You're not going to believe this one...

I'm using Crisco from now on!

Isn't that what Ryan is using? Oh wait it was butter.

Does Redline make 10w-40?

Kidding.

So astroglide is looking like a worthy trans lube eh!?

I'll just keep my 'head down'

Originally posted by todras:
Isn't that what Ryan is using? Oh wait it was butter.

Anything I can spread on toast, I trust inside of my transmission!

Mark

I'm gonna try Mrs. Butterworths!

Originally posted by 96BlackSE:

I'll just keep my 'head down'

You got a money back guarantee Nima?

Originally posted by Phil Rohtla:

Originally posted by 96BlackSE:

I'll just keep my 'head down'

You got a money back guarantee Nima?

LOL... Let me check with the shop, I want my money back too for the 6 other bottles

You mean we're supposed to run motor oil now?

In the transmission?

Yeah,

is right.

I tire of changing the fluid in that thing.

Honestly, any professional opinions here? Should we change? I'm no mechanic, and I'm no engineer, just a kid with a Contour who wants to take care of it right!

Actually, that is what the guy at redline was stating...he said that the Honey actually looked like a motor oil spec'd for a transmission. He said that it shared some similarities to the MTL in that the base stocks were still used in synthetic motor oils.

Obviously I'm not saying they are the same or have the same additives! I'm just reiterating what he had said.

Go figure.

Well if the honey is just motor oil, screw that price.

Originally posted by stadtsoldat:
Well if the honey is just motor oil, screw that price.

Whoa now. No one is saying that. It might have some of it's properties.

Anywho I sent an email to RP regarding the change. Can't wait to see the reply.

well its not. It is much more complex using different polymer additives and different weight oils. It is formulated for the temperature and pressure of a gear box.
Now you can use synthetic motor oil in MTXs, some manufacturers even use motor oil stock. But the honey does have some engineering in it. Same as the Royal purple synchromax, gm synchromesh, MTL/MT90.
Like buying a set of chairs, what works at a breakfast table doesn't work in the living room or fine dining...yet they're all chairs and work the same.

So what was with all the emails from Royal Purple stating that they actually tested their product in the MTX 75...
Could somebody please forward those emails to me...

Great I just swapped my Redline to RP synchromax yesterday. I didnt notice a huge difference so Im guessing its internal. This will be a banaid until the first of the year when I will be able to pull it and ship it to Terry. Thanks for all the research everyone.
-tropictour

Ready for another one? Take a look at Torco. Look at both of the products to the right on this link.

http://www.torcoracingoils.com/products/product_list.asp?intProductsClassIDPK=9&intProductsTypeIDPK=8&intCurrentMarket=9

Also take a look at Specialty Formulations. Look the the top four products on this link.

http://specialtyformulations.com/

I would not be surprised that Royal Purple is gun shy from the publicity created by the Red Line MTL failure in the MTX-75.

Red Line must have had a formulation problem or perhaps a batch problem. Darn near anything between Mercon ATF and manual trans 75W90 gear oil should work fine.

We are not getting reports of failures using the Mercon factory fill. We are not getting reports of failure using ATF+3. We are not getting failure reports with either GM or Penzoil manual trans lubes. Only some that have use Red Line MTL.

And now Royal Purple and Amsoil are saying to use synthetic engine oil?

The Torco sythetic is great stuff. As I stated when defending myself for using sythetic gear oils earlier, I ran torco synthetic the longest and I put it in when I first began running my 3L. When I switched to MTL it was darn near two years.
When I opened up the transmission the fluid still looked and smelled like it did new with the addition of some basic wear items.
The thing that is amazing is I was running serious torque from nitrous to 3L and even some time with the turbo and the stock diff is still in perfect shape. I beat up on it pretty bad with high torque loads and well... you can see the picture.

I also never had a shift issue with it either although I don't live up north so I can't compare really cold weather shifts.
I ought to stop screwing around on the next fill and just go back to what I know works because of how long I used it and the photographic proof. Besides, it meets or exceeds GL4 specs.

Still, last time it ran me $11 a quart from BAT.

