Just wanting to get a lot of opinions on what people are using and which they think works best, also what they think I should use. BTW mine is a 98 EO CSVT in WI so its cold 6 out of 12 months.
Also if you have your own recipe please include that and your results.
THANKS FOR VOTING
I think you should have Royal Purple SymcroMax on your list, it's awsome in cold weather.
Originally posted by SVTCANUK:
I think you should have Royal Purple SymcroMax on your list, it's awsome in cold weather.
+1
+2 on the RP synchromesh synthetic, although it's not so cold here. Had snow only once this winter.
I run Redline MTL in my car and my Jeep,My Ranger will be switched over shortly.
I run Royal Purple as well... so one of those "other" votes are mine.
What about Specialty Formulations?
<-------------- Also using Royal Purple Syncromax
penzoil synchromesh here.
Originally posted by RandyCSVT:
penzoil synchromesh here.
Same here.
Ford Honey, its proven not to ruin your [censored] unlike redline.
Originally posted by Tourige:
Ford Honey, its proven not to ruin your [censored] unlike redline.
Nothing has proven any thing nor has anyone. Your comment is utter tripe and sheer ignorance.
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Originally posted by Tourige:
Ford Honey, its proven not to ruin your [censored] unlike redline.
Nothing has proven any thing nor has anyone. Your comment is utter tripe and sheer ignorance.
Yes, but neither you nor Warmonger run the redline anymore...yet you continue to defend it to the death...and if you go over to the 3000GT boards they call the stuff snake oil and run away from it. We are not the only platform out there to call the stuff poison. 
If you are so adamant about disproving the whole MTL debate then run some in your car. Better yet, buy some and send it off to a lab along with some Ford Honey for a comparison. Until then I (and several others) are going to listen to the fella who has the lab results and has cracked more trannies than you!
Lastly why is he ignorant for listening to TH's take on the subject over yours?! Which is all this is really about...
Oh yeah and I hate to drag him into this, but Stazi immediately drained his MTL and put the Royal Purple in his tranny after terry posted the data... 
Oh boy here we go again
Use MTL at your own risks. Most the trannies I pulled due to failed components had stinking (literally) MTL in them, and they all were slathered on the inside with black goop.
RP Synchromax or Ford Spec "Honey" is the way to go.
I see we are on a roll again!. I guess I can't understand how just swapping out lubes from brand X to brand Y is any form of structured testing. Residue from previous lubes will be in the trans and this type of 'try it and see' evaluation flies in the face of any real world engineering or lab testing of a lube. Any evaluation must be carried out on test rigs set up to the Ford spec or a series of clean 'virgin' built transmissions which after the testing would be stripped, measured etc.Having a poll is not not much better. You can't 'vote in' a specific lube...this again is not logical engineering practice for evaluating a product or a components performance, wear, operating life etc. I have no idea where these guys have had practical engineering experience in product testing etc but it appears that it was picked up off the back of a corn flake packet....for sure it was not in an engineering establishment. Using lab tests for content of lube and wear checks during and after testing on the components in question is the only scientific way to get correct answers. The input I had from friends in Transmission Engineering in Ford Germany,the trib lab in Germany,info from Quaife UK and many other peers in my circle of engineers tells me that some of the brand X lubes are not up to the standard Ford has set...simple as that.This debate on lube has become more like the 'can't tell it from butter' ads.....very 'shadetree'.
A poll with out Royal purple... Real smart
I would have put Royal Purple in the poll but I had no idea people were using it. I am a newbie and from what I have read in the FAQ, how-to's, and recent posts I didn't know people were using it...
I do have some questions though...in the how-to it says dont use a GL-5 rated gear lube. A lot of lubes people are using are rated GL-5 or higher are they not? Correct me if I am wrong. And the mobil 1 I understood to be mobil 1 synthetic automatic tranny fluid. But I see there is also a mobil 1 synthetic gear lube. Which is it that people use? Thanks.
