|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197
I have no life
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197 |
Originally posted by MapOfTaziFoSho:
Stryped...you have ZERO credibility. 
-'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: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106 |
Originally posted by todras:
Do we have pics of what they said they've encountered? No. I don't know what they have seen or done. I've seen the transmissions that I've posted pics of and have been told what they run.
Then I don't think we should discredit any of the more respected members of this community, because they haven't shown pictures of their transmissions. I think Tom and Greg both would be the FIRST people to come on here and tell people of any negative findings, as they have both proven to be here to HELP fellow CEG'ers. Knowing that Greg switched from MTL to another brand of tranny fluid, I'm lead to believe that he had no buildup that the 2 cases you have apart did, or he'd probably be telling people to avoid MTL! Unless Greg works for Redline, he hasn't had a reason to NOT tell us to avoid it.
Mark
2000 Black CSVT
3.0L Hybrid - 206fwhp & 195fwtq
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197 |
Answer me this then. If the MTX-75 at one time was spec'd to run ATF. Then why run MTL? States on the back of an MTL bottle..."For transmissions recommending an ATF, Red Line D4 ATF should be used." So why are people using MTL versus Redline D4 ATF?
-'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: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693 |
Originally posted by todras:
Answer me this then. If the MTX-75 at one time was spec'd to run ATF. Then why run MTL? States on the back of an MTL bottle..."For transmissions recommending an ATF, Red Line D4 ATF should be used." So why are people using MTL
versus Redline D4 ATF?
Perhaps because Ford changed the spec from ATF to gear oil? That sounds to me like either one could be correct, but the gear oil would be preferred. After all, ATF was the spec for five model years.
About black residue when using Mercon. Has anyone paid attention to what NEW Mercon looks like? Pour a little in a manner that you can see light through the pour, and notice the BLACK that is in it. It gives Mercon a sort of a smokey color. That is part of the additive package and part of what makes Mercon (and Dexron) unique from other trans fluids. ATF+3 doesn't have that. It is optically clearer. Could part of the black residue you see left behind be that black additive?
Jim Johnson
98 SVT
03 Escape Limited
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106 |
Originally posted by todras:
Answer me this then. If the MTX-75 at one time was spec'd to run ATF. Then why run MTL? States on the back of an MTL bottle..."For transmissions recommending an ATF, Red Line D4 ATF should be used." So why are people using MTL versus Redline D4 ATF?
I couldn't tell you Todd. Like I said, I'm not using the MTL, or any Redline product for that matter. My only point was that there's an awful lot of finger pointing going on in this thread, with less than substantial evidence to backup ANYONE'S claims.
I think both sides have presented very valid points, and I'm not one to go jumping on any bandwagons. This will all work itself out, and I'll be interested to see what the test results conclude.
Mark
2000 Black CSVT
3.0L Hybrid - 206fwhp & 195fwtq
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570 |
Originally posted by pole120:
Originally posted by pole120:
Originally posted by todras:
People don't start asking questions on what you should run. You're going to have to figure that out yourself.
Then don't make coments about our descision. 
Can i get a reply on this?? \/
Originally posted by pole120:
edit:
I just picked up a ford TSB that states
*portions omitted*
"the new fluid (XT-M5-QS(1 L/quart)) is fully compatable wit hearlier (1995-2000 model year) transaxles and fluid. It is recomended that this new synthetic fluid(XT-M5-QS(1 L/quart)) be used exclusively in all model year MTX-75 transaxles when filling a full drqained unit, or when toppin off fluid level."
one question, there is no mentiuon of a "friction modifier", and can't recall what i all read.
is it not needed as opposed to what was stated earlier??
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Syncromesh works perfectly as is while Ford's needs the LSD additive. Advantage Syncromesh.
Use some reason: Ford does NOT say to use FM with the honey. The TSB calls for Ford Honey straight up. Someone else is suggesting you might want to use FM.
You decide: follow Ford's official documenatation or a car enthusiasts advice.
As of this posting, there is no such thing as a product that says "meets or excedes specificates for Ford Honey". Which is the fluid Ford says should be used in this transmission. So I'm going to use Ford Honey and be cool with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570 |
Originally posted by Big Jim:
Perhaps because Ford changed the spec from ATF to gear oil?
What? Is Ford Honey a gear oil?
The only documentation produced has said ATF or Ford Honey, when/where has it been said to use a gear oil?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,238
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,238 |
I just got off the phone with Steve at Tousley Ford. He said, and he isnt a fluid guru, but he told me I should be running Ford Honey. And for $14 Im gonna switch it out.
-tropictour
2000 Contour SVT
Tropic Green
SHO Shop CAI
Bassani
1999 Contour SE
BAT Kit
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,475
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,475 |
Ryan, I think the Ford Honey meets the specs of a GL-4 gear oil. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. But your right, there is nothing or no one who will not reccomend it. Originally posted by Y2KSVT:
My only point was that there's an awful lot of finger pointing going on in this thread, with less than substantial evidence to backup ANYONE'S claims.
I think both sides have presented very valid points, and I'm not one to go jumping on any bandwagons. This will all work itself out, and I'll be interested to see what the test results conclude.
I 100% agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693 |
Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
Originally posted by Big Jim:
Perhaps because Ford changed the spec from ATF to gear oil?
What? Is Ford Honey a gear oil?
The only documentation produced has said ATF or Ford Honey, when/where has it been said to use a gear oil?
Somewhere in the distant past of CEG I posted the spec sheet for Ford "honey". IIRC it said that it was a GL4 85W95 gear oil. I don't remember clearly what viscosity it is, but I do remember clearly that it was GL4. That would have probably been three or four years ago.
Jim Johnson
98 SVT
03 Escape Limited
|
|
|
|
|