Maybe I can find it cheaper now.

OH, BTW. I see what you are saying about people suddenly changing the listing of their specs on their websites but I have a hard time believing that it would be just over our experiences here in our website. Granted, with as many hits a person will get from our site now searching for redline MTL, it is going to crop up a lot but I can't imagine it affecting the other companies.
I also am inclined to say that a bad batch of fluid is still kind of a long shot because just as you said earlier....you could run anything form ATF up to the spec'd gear oils and it wouldn't hurt anything. If it was a bad batch, someone had to drop something seriously different into the mix that day

Either way, I think it is just a combination of thicker fluid, lots of metal particles from wear, and non-existent or inadequate/ineffective flushing of the particles formed during break-in.

I just bought 3 jugs of the Sychromax from Nima. I guess now that I will wait to put it in......

Originally posted by warmonger:
Either way, I think it is just a combination of thicker fluid, lots of metal particles from wear, and non-existent or inadequate/ineffective flushing of the particles formed during break-in.

You won't flush all that is steel/ferrous based. The magnet is fixed in the case. You going to stick a pressure washer in there?

Originally posted by Big Jim:

We are not getting reports of failures using the Mercon factory fill. We are not getting reports of failure using ATF+3. We are not getting failure reports with either GM or Penzoil manual trans lubes. Only some that have use Red Line MTL.

And now Royal Purple and Amsoil are saying to use synthetic engine oil?

Warmonger seems to think so. He says "how many failures on MTL opposed to ATF? A couple on MTL." I'm not sure where this info comes from. I haven't heard of too many (if any) failures on ATF. Their were some from ppl drag racing the transissions but what do you expect? The recent crop up were from wear. Blackbird was running MTL and being hard on it. Double wammy.

Originally posted by warmonger:

The thing that is amazing is I was running serious torque from nitrous to 3L and even some time with the turbo and the stock diff is still in perfect shape. I beat up on it pretty bad with high torque loads and well... you can see the picture.

If your torque was so high the 'shrunk on' gears on the output and input shaft would spin first before any added load on the diff pinion gears. I'm not comprehending what your statement has to do with fluids.

Originally posted by warmonger:
Actually, that is what the guy at redline was stating...he said that the Honey actually looked like a motor oil spec'd for a transmission. He said that it shared some similarities to the MTL in that the base stocks were still used in synthetic motor oils. Obviously I'm not saying they are the same or have the same additives! I'm just reiterating what he had said.

Go figure.

OK it "looked like" motor oil. What does that prove? Oil looks like oil. Practice what you preach Tom. Use some logic and get some DATA before stating things of this nature.

Todd
The website was updated and should read Synchromax or RP 10w40/ Racing 41. We are giving you an option.

Apparently the person doing the update did not understand and removed Synchromax as the recommended fluid.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Phew!

Oh. Here we go.

Well, I'm not going to do the line Item Veto thing on your posts.
So here are some answers and take them how you want.

Torque is transmitted to the wheels. There are enough people that have sheared an axle from lesser torque loads than I drive around with every day on low boost. But then you wouldn't know about real torque in your contour yet. Terry doesn't even believe the stock rods can handle 300 HP out of the V6 so he doesn't believe I produce that much either. Suffice it to say that your 3L is strong enough to thrash those diff pins and the spider gears without spinning pressed on gears. Simple fact of torque multiplication. The frictional forces in pressed on gears are quite high. Not even a sensible comparison there.
Every or any transmission that had torn up spiders on ATF...look at Demons old pics. He never grenaded his diff but it wouldn't have been long either. The point isn't that ATF is bad but that it doesn't provide the protection that a better fluid would in those high loads. I don't care about hypoid versus non hypoid. The diff uses straight cut gears and they are made pretty cheaply anyway. Chock another one up to ford engineering I guess.
Whatever, you talk about a failure on redline. You have ONE (read it, ONE) transmission with a failed stock diff. This transmission was recently converted to MTL and it had many miles on the clock. You may as well be spelling out the fact that we won't know what originally caused it...keep it as circumstantial evidence and wait and see if a real pattern of FAILURE occurs.