Originally posted by MapOfTaziFoShoââ??¢:
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Originally posted by Tourige:
Ford Honey, its proven not to ruin your [censored] unlike redline.
Nothing has proven any thing nor has anyone. Your comment is utter tripe and sheer ignorance.
Yes, but neither you nor Warmonger run the redline anymore...yet you continue to defend it to the death...and if you go over to the 3000GT boards they call the stuff snake oil and run away from it. We are not the only platform out there to call the stuff poison.
If you are so adamant about disproving the whole MTL debate then run some in your car. Better yet, buy some and send it off to a lab along with some Ford Honey for a comparison. Until then I (and several others) are going to listen to the fella who has the lab results and has cracked more trannies than you!
Lastly why is he ignorant for listening to TH's take on the subject over yours?! Which is all this is really about...
Oh yeah and I hate to drag him into this, but Stazi immediately drained his MTL and put the Royal Purple in his tranny after terry posted the data...
I think the point is that although this subject is DEBATEABLE, there has not been proof presented that is conclusive enough for everyone involved to believe it.
It's kinda like someone eating at a restaurant, going home and getting sick later that night. Probably more than half will claim it was food poisoning even though no other people at the restaurant or even in the family complained about a problem. It MIGHT have been food poisoning or it might have been stomach flu....
So for every failed MTX tranny that is even remotely related to lubrication problems, there are at least one other success story with it too.
As far as a failed tranny having stinking MTL, I don't disagree with that. However, all trannys running MTL that didn't fail have shown the MTL to still be sweetish smelling. These are reports from people who have ran it a long time. I expect any failed tranny to have stinky fluid to be honest because the heat and metal will damage the lube...so it goes both ways here. 
Also, I DID run Redline again during and after the MTL debacle, but I was running MT90. THis is a fluid using similar or even the same base stocks but engineered to a heavier weight. Both GL4 fluids. I liked it and I still saved the fluid downstairs in the garage. I had it in about 5 months, say July-November of last year so it may not be long enough to really say it was good or bad.
And before that I was running Royal Purple gear max, another fluid rated at GL5 but that claimed not to hurt yellow metal alloys. It worked pretty good but was a little notchy on cold morning starts, same as the MT90.
I went to switch to torco MTF because that is the fluid I ran the longest in my tranny and I never had an issue with cold or hot, but got sent RTF by accident. So I tried the RTF. It is some pretty good stuff, the best I've used so far.
So to sum it up: I don't run redline anymore because I found something better. I didn't stop using it because I thought my tranny would fail, I stopped using it because it was time to service the trans lube and I didn't want to wait for mail ordered MTL so I bought RP gearmax from my local shop. I didn't have any problems with MTL when I ran it and had nothing but good things to say about it.
I ran it from summer 2003 - march 2005, about a year of driving on it and just shy of a year that it just sat in my transmission while I went to Iraq.
IF ANYTHING was going to kill a transmission it would be sitting in a bath of the stuff and not being used for 10 months, AFTER being used for probably 8-10 months!! You can probably see the wisdom of changing any fluid after that time.
So try to understand my skepticism isn't personal, I just have too many things that indicate differently.
I used Redline MTL before my 3L swap then switched over to Royal Purple after.
There is no comparison between the shifting of the two. Royal Purple shifts flawlessly in any temp.
Great...see waht happens when i leave the foums for almost a year......I leave MTL in my transmission...great.....
Well, iv been running it for a year now....almost 30,000 miles...no shifting problems...but from what i have been searching and reading, i may end up with problems....will go with royal purple and test it out....maybe even the Penz Syncromesh.....is there a particular part number for the Royal Purple?
Lupe
be sure to put some of the lube into a clear glass jar and take a picture with light behind it. Also, smell the fluid and give an honest estimate quality nd condition.
Did you have any friction modifier added to the fluid? Either with the MTL or the fluid before MTL?
