|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,336
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,336 |
Originally posted by todras:
Originally posted by Big Jim:
I still have the opinion that any high quality manual transmission oil that is as thin as ATF or as heavy as 75W90 should work fine in this transmission. So why didn't Red Line's product hold up?
1 word. Additives.
Not that my opinion on this matters much, but I concur. Logically, think of the transmission fluid in aluminum cases as a PH "neutral" compound. The additives in that package can either tip the scale in one direction or another, OR keep the formulation neutral. I'm sure with anything else in this world, the engineers had to play a balancing game when selecting a fluid to their specs due to the nature of the aluminum case and brass and other metals found in the gearset and synchros/blockers. I'm no chemist ... hell, for all I know, aluminum cases might like a higher PH and be more prone to working "cleaner" in an acidic environment ... the example was merely to demostrate an example metaphorically.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197 |
Todays news...
I have some more results from the lab faxed to me this morning. I also called the lab to discuss the findings and try to establish their 'take' on the black/oxide/sludge etc. This is a potted version of the telecon and the results/comments from the lab:
MTL Sulphur content 0.5125%, FMC Sulphur content 0.3496%
Whats your take on the sulphur and additive contents?
The MTL sample appears, with the amounts of phosphorus and zinc + sulphur, to be more of an EP oil than the FMC.
Could this cause the black/oxide/paste we have seen?
It could if you match the proportions of the additives in the FMC against it.
What about the base oil type, 20W on the MTL Vs 15W/40
on the FMC?
That did catch our attention, it could be that the 20W oil has had more detergent additives used, that could explain why you have seen debris carried in suspension Vs 'dropping out' when FMC is used.
If this was your car what would you use and would you be concerned about the black etc?
OK, from what I have seen I'd agree that I would try to match the Ford lube as close as I could to any aftermarket lube before I would use it.
Could this be a 'batch' or mixing problem, some MTL batches are overdosed with additives and out of their own spec, say a QC issue??
Possible but as I said the MTL appears to be more of an EP lube than the FMC, as we don't know the ins and outs of how/who/where the MTL is blended and QC controls etc it's hard to say.
Thanks for all the info over the past weeks Ryan, I'll leave you in peace.
-'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: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,210
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,210 |
Originally posted by todras:
Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
He looked at the price and was like "wtf, thats rediculous. How about $15/quart". me: SHWING!
$35/liter here in Canada...  
3.0 14.392@97.237 2.302 60ft
OEM 4-bolt LCA's $105 each
Watch me go
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,944
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,944 |
Originally posted by todras:
Todays news...
MTL Sulphur content 0.5125%, FMC Sulphur content 0.3496%
Whats your take on the sulphur and additive contents?
The MTL sample appears, with the amounts of phosphorus and zinc + sulphur, to be more of an EP oil than the FMC.
Could this cause the black/oxide/paste we have seen?
It could if you match the proportions of the additives in the FMC against it.
What about the base oil type, 20W on the MTL Vs 15W/40
on the FMC?
That did catch our attention, it could be that the 20W oil has had more detergent additives used, that could explain why you have seen debris carried in suspension Vs 'dropping out' when FMC is used.
If this was your car what would you use and would you be concerned about the black etc?
OK, from what I have seen I'd agree that I would try to match the Ford lube as close as I could to any aftermarket lube before I would use it.
Could this be a 'batch' or mixing problem, some MTL batches are overdosed with additives and out of their own spec, say a QC issue??
Possible but as I said the MTL appears to be more of an EP lube than the FMC, as we don't know the ins and outs of how/who/where the MTL is blended and QC controls etc it's hard to say.
Thanks for all the info over the past weeks Ryan, I'll leave you in peace.
So... These results and converstion following, tend to support Terrys theory, as outlined in this thread which was originally posted over at FCO and copied over here...
"...don't get hung up on the viscosity of the lubes here...the MTL appears to have the same additives as a hypoid gear oil that is designed for extreme pressure,which the MTX75 does NOT need. The fact that the MTL carries debris all round the trans appears to be the issue. Just smell MTL and smell a hypoid gear oil...same,then take a smell of Ford XT-M5-QS.... the Ford lube does not come close to the others in smell. This is an additive issue.... and again an MTX75 does not need ANY 'EP' additives as the MTX75 has none of it's gears with a hypoid gear 'cut'. Also woth noting is that an 'EP' lube with a Quaife or Torsen will REDUCE the effectiveness of the ATB diff. An ATB diff balances torque to each side by the friction 'end load' of the spiral cut diff pinions pressing on the diff carrier case. Using an 'EP" lube will reduce the end thrust friction of these pinions on the case and affetct the torque bias...not good."
I would still like to see some lab results of MTL and Honey, taken from a freshly drained box. Just for the sake of knowing what actually is happening to the fluid and the metals inside the tranny during use of each. To some, this may seem like beating a dead horse, but I think it is really needed for this discussion. 
I will add a hugh thanks to Terry for taking the time and initiative to actually run these tests and tear into those boxes, earlier in the thread. 
Phillip Jackson
`98 Mystique LS
262K+ and counting...
ATX rebuilt @ 151K
"This storm has broken me, my only friend!" RIP Dime
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,065
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,065 |
I have them...but no where to host them. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,065
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,065 |
Originally posted by Terry Haines:
Re Castrol SMX-S
I have been in contact with Castrol USA and Castrol UK
.