So, you say I'm not providing data on the "motor oil" comment.
Now you really look foolish. You are trying to target me personally when all I want to do is have you practice some thorough scientific comparisons BEFORE you guys open your mouths. If you come out and said that grapes were purple, you'd have many people agreeing and many more saying not necessarily. Both could be right. THAT is the kind of blanket statement you made about MTL. So I didn't have anything against investigating anything. Yet you are now starting to attack me and the latest is the motor oil comment.

Here's why it is so funny:
It was YOUR Test results from fresh HONEY versus fresh MTL that I forwarded to Redline. Those are the statements made after it was REVIEWED by the Redline Rep. I'd trust that the guy knows what kind of oils go into this stuff so if the percentages looked like motor oil then...he was justified in saying so. THat doesn't make it fact. The guy stated that the test results looked like they were not inconsistent with with Redline MTL. Therefore it lends some credibility to both him and you. It is just quite coincidental that everyone else is now marketing fancy motor oils that can also be used AND that many companies use motor oils in transmissions.

*We interupt this regularly schedule thread for a picture of an owl*

Originally posted by warmonger:
You are trying to target me personally when all I want to do is have you practice some thorough scientific comparisons BEFORE you guys open your mouths. If you come out and said that grapes were purple, you'd have many people agreeing and many more saying not necessarily. Both could be right. THAT is the kind of blanket statement you made about MTL. So I didn't have anything against investigating anything. Yet you are now starting to attack me and the latest is the motor oil comment.

So I guess all you said about the data (which you used for redline because you avoided bothering to get on your own) was not a personal attack at Terry, Pete and I? Whatever! I'm not attacking you. I'm responding to your logic.

That is a pretty good screw up!

Originally posted by warmonger:

Torque is transmitted to the wheels. There are enough people that have sheared an axle from lesser torque loads than I drive around with every day on low boost. But then you wouldn't know about real torque in your contour yet.

Nice. I still don't understand what this has to do with gear lube though.

Originally posted by todras:

Originally posted by warmonger:

Torque is transmitted to the wheels. There are enough people that have sheared an axle from lesser torque loads than I drive around with every day on low boost. But then you wouldn't know about real torque in your contour yet.

Nice. I still don't understand what this has to do with gear lube though.

Yeah, that was nice.

Originally posted by todras:

Originally posted by warmonger:

Torque is transmitted to the wheels. There are enough people that have sheared an axle from lesser torque loads than I drive around with every day on low boost. But then you wouldn't know about real torque in your contour yet.

Nice. I still don't understand what this has to do with gear lube though.

More torque, more chance of breaking something.
I've spent enough of my own money testing various combinations for the engines, engine management, exhaust piping, etc. You only need to look back 5 years to see the contributions I've made. I'm not even going to point out the naysayers and where my money went!
The part that kills me is that you're claiming a high enough torque load will spin a pressed on gear before breaking the spiders. NOT even the issue. It is the freeplay in the gears combined with the shock from the high torque loads that will hurt those spiders. So maybe my statement finally came out abrasive because you are beginning to look like you are targeting me personally. It started with the whole clutch pedal travel statement. Not fundamentally wrong just wrong terminology.
Then the comment in the materials thread about camshafts implying that I wouldn't admit to seeing another point of view.
There are other cases.
Other than maybe the comment up there to you and the one to Mapoftazifosho about not being consistent, I didn't attack you personally. I've questioned your assumptions. That's it.
The very fact that you feel like I'm attacking you versus your assumptions means you are personally attached to your "solution" as to why rawburts transmission failed.
For those of you who can read between the lines, that is significant. It means you will take being wrong about this personally and therefore you may not want to see the writing on the wall or admit it. This needs to be an objective discussion. The minute it is not is when the information has no value.
So at this point I stand unconvined based on the merrits of your evidence. Nothing more nothing less. I want to get it back to the real issue. This wasn't personal for me and I don't want to let you make it become personal.
You made a statement and backed it up with some information. I observe the information has holes in it. I question it. If you demonstrate how your evidence refutes the questions...which you still haven't even addressed...remember the corrosion claims from EPs???....then we can agree that your theory is sound and move on to the next question. The minute your theory fails to pass the test then it is time to get a new theory.
That is how science works, even law works that way.