If you are really curious, and you want to help us out, an oil analysis will be great!
id be glad to help War. I have a fluid container that i can send to BlackStone Labs for an oil analasis. I will also save some of the fluid in my trans to do my own color/smell test and give my honest opinion. Then i will post BlackStones findings.
I look forward to posting the results. And no theres no friction modifier in mine. My original, did have it. It was the ford fluid + friction mod.
Now its just stright MTL. I ran MTL once after the first fluid swithc for 2,000 miles. Then flushed it again and filled with fresh, and thats the one i ahve meen riding on for 30,000 almost.
Lupe
Originally posted by SVTCANUK:
I think you should have Royal Purple SymcroMax on your list, it's awsome in cold weather.
royal purple all the way , even though i dont have my contour anymore , i can still rember how much nicer it was compared to the redline, royal purple is definitly a hell of alot better in the cold. So another vote for ROYAL PURPLE
Originally posted by SvtEdwardo420:
royal purple all the way , even though i dont have my contour anymore , i can still rember how much nicer it was compared to the redline, royal purple is definitly a hell of alot better in the cold. So another vote for ROYAL PURPLE
Is there a particular name for the RP? or is it just there standard ATF?
Lupe
Originally posted by Roz 1999 SVT-C:
id be glad to help War. I have a fluid container that i can send to BlackStone Labs for an oil analasis. I will also save some of the fluid in my trans to do my own color/smell test and give my honest opinion. Then i will post BlackStones findings.
I look forward to posting the results. And no theres no friction modifier in mine. My original, did have it. It was the ford fluid + friction mod.
Now its just stright MTL. I ran MTL once after the first fluid swithc for 2,000 miles. Then flushed it again and filled with fresh, and thats the one i ahve meen riding on for 30,000 almost.
Lupe
Well, I ask about the FM because depending upon how much used, I believe it can be detrimental to the transmission.
Also, if there was a lot used and if the old fluid/FM mix wasn't fully flushed out it will still leave a residue that can contaminate/alter the next fluid fill. Now I'm not saying it will hurt anything in small amounts but there are indications that it may affect MTL. I won't say much more until I gather enough information because I could be wrong.
Anyway, since you flushed and ran new MTL, you shouldn't even have any issues with it. Try and take a picture while it is draining with light at an angle behind the fluid stream..... helps with describing fluid quality and eliminates any arguments about conditions as it comes out.
THANKS A MILLION for working on getting this information. All of CEG and probably NECO will benefit from your efforts and we all want continue to get to the bottom of this debate about MTL.
Originally posted by Roz 1999 SVT-C:
Originally posted by SvtEdwardo420:
royal purple all the way , even though i dont have my contour anymore , i can still rember how much nicer it was compared to the redline, royal purple is definitly a hell of alot better in the cold. So another vote for ROYAL PURPLE
Is there a particular name for the RP? or is it just there standard ATF?
Lupe
They have an ATF, but I believe everyone that uses RP uses Synchromax. I put it in my escort, and it feels good. It will be going in the contour soon.
Going in this Thursday to drain my Redline MTL and replace with Royal Purple Synchromax�®.
Wow, just look at how many people out there who are running REDLINE MTL and haven't had a blown transmission....
Well, the more the merrier I say. Just help however you can with pics and descriptions.
yea my tranny blew when i had mtl in it but that definitly wasnt the reason it blew it was because of the major wheel hop i was getting and it blew the spyder gear outta the tranny case. but i still noticed the different between the mtl and the synchromax abd synchromax it far superior
Originally posted by warmonger:
Wow, just look at how many people out there who are running REDLINE MTL and haven't had a blown transmission....
Well, the more the merrier I say. Just help however you can with pics and descriptions.
I should have said..."Look how many are taking OUT their MTL even though they haven't blown a transmission" to better clarify.
Eh...i was alwasy partial to try something new....i like trying new things...
