|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by Big Jim:
That black coating looks a lot like the black coating that you usually find all over everthing when you remove a diff cover to change the diff fluid. I'm sure that it is fluid related. On the diffs, it is not supposed to be harmful. Remember that usually diffs have stronger additives, especially ep (extreme pressure) additives to put up with the higher pressures from the hypoid cut gears. Some of these ep additives are what makes diff gear oil unsuitable for manual transmission use.
I wonder just what MTL has in it.
You're telling me with all your experience you've never cracked an MTX and seen that stuff? You've never cracked an ATX pan and had to clean it?
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by Y2KSVT:
Originally posted by todras:
Anyone want to put $ where their mouth is on this issue before the lab results come back? 
Anyone want to swing from Terry's righty, to keep the balance from Todd holding onto his lefty?
No offense, but there are some people on here stating that they've been using the MTL with no ill effects. I'm not backing them up, as I've never used the product. I do like to be presented with all evidence before making a decision, so I'll keep my money in my wallet on this bet. I could care less if the lab tests come back proving that MTL will eat a hole in the tranny case and make every part inside dissinigrate, but to rule them out because of one or two instances is a little quick, IMHO.
Anyone on here that's owned their car since NEW, and knows their maintenance history that is running MTL? 
Mark
Umm yes... ME! Other than warranty work I've done all maintenance, mods, and repairs.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by Stry-ped:
Originally posted by Y2KSVT:
Anyone on here that's owned their car since NEW, and knows their maintenance history that is running MTL?
Mark
Mine has had the "Coctail" since almost new.. and just had it's 4th trans flush done at Ford. Fluid was a bit dark. More specifically, the fluid consisted of Mobil 1 ATF with Friction Modifier. When the trans was opened up do to a FAILED 3RD GEAR SYNCHRO three months ago, according to the Ford Service report, the trans had a lot of "black residue on the inside of the trans case, and required an additional hour or so in the parts tank to remove the residue". They were a bit stumped there, as they knew of the cars past and how many flushes it's had. Ford re-filled it with the recomended Ford fluid, not the cocktail... and the shifts are hard into first gear. 2 months later, I'm getting ready to drain this crap out and put whatever is decided in this dicussion back in. RP Syncromesh is sounding positive.
Oh Jesus, praise the Lord that someone can finally post that a residue will occur in transmissions without Redline!
I further put forth that the FM is causing more wear that would be seen without it (reduced friction ring a bell?) and that any car previuosly running a significant portion of FM is likely to see higher than normal levels of black residue.
The FM is really bad news for my own transmission. I ran it and had significant gunk in the oil at that time. Last time I am going to reiterate that point.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by todras:
Originally posted by akrump47:
Originally posted by todras:
I like how certain points are skipped over.
It's nice isnt it. Did you miss this one:
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Originally posted by Y2KSVT:
What happens when someone cracks their tranny open after using MTL, and it's clean?
Mark
[image]
You mean besides Tom & myself already having done that and proved that it's not the MTL fluid. 
So two people with MTL & Buildup in the trans. Two People without. NO CHEMICAL RESULTS YET stating that the buildup IS IN FACT DRIECTLY CAUSED BY MTL. Wow that's highly conclusive isnt it.
Those aren't questions. Those are statements on observations. 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. I also know that Demon's car supposedly puts out so much power and has never shown a dyno sheet.
WTF are you talking about?
How many people on here can show pictures of MY transmission?? LOTS OF THEM> THey can see all the gears because when I started that darn thread about improving your MTX-75 with shift forks and other things, I was paving the way. I showed photos of everything. Then I posted more photos. Some people probably have a hard drive full of photo proof that I have posted. I am one of the most credible members on this board. I have religiously documented everything I've done since year 2001 and still keep a website showing all that information. Can you argue otherwise? OH, and I have posted more than a few dyno sheets. 
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by Big Jim:
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?
