|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570 |
Originally posted by todras:
Synthetic is so slippery it doesn't allow the synchros to spin up fast enough to make the shift.
And how is friction modifier going to help that if it makes lube MORE slippery? Do a search outside CEG. This isn't fabricated: friction modifier reduces friction.
If friction mod was so needed, why has Ford NEVER recommended it? Who HAD first recommended it you ask? Demon has, and Terry has (according to a search in the archives), but both of them with the idea that friction modifer ADDs friction. It seems that was a misconception.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,065
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,065 |
Ryan you talked to a tech on the phone for 30 min and you want to take his word like the bible. C'mon ryan! I'm not saying it's bogus...listen to him...but take it with a grain of salt and read more. Research.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570 |
Originally posted by MapOfTaziFoSho:
Ryan you talked to a tech on the phone for 30 min and you want to take his word like the bible. C'mon ryan! I'm not saying listen...but take it with a grain of salt and read more.
It was 30 minutes becuase I had him double check the documentation he had for the MTX-75 and to verify that the XL-3 and the XL-7 both reduce friction. I was careful to have him double check his stuff. I'm not stupid enough to just take a random dealership tech's word for it.
If someone has a source at Ford that everyone will trust better I would be VERY interested to hear what they have to say too! Hell, call your local service departments please. I am not biased here, if this is all incorrect then awesome. But this is what I've got and I trust it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197 |
Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
Originally posted by todras:
Synthetic is so slippery it doesn't allow the synchros to spin up fast enough to make the shift.
And how is friction modifier going to help that if it makes lube MORE slippery? Do a search outside CEG. This isn't fabricated: friction modifier reduces friction.
If friction mod was so needed, why has Ford NEVER recommended it? Who HAD first recommended it you ask? Demon has, and Terry has (according to a search in the archives), but both of them with the idea that friction modifer ADDs friction. It seems that was a misconception.
Because it's a different additive and helps reduce drag so the synch's can spool up faster & engage.
-'96 SE MTX 3L
-'98 SVT 1,173 of 6,535
-'05 Mazda 6s, loaded, g/f's ride
-Need a 96-00 manual on CD? PM or email me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570 |
Originally posted by todras:
Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
Originally posted by todras:
Synthetic is so slippery it doesn't allow the synchros to spin up fast enough to make the shift.
And how is friction modifier going to help that if it makes lube MORE slippery? Do a search outside CEG. This isn't fabricated: friction modifier reduces friction.
If friction mod was so needed, why has Ford NEVER recommended it? Who HAD first recommended it you ask? Demon has, and Terry has (according to a search in the archives), but both of them with the idea that friction modifer ADDs friction. It seems that was a misconception.
Because it's a different additive and helps reduce drag so the synch's can spool up faster & engage.
You know I love you man but thats the opposite of everythign thats ever been posted on here about why friction modifier should be added. The reason given is that the synchros NEEd the friction to spin up.... This is the first I've heard of the synchros needign LESS friction...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 980
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 980 |
Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
Hell, call your local service departments please.
I did, they said they hadn't heard anything from Ford - about discontinuing it. Frannie did say she'd check before she left today just to be sure and let me know either way. She says it's up to the individual customer whether or not to use it. Some says it helps, some say it hinders, some say it does nothing at all.
2000 Mystique LS
Duratec 2.5L MTX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570 |
Originally posted by Tisby:
Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
Hell, call your local service departments please.
I did, they said they hadn't heard anything from Ford - about discontinuing it. Frannie did say she'd check before she left today just to be sure and let me know either way. She says it's up to the individual customer whether or not to use it. Some says it helps, some say it hinders, some say it does nothing at all.
Can you see if they can support anything else the tech I talked to stated? In perticular: (1) the Friction Modifier reduces friction vs increasing friction and (2) that it has NEVER been recommended by Ford for the MTX-75?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
I asked Terry about it, and he made some calls. There's a TSB about discontinuing XL-7 use in F-series.
Quote:
Its a TSB on Ford F series,Explorers etc. re. rear end lube. Stock lube with XL-7 is repalced with new lube '75W90 QFEHP without XL-7. Other rear ends that use 75W140 still take XL-3 FM. On the F-series etc. with the new lube the clutch packs in the diff must also be changed and the Ring and pinions checked/replaced....Can still get XL-3 but no XL-7......
FWIW, the AllData database only calls for ATF3 in the MTX-75.
Last edited by Jeb Hoge; 09/14/05 06:45 PM.
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570 |
That makes sense. Thanks Jeb
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by todras:
I was looking back at some
{edit}
very best post by demon. 
You can tell a LOT has been learned in 5 & a half years.
That was back when I "believed" what was being spouted and did not do my own research. I lot has changed since that time. I've found out most of the bullsh~t this site was spouting was just that. Someone's sorry limitations they could not see past.
Hell the stock rods didn't break at 200 TQ like someone predicted. (Terry) 
The new style stock PCM & rev limiters was cracked even though someone said it could never be done. (Leo) 
ATF was proven to be the worst thing to run in the MTX. Even Terry described horror stories or transmissions with the "cocktail" in it after that time. This was back when he started strongly recommending the "new" Ford honey. Check out those posts todras.
Forced induction on a 10.3CR SVT. It was called impossible and just plan stupid because the engine would break. 13psi and 330FWHP later the stock 2000 2.5L SVT engine shut all those blind folks up. 9psi and 330HP/TQ later on a bone stock bargain basement setup Tom shut everyone up again.
I guess it's a good thing some people stopped listening to the mindless drivel some folks kept clinging to because they OBVIOUSLY (hind sight is 20/20) were not even close to the truth.
BTW I noticed you completely skipped over my posts about 2 years later (3-3.5 years ago!) when I starting to go away from listening to the "norm" and actually did some REAL research myself on the subject.
I like how you picked the very old, early threads and skipped any thing that proved my point.
Those sound bites sound convincing but in reality it just proves your short sightedness and limited thinking. In other words it is exactly what I expected from you.
Should I post the more current & relevant threads???
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