But on a side note, since my trnas has not blown in 30,000 miles,and for the sake of science, i will refill it with MTL once again and see what another 30,000 miles will do.
Mind you i have been auto X my car, drag racing and hard driving.....with no ill effects that i can tell...Redline still gets my approval till science tells me other wise.
Lupe
Well I have SF's MTL-R in my car. Smooth as butter and a lot better quality & protection then Ford "honey."
A lot cheaper then getting raped by the dealer as well.
for anyone else like me who had no idea what fluid demon was talking about:
specialty formulations products mtl-r product data sheet
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Well I have SF's MTL-R in my car. Smooth as butter and a lot better quality & protection then Ford "honey."
A lot cheaper then getting raped by the dealer as well.
From TH: From what do you draw the assumption that it is better quality and gives better protection?...Have you seen a testing result sheet that was done per the Ford WSD-M2C200-C specs and testing proceedure?
Originally posted by Roz 1999 SVT-C:
with no ill effects that i can tell...Redline still gets my approval till science tells me other wise.
Lupe
....now what's with the 'science' comment?,lab tests have been posted way back between this and 'honey' and as far as I'm aware Redline have not run the product throu the test rig used for spec WSD-M2C200-C....so it's the redline that has no science or testing to back it up!.....
BUNK!!!!!
Originally posted by SvtEdwardo420:
yea my tranny blew when i had mtl in it but that definitly wasnt the reason it blew it was because of the major wheel hop i was getting and it blew the spyder gear outta the tranny case. but i still noticed the different between the mtl and the synchromax abd synchromax it far superior
And there is your answer. The MTL didn't help when it gunked up the planet gears on the pinion wearing it down. Another blown trans with MTL. 
It's better to be safe than sorry I think. I also wanted to try something new as well. If it's as good as everyone says it is, I'll be running RP from here on out.
Originally posted by todras:
Originally posted by Roz 1999 SVT-C:
with no ill effects that i can tell...Redline still gets my approval till science tells me other wise.
Lupe
....now what's with the 'science' comment?,lab tests have been posted way back between this and 'honey' and as far as I'm aware Redline have not run the product throu the test rig used for spec WSD-M2C200-C....so it's the redline that has no science or testing to back it up!.....
BUNK!!!!!
If you actually took the time to read my previous posts, im going to be sending a sample of my transfluid to BlackStone Labs for there analysis testing. As well as run a fresh fill for another 30,000 miles....Real world testing is the best thing im going to get to actaul scientific proof...so before you spout out at the mouth like you always do, why don't you take a deep breath and relax.....Your always so quick to jump down peoples throats and get hostile when YOU don't understand what they mean.
And if it blows becuse of the MTL then it does...atleast i'll know for a fact...On top of that its not like i cannot replace it. For knowledge, i'll be more than happy to be the gunie pig so that others can have a better understanding.
I'm sorry you had a bad experience with MTL....But point is...I have not....atleast not yet....and when i drain it, and send the sample in, ill have a better understanding...Till then....Bite Me.
Lupe
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Well I have SF's MTL-R in my car. Smooth as butter and a lot better quality & protection then Ford "honey."
A lot cheaper then getting raped by the dealer as well.
The guy that owns Specialty Formulations is a regular contributor at www.bobistheoilguy.com and is highly regarded there. His screen name is MolaKule. I would not hesitate to buy any of his products. Hang out there a little and I'm sure you will be impressed by him as well.
Originally posted by todras:
Originally posted by Roz 1999 SVT-C:
with no ill effects that i can tell...Redline still gets my approval till science tells me other wise.
Lupe
....now what's with the 'science' comment?,lab tests have been posted way back between this and 'honey' and as far as I'm aware Redline have not run the product throu the test rig used for spec WSD-M2C200-C....so it's the redline that has no science or testing to back it up!.....
BUNK!!!!!