Very good point. Sorry about earlier when I used the rolleyes but I found it hard to believe you never saw any similar buildup in your past work.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570 |
So to summerize:
ATF = origional spec, but is now outdated
Ford Honey = GL-4 gear lube
MTL = GL-4 gear lube
both are very similar viscosity
Friction modifier is bad, and hasn't been recommended by Ford.
Current official recommended fluid from Ford: Ford Honey.
Still up for debate: whether MTL is an acceptable alternative
Are the lab tests comparing MTL to Ford Honey at all? Should they be?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570 |
Originally posted by warmonger:
Originally posted by todras:
yea I'm sure it was fabricated. How could you just mistakenly print that? Yes the Cougar S didn't make it to production but was extremely close. Big deal. So everything in the manual is a mistake because they had Cougar S info?
The 99 Cougar manual is the only one that states to add 2 oz of FM.
You ask how can you mistakenly print something yet in the same paragraph you say the CougarS was extremely close but never made it into production. So what you are saying is someone went ahead and added stuff they weren't supposed to before the quality control guys could sort it all out....and they went to print on it and printed in error. Nothing unbelievable about that. It also means that other things could have been inadvertently printed. Therefore the manual is suspect and we throw that bit of evidence OUT....same as in court.
Next.
It should be pointed out that on the Ford Fleet site, which has copies of owners manuals, does not have a single manual that recommends friction modifier:
https://www.fleet.ford.com/maintenance/owners_manuals/results.asp
Look at the 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 Cougar manuals. Neither of those manuals say to add friction modifier. The PDF of the cougar manual posted earlier has to be a misprint or some sort of freak.
Also of note, the 2001 and earlier cougar manuals still recommends plain old Mercon ATF, and the 2002 manual is finally updated to specify the Ford Honey fluid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 540
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 540 |
If we were to look at this as we would engine oil, what would we conclude? We all buy an API SM oil of the appropriate viscosity, be it Mobil 1, Castrol, Pennzoil, etc. In order to get that API certification any candidate oil has to successfully complete the same ASTM tests. Therefore ANY engine oil of the appropriate grade and API certification (as defined by the vehicle manufacturer) is acceptable for use - who makes it doesn't matter. Some may be better than others, but they all met a certain minimum level of acceptance. The choice of the brand (Mobil, Castrol) is left to the consumer - but you should feel confident that the oil will not harm your car.
The Ford honey is in fact an API GL-4 gear oil (I did not know this prior to Big Jim's post - apologies for not searching for this earlier; I assumed that since no one made a post previously to this effect that it was unknown what the Ford honey really was). If Redline MTL, RP Syncromax, and Pennzoil Synchromesh meet the API GL-4 guidelines, and Ford is recommending a GL-4 oil, then they ALL should be acceptable oils. PERIOD. Some may be better than others, but any one of them is acceptable. The only caveat I would throw out is that if Ford has done something drastically different than the competition in the design of the transmission that it requires a special formulation, then maybe the Ford honey is the only logical choice (I seriously doubt that they have). I, for one, now feel much better about MTL after learning the honey is a GL-4 oil. I think at this point I will leave it in and check after 5-6K miles.
'98 SVT Red/midnight blue - a few mods
E0 wheels for sale - PM me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,336
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,336 |
I have all 4 owners manuals in PDF.
1999 Cougar = ATF + 2% FM
2000 Cougar = ATF only
2001 Cougar = ATF only
2002 Cougar = Ford Honey
I aquired these documents from Mercury's Onwers website 5 minutes ago ... up-to-date information from "the horse's mouth" so to say. Just thought that I would clear up exactly what Ford themselves recommends vs. differing years of the same car with the same transmission. Shows a few things, such as learned issues and more importantly, possible changes in internal components.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693 |
Good find.
What it really shows is Ford's lack of communication and organization.
This should give us all a better idea of the source of most of the confusion.
Jim Johnson
98 SVT
03 Escape Limited
|
|
|
|
|
