Transmission Fluid Alternatives
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 13:33:50 -0800 (PST)
From: " Jared Rogers"
Subject: Manual Tranny (Solution)
To: TXPakRat@aol.com, Toy4x4@tlca.org
>I have a '90 4Runner SR5 V6 with the manual 5speed. I change the tranny,
>xfer case, and diff fluids as recommended, check them regularly, and use
>synthetics. At about 45,000 I had to have 3rd gear and the synchro replaced
>(under warranty) because of grinding when downshifting. Over the last few
>months, I have noticed that shifting is getting kind of stiff and notchy. It
>is not really grinding, but you can feel it catch as it goes into gear. It
>is especially noticable in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. It seems to clear up (but not
>completely) once the tranny is warm.
The Problem:
I don't want to start a big argument here, but I've been told by severl
mechanics and one service advisor at the dealer, that Synthetic oil is VERY bad
for the Synchros. Why? Not enough friction. By nature, the Synchros need a
certain amount of friction to work properly. Synthetic oil is too slick and
thus the Synchros are not allowed to easily help change gears. I have tested
this extensively, myself. When I first bought my 89 truck it shifted fine. I
promptly changed the transmission oil to synthetic. It began to shift horrible
when it was cold - a little better when it warmed up, but it wouldn't downshift
to the lower gears at all! I went around and around with Mobil Oil corporation
about this problem. They swear that there is no possible way that their oil
could cause a vehicle to shift improperly. However, they accidently admitted
that their test are based on viscosity and oil ratings rather than "Real-World"
tests. They even admitted that they have NEVER tried their synthetic juice in a
Toyota transmission. I even went to far as to send them a sample of the oil
from my transmission. They said that they found traces of zinc in the oil which
is an indication of syncho wear. However, they said that it must be caused by a
problem with my transmission.
My Solution:
At the recommendation of a mechanic and the entire Eagle Talon/Mitsubishi
Eclipse mailing list (Mitsubihi has horribly notchy shifters and these guys
figured out a work-around), I drained a quart of oil out of my transmission and
installed 1qt of GM SynchroMesh (about $10/qt from your local Chevy dealer).
Voilla! Problem solved. Truck shifts decent now and I can downshift again.
(I've never driven ANY Toyota truck that shifted "that great") Now, my truck
will even pop right into reverse without grinding! Imagine that!
Moral of the story:
Don't use synthetic oil in the tranny unless you put an additive in like GM
Synchromesh. Supposedly, Redline MTL is good and has additives in it already.
I've never tried this stuff, though. Synthetic oil is WONDERFUL in the
differentials and transfer case, however. After installing the Mobil 1 in the
transfer case, the truck more easily shifts into 4WD and the shift lever
doesn't get near as hot. The Synthetic oil is good in the front differential
because it wont turn to "mud" like conventional oil when you don't use the 4WD
for a long time. (When I drained the front differential, it was like draining
thick paint!)
Hope this helps someone!
Jared Rogers
1989 Toyota 4x4 DX X-CAB V6
1990 Toyota Celica GT-S
1991 Toyota 4runner SR5 4WD V6
- ---------------------------------------------------------
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
- ---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 16:42:10 -0600
From: "Michael Rowe"
Subject: Manual Tranny (Solution)
To:
> I have a '90 4Runner SR5 V6 with the manual 5speed. I change the
tranny,
>xfer case, and diff fluids as recommended, check them regularly, and use
>synthetics. At about 45,000 I had to have 3rd gear and the synchro
replaced
>(under warranty) because of grinding when downshifting. Over the last
few
>months, I have noticed that shifting is getting kind of stiff and notchy.
It
>is not really grinding, but you can feel it catch as it goes into gear.
It
>is especially noticable in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. It seems to clear up (but
not
>completely) once the tranny is warm.
All the mechanics I've worked with or known that use synthetic told me to
always use conventional petroleum products for about 6 to 10 thousand miles
as a break in before switching to synthetic. I worked at a Sea Ray boat
dealership that pushed Amsoil and the Amsoil Rep said the same thing.
Michael Rowe
'88 4Runner
m.rowe@mail.utexas.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 16:03:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Jonathan Albrecht
Subject: Manual Tranny (Solution)
To: Toy4x4@tlca.org
On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Jared Rogers wrote:
> this extensively, myself. When I first bought my 89 truck it shifted fine. I
> promptly changed the transmission oil to synthetic. It began to shift horrible
> when it was cold - a little better when it warmed up, but it wouldn't downshift
> to the lower gears at all! I went around and around with Mobil Oil corporation
> about this problem. They swear that there is no possible way that their oil
Which type of Mobile sythetic do you use in your tranny's/diffs
specifically?
Would you reccommend them?
thanks,
Jonathan Albrecht
albr9619@uidaho.edu
http://www.uidaho.edu/~albr9619/
------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 06:53:05 -0700
From: "Joe 'Coerce the code, not the data' Brower"
Subject: shifting trouble
To: "Donn E. Downey"
Donn,
Yes, this is exactly the advice I needed -- I'm no mechanic, so it didn't
occur to me that there might be some type of special lubricant to help worn
synchronizers. Great tip! I'll be picking up a quart of this ASAP.