As much as I respect Terry, I think he is a little out on a limb here. His results may have used science, but it didn't follow any scientific process. His test of comparing the lab analysis of virgin Ford Honey to virgin RedLine MTL and showing that the two products are different didn't resolve anything. An analysis of fluid from one of the transmissions that had evidence of fluid failure would have been MUCH more meaningful.
As for RedLine MTL, it should have worked but didn't. I certaily won't be using it until RedLine does something to redeem itself. Since I don't expect that to happen, I guess that means no MTL for me.
But I'll climb off this soap box. Fight it out among yourselves.
Originally posted by Roz 1999 SVT-C:
I'm sorry you had a bad experience with MTL....But point is...I have not....atleast not yet....and when i drain it, and send the sample in, ill have a better understanding...Till then....Bite Me.
Lupe
I've never used MTL so I don't know what you're talking about. The trans in my sig is not mine. 
...my 10cents worth!
.........the logic behind testing a used trans oil
sample is not my way of thinking.My logic dictates
that if I wanted to try a 'Brand X' lube I would carry
out checks before I put it in the trans.The baseline
spec is the Ford WSD-M2C200-C for both
life,performance,component wear,shift speeds etc
already exists.I think we can take it as a given that
the Motorcraft lube(made by Castrol) has meet the test
specs.I'd be more inclined ,in the absence of a 'Brand
X' lube without the Ford spec/test results,to do a
chem/lab analysis and at least check if the 'numbers'
were even close...which I did.I can't subscribe to a
test proceedure that just puts a Brand X lube in the
trans then does the analysis on a failed trans
lube.Maybe you think it's backwards but with some
'known' info Re Ford test spec,lab tests why would you
put anything that doesn't match/come close to those
results in,it's the obvious 'start point',why ignore
it??
Originally posted by todras:
Originally posted by Roz 1999 SVT-C:
I'm sorry you had a bad experience with MTL....But point is...I have not....atleast not yet....and when i drain it, and send the sample in, ill have a better understanding...Till then....Bite Me.
Lupe
I've never used MTL so I don't know what you're talking about. The trans in my sig is not mine.
Yeah, it's mine 
This "Honey" was called nothing more then glorified 40W engine oil. Plus it is made by Castrol which calls its synthetic products synthetic because of a loophole in the classification. It really does not make full synthetic products at all. (not conjecture but proven fact however that does not seem to matter who most ignorant people posting here) Also its "so-called" synthetics have a high ash content and are prone to turning acidic. (same facts)
Specialty Formulations has posted countless tests of its product (again FACT) by both themselves and had results posted by other members. (like Jim said bobistheoilguy is the bible of fluids!)
This is all fact and not some blind and baseless rantings of short sighted individuals.
If you wanted to use Terry's logic then why would you ever use anything but Mercon ATF in your transmission. It was the original spec and the Ford engineers that designed the tranny could NEVER be wrong about anything. It's not like the transmission needed to be changed over a dozen times because of glaring flaws in its engineering and design right??? Our syncros, blocker rings, differential, and such parts are all well designed and reliable right? So of course they spec'd the correct fluid. Get a clue folks. He is far from a genius and even further from infallible regardless of how badly his lap dogs keep kissing his ass. This is exactly the problem with this site. A handful of people keep proving these ignorantly set boundaries as wrong yet people can't even see the forest through the trees.
...demon has become personal and abusive AGAIN!...Why the attitude?....why is my 10 cents worth any better or worse than HIS?...got an ego problem buddy...bigtime. The
reference to castrol is only on the Syntec engine oil lubes..if someone can disproove with tests and data that the 'honey' is not what Castrol & Ford think it is/should be then I carry it forward,if not then I stand by the Ford specs ....until I see a 'Brand X' lubes that meets them!