Castrol USA called this morning.They do not and will
not be selling the SMX-S in USA.I enquired about the
supply of it in Europe as the Ford lube in it's
'XT-M5-QS guise...no comment,in fact very tight lipped
about it.The info appeared to go away from trans lube
as the 'market was small in the USA'...Would they
consider importing?...Nope. So little or no chance of
getting the lube that is the Ford exact spec in
USA...unless you buy the Ford honey...I tried!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,714
Scourge of the Master Debaters
|
|
Scourge of the Master Debaters
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,714 |
Beer is my Gatorade.
Hooray Beer.
'98 "Sport" Pacific Green
'98 E0 SVT Silver Frost
Pictures
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Hmm. Talked the test results over with the Redline representative and he finds that they are plausible enough to be MTL, including the sulpher percentages. So, No complaints from that department. He goes on to say that the FMC lube appears to be a 40w base oil, like a motor oil, definitely FAR different than the type of lube results one finds when using ATF. After reading the results of the FMC lube he raised an eyebrow that there could be any complaints over using MTL in comparison?? The gist of it is that IF the new specs called for FMC, then the MTL would definitely satisfy the lubrication requirements of our transmissions now more than they would when calling for ATF; when viewed by comparison. He was more adamant now after seeing the results about recommending the MTL as a satisfactory lube and it reiterating that the MTL will NOT cause a failure than he was when we discussed ATF as the recommended lube because apparently MTL is more similar to the FMC honey than to the ATF. ??  Again, I'm not fighting this fight anymore so as was posted above, you people decide and if you have any questions buy the FMC lube (honey). I'm just presenting a little more information. Seeing the test results and having them stated plausible is a good step in the right direction. It doesn't help us determine that MTL is harmfull or that indeed it is anything other than a differently formulated lube. What we need now is a more detailed spec sheet on the MTX-75 lube requirements that goes into detail on additive requirements and limits. If ANYONE from FMC would be happy to oblige us that would be great!  Then we can determine any and all fluids that are suitable. Looks more and more like using straight synthetic motor oil would be just as good too!
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: May 2000
Posts: 21,197
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197 |
Originally posted by warmonger:
What we need now is a more detailed spec sheet on the MTX-75 lube requirements that goes into detail on additive requirements and limits.
If ANYONE from FMC would be happy to oblige us that would be great! Then we can determine any and all fluids that are suitable.
Looks more and more like using straight synthetic motor oil would be just as good too!
From TH
...I can't oblige on that one.I have the Ford specs
and myself and my contacts within the auto industry
have our own 'professional code' between each other
and a trust built up over many years.If a company ,say
Redline wish to be an 'authorised' supplier of lube
for the MTX75 I'd suggest they contact Transmission
Engineering in Germany who will advise them of
specs,test perameters etc...if they submit test data
then they have a good chance of being authorised...at
a price.As to other aftermarket suppliers who 'say'
that their lube meets Ford 'WSD-M2C200-C'...I'd be
intersted to see their proof of being 'authorised by
Ford'...or do we assume they have been certified and
passed all the Ford tests etc from a lube
submission...
-'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 warmonger:
Hmm. Talked the test results over with the Redline representative and he finds that they are plausible enough to be MTL, including the sulpher percentages. So, No complaints from that department.
He goes on to say that the FMC lube appears to be a 40w base oil, like a motor oil, definitely FAR different than the type of lube results one finds when using ATF.
After reading the results of the FMC lube he raised an eyebrow that there could be any complaints over using MTL in comparison?? The gist of it is that IF the new specs called for FMC, then the MTL would definitely satisfy the lubrication requirements of our transmissions now more than they would when calling for ATF; when viewed by comparison.
He was more adamant now after seeing the results about recommending the MTL as a satisfactory lube and it reiterating that the MTL will NOT cause a failure than he was when we discussed ATF as the recommended lube because apparently MTL is more similar to the FMC honey than to the ATF. ??
It seems a little scary that we (collectively, we at CEG) have raised a concern and Red Lines performance and they have no explanation. It would be appropraite for them to show some concern and perhaps step up to take a sample of used MTL from Pete's trans and investigate it more deeply. It sounds like they really don't care.
Again, I'm not fighting this fight anymore so as was posted above, you people decide and if you have any questions buy the FMC lube (honey). I'm just presenting a little more information. Seeing the test results and having them stated plausible is a good step in the right direction. It doesn't help us determine that MTL is harmfull or that indeed it is anything other than a differently formulated lube.
What we need now is a more detailed spec sheet on the MTX-75 lube requirements that goes into detail on additive requirements and limits.
If ANYONE from FMC would be happy to oblige us that would be great! Then we can determine any and all fluids that are suitable.
Looks more and more like using straight synthetic motor oil would be just as good too!
To me, the scary thing here is that Red Line doesn't seem to show much concern. We (that is we collectively here at CEG) have raised a concern about their MTL based on more than one observation of the performance of their fluid. Their response is basically to say it should have worked. I would most certainly expect them to show a bit more concern. It would be a class act at this point for them to step up and ask Pete if they could run an analysis of their own on the sludge found in his transmission.
It is a common thing in industry, especially among ISO 9000 certified companies, to issue a Suppliers Corrective Action Form (SCAR) when a deficiency is found or suspected. I wonder if Red Line would respond to a SCAR from a consumer. In industry, failure to respond appropriately usually leads to the supplier being removed from the approved suppliers list and loosing future business.
Jim Johnson
98 SVT
03 Escape Limited
|
|
|
|
|