Originally posted by todras:
Todd
The website was updated and should read Synchromax or RP 10w40/ Racing 41. We are giving you an option.

Apparently the person doing the update did not understand and removed Synchromax as the recommended fluid.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I thought you were putting MT-90 in?

funk all of you, I'm putting Rotella 15w40 in my trans!

Pre-98 transmissions rock.

Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Pre-98 transmissions rock.

They are still subject to the same stuff as Post-98 transmissions. The rod shifter isn't going to do a whole lot for you in that matter. So you may have a better 3rd gear syncro, but again it's not much different.

Mark

Originally posted by Y2KSVT:

Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Pre-98 transmissions rock.

They are still subject to the same stuff as Post-98 transmissions. The rod shifter isn't going to do a whole lot for you in that matter. So you may have a better 3rd gear syncro, but again it's not much different.

Mark

Not according to Terry. Ask him how many pre-98 transmissions come in with failures versus 98+.

Quote:

The rod box also has all the selectors in the bottom of the trans and has almost zero wear to the parts as they are always in oil......

Seriously, though, his MTX-75 FAQ at FCO is why I went shopping for a pre-98 SE rather than an SVT.

Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:

Originally posted by Y2KSVT:

Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Pre-98 transmissions rock.

They are still subject to the same stuff as Post-98 transmissions. The rod shifter isn't going to do a whole lot for you in that matter. So you may have a better 3rd gear syncro, but again it's not much different.

Mark

Not according to Terry. Ask him how many pre-98 transmissions come in with failures versus 98+.

Quote:

The rod box also has all the selectors in the bottom of the trans and has almost zero wear to the parts as they are always in oil......

Seriously, though, his MTX-75 FAQ at FCO is why I went shopping for a pre-98 SE rather than an SVT.

that's because old men/grandma's drive the 98>

Originally posted by Y2KSVT:

They are still subject to the same stuff as Post-98 transmissions. The rod shifter isn't going to do a whole lot for you in that matter. So you may have a better 3rd gear syncro, but again it's not much different.

Mark

You never heard about 3rd gear problems back on the mailing list. Seems like when the 98+'s came out you were hearing stuff all the time. Also the early diff's were stronger too. Still not tough but stronger. I like the feel on pre 98's too. Seems more precise. Seems I have trouble finding gears in later cars.

Originally posted by todras:
I thought you were putting MT-90 in?

No he had decided on RP

Originally posted by RogerB:
I have three quarts of RP in my trunk, and I can't feel any difference at all in my shifting.

Unless you were just being sarcastic, then... nevermind...

Originally posted by White99SE:

Originally posted by todras:
I thought you were putting MT-90 in?

No he had decided on RP

Originally posted by RogerB:
I have three quarts of RP in my trunk, and I can't feel any difference at all in my shifting.

Unless you were just being sarcastic, then... nevermind...

I didn't mean I was really going to put MT-90 in, just that if everyone used it, the crime rate might go down.

I actually have RP in the trunk, but I haven't had time to do the swap. I'm waiting for the 75k oil/filter etc. service.

Originally posted by todras:
Check out the R.P. spec for the MTX-75 now...

www.royalpurple.com/techa/tranxref.html

Manual Transmissions with XT-M5-QS spec WSD-M2C200-C: SAE 10W40

http://www.royalpurple.com/prodsa/rpmoa.html

Amsoil also specs a European motor oil for the MTX-75 now.

http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/afl.aspx

Funny they would go from saying they have been testing it in Europe for years to now calling for a multigrade engine oil.

And to add to the mystery even more, an "interested party" that has been following these threads had the Ford Honey analyzed. He said that he found it very similar to engine oil in terms of it's AW (anti-wear) elements. It does have some friction modifier, but not much. The viscosity is very close to 75W90 gear oil. I will need to do a little research to see what engine oil viscosity that relates to.