Why don't you just present the Ford spec WSD-M2C200-C,to his aftermarket lube supplier and have them run the tests per Ford and post the results...That would be proof that a 'Brad X' lube fits the spec...and he knows as well as I do ATF was deleted as the lube around 99/2000 as the current Ford Lube Chart shows all MTX's back to 95 take honey,as do the IB5's
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
This "Honey" was called nothing more then glorified 40W engine oil. Plus it is made by Castrol which calls its synthetic products synthetic because of a loophole in the classification. It really does not make full synthetic products at all. (not conjecture but proven fact however that does not seem to matter who most ignorant people posting here) Also its "so-called" synthetics have a high ash content and are prone to turning acidic. (same facts)
Specialty Formulations has posted countless tests of its product (again FACT) by both themselves and had results posted by other members. (like Jim said bobistheoilguy is the bible of fluids!)
This is all fact and not some blind and baseless rantings of short sighted individuals.
If you wanted to use Terry's logic then why would you ever use anything but Mercon ATF in your transmission. It was the original spec and the Ford engineers that designed the tranny could NEVER be wrong about anything. It's not like the transmission needed to be changed over a dozen times because of glaring flaws in its engineering and design right??? Our syncros, blocker rings, differential, and such parts are all well designed and reliable right? So of course they spec'd the correct fluid. Get a clue folks. He is far from a genius and even further from infallible regardless of how badly his lap dogs keep kissing his ass. This is exactly the problem with this site. A handful of people keep proving these ignorantly set boundaries as wrong yet people can't even see the forest through the trees.
And again you call us ignorant etc...and want us to listen to YOUR opinion. Where'd you get the loophole classification information from!? Where are your credentials?! Post your degree and work experience here and maybe some of us will listen to you. Who has proven anything in this!? Have you...you are posting your opinion without links to information and are expecting us to listen. I defend TH because I know him off the boards. I know his work and I know his talents. While you have done a lot for the contour community...I don't know a damn thing about you besides the fact that you post information here. Show us a little more proof besides you ranting and maybe we'll listen...
Hard to believe we are getting into the same debate all over again...
But for what its worth I now have 95k+ miles on my stock diff and tranny with the last 65k mi of that being run on MTL with absolutely no problems and I certainly do not take it easy on my car. Both times I have flushed the MTL, it smelled and looked very clean.
Just my experience, nothing more...
Originally posted by todras:
Originally posted by Roz 1999 SVT-C:
I'm sorry you had a bad experience with MTL....But point is...I have not....atleast not yet....and when i drain it, and send the sample in, ill have a better understanding...Till then....Bite Me.
Lupe
I've never used MTL so I don't know what you're talking about. The trans in my sig is not mine.
If thats the case then i apologize...i didn;t come back here to the froums from a year of LOA to start a fight or contractict any one.
I came back because i like the people and i figured i can be some help to people with less knowledge on the platform.
Ill let you guys fight it out, but i stand by what i said in that i will send it out for anlisys and run fresh for anoth 30, 000 miles.
Lupe
Nothing scientific about doing multiple drain and refils with 10 brands of lube!
Originally posted by todras:
Nothing scientific about doing multiple drain and refils with 10 brands of lube!
So your saying that sending a sample in to BlackStone Labs for analisys, after a certian about of miles (30,000 in this case) is NOT scientific, and that the infomation that they wil provide on the qaulity of the lube, doesn't mean anything???
And your saying that real wrold applications have no basis in science??
Please...
Lupe
I dont' get this whole pissing match about this subject.....what works for some doesn't work for others, in many faucets of life. So why can't this subject just be dropped?
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
I dont' get this whole pissing match about this subject.....what works for some doesn't work for others, in many faucets of life. So why can't this subject just be dropped?
Id be more than happy to drop it, if people would just read my previous posts to know what exactly im doing....On top of that, im doing it for Warmonger as a favor and out of respect because he asked if i could assist him.
