluids tested? My guess here is that they had some design problems, either due to shifter clearances, or due to cluster gear shaft clearances.
C.
Quote:
At B. 5 on the list of MTL's GM's Manual Transmission and Transfer Case Fluid is listed. From what I've read, this is merely rebranded ATF (no license renewal on the old stuff), probably to satisfy the need to say they have what you require.
The fluid mentioned (GM product (#88861800)) is basically a Dexron III(H) fluid with additional AW levels of a phosphate/anti-oxidant chemistry.
D.
Quote:
Others have tried Synchromesh, synchromax, RP, Amsoil ATF, etc. with varying degrees of success. I read a number of blogs describing T56 failures using the higher grade MTL's in the pre-2001 models. I don't recall reading about any failures/problems associated with DEX III, Mobil syn ATF, or the GM MTL.
And most of these comments had no definitive cause-and-effect details as to why the trannies failed. Did anyone have their trannies examined by a competent transmission shop and a determination made of the failure? Was the cause of failure due to an increase in engine HP via performance chips, was it due to tracking not covered by warranty, was it due to inadequate maintenance, U-joint vibration, transmission mounts? What?
When we were blending, marketing and supplying customers with our own versions of MTF, including a low viscosity MTF (called "MTFGlide," 7.5 cSt (75W80)), and MTL-P (MTL Purple, 11 cSt, 75W85)) customer feedback showed no problems with the Tremec series of transmissions. These fluids had the same AW additives and friction modifiers as did our 75W90 MTF called MTL-R (14.5 cSt, MTL-red).
Are you just advising us of what you're heard, or asking a question? Regardless, all of the ACDelco lubes are sourced from a third party, then dumped into their own packaging/labeling -- for example, off the top of my head here, Auto-Trak II comes from Petro-Canada, and the supercharger oil comes from Nye Lubricants out of Massachusetts.
Oh, and P.S. - You forgot the two most important letters: MTX Fluid FM
Oh, and P.S. - You forgot the two most important letters: MTX Fluid FM
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Are you just advising us of what you're heard, or asking a question? Regardless, all of the ACDelco lubes are sourced from a third party, then dumped into their own packaging/labeling -- for example, off the top of my head here, Auto-Trak II comes from Petro-Canada, and the supercharger oil comes from Nye Lubricants out of Massachusetts.
Oh, and P.S. - You forgot the two most important letters: MTX Fluid FM
That's what I heard.
Shell MTX Fluid
Shell MTX Fluid is a fully formulated synchromesh transmission fluid (STF) for use in manual transaxle/transmissions. It offers excellent synchronizer performance, oxidation stability, yellow metal compatibility, and low temperature performance. This product will satisfactorily lubricate manual transaxles/manual transmission from –40°F to +300°F.
Are you just advising us of what you're heard, or asking a question? Regardless, all of the ACDelco lubes are sourced from a third party, then dumped into their own packaging/labeling -- for example, off the top of my head here, Auto-Trak II comes from Petro-Canada, and the supercharger oil comes from Nye Lubricants out of Massachusetts.
Oh, and P.S. - You forgot the two most important letters: MTX Fluid FM
That's what I heard.
Shell MTX Fluid
Shell MTX Fluid is a fully formulated synchromesh transmission fluid (STF) for use in manual transaxle/transmissions. It offers excellent synchronizer performance, oxidation stability, yellow metal compatibility, and low temperature performance. This product will satisfactorily lubricate manual transaxles/manual transmission from –40°F to +300°F.
- Status
Similar threads