So maybe that is why Royal Purple and Amsoil are now specifying synthetic engine oil.

That truly makes me think there could be better manual trans oils available for this trans. My perception is that engine oil is a step backward from ATF, but then it least it's full synthetic. But that's just me.

Edit: I looked it up. It would be close to 10W40 engine oil.

It looks like we have found the Wizzard of Oz and found that he is just a regular guy. So much for the mystery of Ford Honey. I should stress though that it is full synthetic, is at least moderately modified for manual trans use, and has a decent TBN rating of 9.5 so the detergency should hold up well (as we have learned from it's good anti-sludge character).

Originally posted by Big Jim:
We are not getting reports of failures using the Mercon factory fill. We are not getting reports of failure using ATF+3. We are not getting failure reports with either GM or Penzoil manual trans lubes. Only some that have use Red Line MTL.

That's just plain laughable.

The majority of the failures have been running Mercon, Mobil 1 ATF, or ATF+3 when they failed. The ratio is not even worth comparing.

I wouldn't expect you to stoop to poor sensationalism like stated in that one paragraph.

Originally posted by stadtsoldat:
Honestly, any professional opinions here? Should we change? I'm no mechanic, and I'm no engineer, just a kid with a Contour who wants to take care of it right!

No kidding, can somebody decipher in stupid terms ?

I changed recently with whatever was recommended otc from the ford dealership ... ford mtx fluid non-synth.

Jim,
I hate to feel like I've been getting slammed over the whole incident because I related what the Redline representative told me this same thing in an email before and when I was questioned about it it was based on the proof provided by the first sample.
Now your other source has pointed this out as well.

Oils are just hydrocarbon chains made up of different lengths in a very simple sense. When you look at simple hydrocarbons as an example, it follows that all oils are very similar. Obviously modern oils have much more stuff to them but here is how it works:

oils have maybe15-20 carbon atoms, solvents have much less, like octane for example is C8H18
An oil might be C20H42.
If you keep adding carbon atoms they become waxy. A wax might have 30 carbon or more.
So in the simple sense all base oils are very similar.
They have some proprietary things done to them but basically they are hydrocarbon chains.
The difference between a 5 wt oil and a 90wt is going to be in the base oil hydrocarbon chain and the additives or treatments.

So I'm saying this to point out that using a "motor oil" over an ATF isn't a step back at all based on the base oils. It is just a different spec. When you compare engine oil to atf, besides color what do you notice? It is usually a bit slimy/slipperier. We know that it has good cold weather lube properties and we know it has good additivies for wear protection. I mean it protects items like cams and lifters for hundreds of thousands of miles and protects against the cold start pressures in the bearings as well.
ATF is designed for automatic in that it protects the valve body from sludge buildup and of course lubes everything.
Hell, use mobile 1 synthetic oil that specs out to your 75w90 gear oil.

In the end I also have to point out that Redline is similarly formulated. You may find that Redline MTL is closer to Ford Honey than ATF ever was, yet both were recommended fluids.
I honestly don't think the two transmission we saw are a fair indication of the detergent capabilities of redline either. One was old and abused and the other had an ATB that produced plenty of material wear that needed to be flushed better during break-in.

Originally posted by warmonger:

I honestly don't think the two transmission we saw are a fair indication of the detergent capabilities of redline either. One was old and abused and the other had an ATB that produced plenty of material wear that needed to be flushed better during break-in.

The only 'flush' that would remove the 'black' from the silver diff. and all the other parts will be a dunk tank. Flushing does not clean the magnet and I doubt running Pete's trans in straight gasoline would clean off the black either! I have another trans from Jeff Turner, he bought it with a quaife fitted from Paxton, the trans has zero black in it...guess they must have flushed it with kerosene eh!...and a 'clean' magnet. Nowhere have I ever read, even after asking Quaife, that an ATB diff will 'shed metal' during break in. And if a Torsen sheds steel in breakin then Torsen has an issue!!!!

Keep defending MTL.

These pictures brought to you by...... some dude's cell phone.