I didn't ask the flamers to rehash the subject, i was just merly defending myself from them because some people cant leave well enough alone. warmonger asked me a question, i answered...there was no reason for the other involment, or rude comments.
Lupe
I ran MTL in my 99 mystique about 10K, tried it mainly to see if it shifted easier when cold, didn't really notice any difference than with dextron, but it looked clean and like new when drained.
I refilled with the royal purple syncromax, it pours more like dextron, and I do notice easier down shifthing when it is cold, and we have had a very cold snap here in the Tacoma Wa. area.
Originally posted by todras:
...my 10cents worth!
.........the logic behind testing a used trans oil
sample is not my way of thinking.My logic dictates
that if I wanted to try a 'Brand X' lube I would carry
out checks before I put it in the trans.The baseline
spec is the Ford WSD-M2C200-C for both
life,performance,component wear,shift speeds etc
already exists.I think we can take it as a given that
the Motorcraft lube(made by Castrol) has meet the test
specs.I'd be more inclined ,in the absence of a 'Brand
X' lube without the Ford spec/test results,to do a
chem/lab analysis and at least check if the 'numbers'
were even close...which I did.I can't subscribe to a
test proceedure that just puts a Brand X lube in the
trans then does the analysis on a failed trans
lube.Maybe you think it's backwards but with some
'known' info Re Ford test spec,lab tests why would you
put anything that doesn't match/come close to those
results in,it's the obvious 'start point',why ignore
it??
Following this line of thought would be like saying that the only engine oil that will work in a Ford is Motorcraft. Now Motorcraft provides excellent engine oils, but there are a lot of other blenders that also make excellent engine oils that work great in Fords, and not all of them meet the Ford WSS-MWC153-G spec that is listed in my owner's manual.
Originally posted by MapOfTaziFoShoââ??¢:
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
This "Honey" was called nothing more then glorified 40W engine oil. Plus it is made by Castrol which calls its synthetic products synthetic because of a loophole in the classification. It really does not make full synthetic products at all. (not conjecture but proven fact however that does not seem to matter who most ignorant people posting here) Also its "so-called" synthetics have a high ash content and are prone to turning acidic. (same facts)
Specialty Formulations has posted countless tests of its product (again FACT) by both themselves and had results posted by other members. (like Jim said bobistheoilguy is the bible of fluids!)
This is all fact and not some blind and baseless rantings of short sighted individuals.
If you wanted to use Terry's logic then why would you ever use anything but Mercon ATF in your transmission. It was the original spec and the Ford engineers that designed the tranny could NEVER be wrong about anything. It's not like the transmission needed to be changed over a dozen times because of glaring flaws in its engineering and design right??? Our syncros, blocker rings, differential, and such parts are all well designed and reliable right? So of course they spec'd the correct fluid. Get a clue folks. He is far from a genius and even further from infallible regardless of how badly his lap dogs keep kissing his ass. This is exactly the problem with this site. A handful of people keep proving these ignorantly set boundaries as wrong yet people can't even see the forest through the trees.
And again you call us ignorant etc...and want us to listen to YOUR opinion. Where'd you get the loophole classification information from!? Where are your credentials?! Post your degree and work experience here and maybe some of us will listen to you. Who has proven anything in this!? Have you...you are posting your opinion without links to information and are expecting us to listen. I defend TH because I know him off the boards. I know his work and I know his talents. While you have done a lot for the contour community...I don't know a damn thing about you besides the fact that you post information here. Show us a little more proof besides you ranting and maybe we'll listen...
Most Castrol Syntec sold in the US is made from Group III base stocks. The main exception is Castrol Syntec that has "made in Germany" on the back. Prior to Castrol claiming that Group III was synthetic, the industry recognized Group IV and Group V as synthetic and the Group III was a glorified dino oil base stock.
Mobil sued Castrol over the issue and lost. The courts thinking seemed to be that Group III does loosly qualify as a synthetic by some dictionary definitions.
Group III base stocks are very good base stocks. They come very close to meeting Group IV performance levels. The biggest complaint that many have is that since it comes from a cheaper process, it should have a cheaper price instead of being priced right up there with Mobil 1.
We are seeing more and more Group III used in conventional oils. Motorcraft "synthetic blend" has a healthy dose. Mobil 5000 is Group III (and it sells for less than half of what Castrol Syntec does). Mobil 7500 is Group III with a healthy dose of Group IV.
Base stocks alone don't make a great oil. The additive package makes a huge difference. Still, Castrol found a much cheaper way to make an oil "almost" as good and they didn't bother to pass on any of the cost savings.
I searched and couldn't find anything on this topic. Do you have any links?!
Originally posted by Roz 1999 SVT-C:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
I dont' get this whole pissing match about this subject.....what works for some doesn't work for others, in many faucets of life. So why can't this subject just be dropped?
Id be more than happy to drop it, if people would just read my previous posts to know what exactly im doing....On top of that, im doing it for Warmonger as a favor and out of respect because he asked if i could assist him.
I didn't ask the flamers to rehash the subject, i was just merly defending myself from them because some people cant leave well enough alone. warmonger asked me a question, i answered...there was no reason for the other involment, or rude comments.
Lupe
Hey, as you can see this is a sensitive topic. Probably just don't take it personal and let anything inflamatory drop so that we all can continue to get along.
Your real world results with the fluid will be very helpfull in determining if the fluid is hurting your transmission.
The logic behind this is simple:
**A lube that is good lasts a long time and the transmission operates as designed with a normal amount of wear.
**A lube that is bad doesn't last a long time or doesn't allow the transmission to operate as designed, or allows higher than normal wear.
BY DEFAULT:
**A lubricant that DOES NOT cause abnormal wear, does not wear out early and allows the transmission to operate normally should be considered a good lubricant.
Therefore, 30,000 miles using the same type of fluid ought to provide usefull information.
Also, you have a stock diff right?
We've seen the heavy black deposits in otherwise unhurt transmission ONLY from LSD equiped transmissions that were run on redline. We haven't seen any LSD equiped transmission pictures that have 5-10K miles on other fluids yet.
We've seen stock transmission run on redline for 3 times longer that show no black deposits.
So we are really looking at 3 separate issues here and all calling it one thing.
- We have failed stock transmission with high amounts of gound-up grayish metal deposits run on MTL; with high mileages on other fluids previously.
- We have the heavy black deposits from Torsen LSD equiped transmissions that showed no other symptoms of failure, but slight tint to the ring gear that has debateable origins...yet was still serviceable.
- We have transmissions that have performed fine on MTL.
This is all I really know and it isn't conclusive enough for me to agree at all that MTL is bad. Only thing I'm seeing as consistent is that it may not be suited for cold weather applications.
So Roz, we need this longer term test results to see if the wear metals are higher in percent than other fluids, or if they are abnormal wear metals.
And trust me. MANY people, including the unhappy ones will appreciate the information!
Very understandable. Now my trans is not stock. I had terry haines rebuild with the updated shifter forks and brand new syncros and a quaife installed.
But after break in i switched to the ford fluid w/ friction modifier. from there to MTL, then after 2000 miles i drained and refiled again with MTL and have been running it close to 30,000 miles.
No ill effects yet. Next weekend on MArch 4th, i should be draining the flud. I'll be at my buddies shot that day, and he's already given me permission to use his lifts.
Lupe
FWIW, Blackstone's "universal averages" are based on a 20,000 mile sample.
I just flushed my Redline MTL yeststerday and put the Synchromax in. I actually can tell the difference. I liked the Redline but I've heard too many bad things. It wasn't so bad performance wise but i wanted to be on the safe side.
Anyways, it was rather cold this evening so I also got to experience RP in the cold. I'm very impressed with this oil. I recommend it to everyone.
I may even give the engine oil a shot.