Mark

Warmonger,

My basis for saying it is a step back is if there is not a satisfactory level of the proper additives to function in a gear box.

ATF is at least somewhat of a gear oil. There are gears in an automatic transmission, although of a somewhat different style. ATF does have additives not only to help keep things clean, but also to help handle the loads that gears generate.

My sources comments were that Ford Honey is very similar to SM motor oil in terms of AW (anti wear) elements. It did have some friction modifier but not much. The viscosity is 14.9 cSt@100C (which is in the range of most 75W90 gear oils or 10W40 enginge oils). Most other manual trans gear oils have a much higher EP additive level. His final comment is that it looks like 40 weight SM engine oil with very little EP adds and most likely has a GL4 EP protection rating.

I absolutely agree that they information that was gathered on the "everlasting" thread was anything but scientific. I agree that on the face of things it looks like Red Line MTL should have worked, but we have seen some cases where it looks very suspecious. In thoses cases, it certainly wasn't very clean. It would have really helped if there would have been a used oil analysis performed on the fluid that came out of one of those failed transmissions. Until we have better information from Red Line, I'm staying away from it. I have a hard time believing there is a reasonable answer for the sludge found after 14,000 miles with discolored gears. Something is very wrong there. I can't blame the Torsen because the other Redline MTL sludge complaints were with open diffs.

However, I don't believe that Ford Honey is the only good answer either, even though it works well for me (with a moderate dose of added friction modifier). I will most assuredly be looking for alternatives when I change it next time.

Originally posted by Big Jim:

I absolutely agree that they information that was gathered on the "everlasting" thread was anything but scientific.

What?!

WTH is a lab report from Blackstone
if not scientific? That was the whole reason to have a lab report done. Everyone needed to see there was a visable mismatch between additives. The sulphur and solids between honey and MTL takes the TH, Pete & I out of the opinion equation. Look at the numbers, not what we say! Since when was Blacksone labs NOT scientific?!

Originally posted by todras:

Originally posted by Big Jim:

I absolutely agree that they information that was gathered on the "everlasting" thread was anything but scientific.

What?! WTH is a lab report from Blackstone
if not scientific? That was the whole reason to have a lab report done. Everyone needed to see there was a visable mismatch between additives. The sulphur and solids between honey and MTL takes the TH, Pete & I out of the opinion equation. Look at the numbers, not what we say! Since when was Blacksone labs NOT scientific?!

What was needed was the used oil analysis from one of the failed transmissions or at least from Pete's trans. Virgin oil analysis showing that they were different really didn't tell us much as to why Red Line MTL failed. What was done is like throwing a rod on a new Corvette that was running Amsoil and then running a test of virgin Amsoil against Mobil 1 (the factory fill) and saying they didn't match so it must be Amsoil's fault.

We have been over this before. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree and move on.

Are we also not taking into consideration that MTL could have had a bad batch? Or that by slight human error, Pete could have put a different Redline product in? I too would have liked to have seen the fluid from Pete's trans be sent to Blackstone, but it's not possible now. That could have atleast told us what the sludge was composed of.

Mark

Pete's car ran nothing but MTL after the rebuild! What more do you want? I quit.

Originally posted by Y2KSVT:
Pete could have put a different Redline product in?

Originally posted by todras:

Originally posted by Y2KSVT:
Pete could have put a different Redline product in?

He could have put water wetter in it....

Yea if Mark is going to say ish like that he needs to not comment.

Originally posted by todras:
Yea if Mark is going to say ish like that he needs to not comment.

I'll make any comment I feel necessary. You think an attorney wouldn't propose this as a possibility if something like this went to court?

ANYTHING is a possibility, and having seen some of Pete's posts on here I wouldn't put it past him(no offense there Pete).

And since when did you start taking tips from Chad with comments like

Originally posted by todras:
What more do you want? I quit

You've said that you quit, like 5 times and you're still coming back.

I'll go through that thread again sometime and I'll find the post from someone that even made a comment that they couldn't remember if the Redline product they were using was MTL or not, now that they think about it. So that is wher my comment comes from. I didn't think you'd

over it.

Mark