Hmmm.. I wonder if TWO quarts would work better? :-)
At Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:00:28 -0400, dedowney@colby.edu wrote:
>It's funny you brought that up. I just bought my '87 4x4 with 113Kmi. It
>does the exact same thing. I talked to dealers, trusted mechanics,
>not-trusted mechanics, etc., and the concensus was bad synchronizors. It
>just got a new clutch, so thats not the problem. I was told to drain a
>quart of tranny fluid and put in one quart of GM Synchromesh fluid. It is
>am apparently superior synthetic fluid ($10/ qt.) that i was told will
>perhaps help the problem a bit, and not to worry about it until it gets to
>where you cant get the thing into gear, which could be 100Kmi from now. So
>i put in the fluid, it helped a bit, and im jsut going to run it until i
>need a rebuild. that seems to be the only option for us poor souls. So let
>me know what you think, or what you decide to do. Hope that helps. take it
>easy...
Joe Brower
Senior Programmer/Analyst, QUALCOMM Incorporated
jbrower@qualcomm.com
voice#: 619.658.4716 http://www.cynic.com/JB.html
cellular#: 619.977.4483 Mac/Win 3.1/Omnis/Oracle/CDE!
=======================================================================
Those with brains bear the burden of thought.
=======================================================================
------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 97 19:38 PDT
From: Robert.Elsemore@ncal.kaiperm.org
Subject: Replacing fluids
To: Toy4x4@tlca.org
Frank,
I would highly recommend going to synthetic gear oil for its
ability to perform under extreme pressure *and* extreme heat.
It looks like you basically need 75W90 (approx.) for all of your
applications and the main difference is GL-4 or GL-5.
GL-5 rated gear oil provides the greatest extreme pressure protection.
It is also "slicker" than GL-4 and carries the name "hypoid"
because of the hypoid type gears used in diffs and outdrives etc.
GL-5 with a limited slip additive is even "slicker", but that's going
off on a tangent.
GL-4 rated gear oil is usually used in manual transmissions because the
synchros need a higher coefficient of friction to "grab" between
shifts. GL-5 can, and often is, used in manual trannys. It does
provide the extra gear and bearing protection, but sacrifices some
shifting (synchro) performance because it is so slick. I have also
heard (don't know if it's true or not) that GL-5 gear oil contains
sulfites (or more sulfites) that can be harmful to brass synchros
when combined with very high tranny temps (probably higher than
any of us experience). I use GL-5 in my tranny. Hope that helps.
- -Rob Elsemore
------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 10:33:36 -0700
From: nickkrest@batnet.com (Nick Krest)
Subject: Replacing fluids
To: Toy4x4@tlca.org
Frank Di Giovanni wrote (and I noticed he posted it a
second time, so he REALLY wants people to respond, I guess):
"I'm thinking of replacing the fluids in
my diffs, transfer case, manual
transmission. Would a synthetic gear oil
work?"
It certainly would. I use differing kinds of synthetics in my trans, case,
and diffs. I'm sold on them for gear use. Someone already delineated the
difference between GL-4 and GL-5; let's just say that some oils are kinder
to brass transmission parts than others, and some have different molecular
makeups that make them more appropriate for use in constant-mesh gearboxes.
Synthetics are much thinner than "dino juice", as Jack Alford calls
petroleum-based lubes; in fact, I would hazard a guess to say they're
thinner than water. The stuff is SLIPPERY, and if your trans, case, or
diffs are the slightest bit leaky, you'll know it right away with
synthetics. However, the resistance to thermal breakdown is synthetic's
greatest strength, IMHO.
That said, I am very happy using RedLine MTL in my trans and transfer case.
It makes both shift like the proverbial hot knife thru butter, whereas both
were balky and stiff before (esp. the case).
I am more sold on Swepco's line for diff use. A lot of NASCAR, SCORE, and
endurance guys use it without sponsorship, which is a pretty good
endorsement. I use the 210 80/140, which is a high viscosity for most
people, but we'll use my truck for between 12 and 24+ hours straight on
occasions, so I feel any extra protection the higher viscosity may provide
is worth it.
Downsides to synthetics: They are more prone to leakage, and they are
really expensive. The RedLine runs about $6-7 a quart, while the Swepco is
only available in gallon jugs, which run $36-40.
Good luck,
- Nick
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 12:28:00 -0700
From: James Brink
Subject: Replacing fluids
To: Toy4x4@tlca.org
Nick Krest wrote:
>
> Frank Di Giovanni wrote (and I noticed he posted it a
> second time, so he REALLY wants people to respond, I guess):
>
> "I'm thinking of replacing the fluids in
> my diffs, transfer case, manual
> transmission. Would a synthetic gear oil
> work?"
>
It certainly would. I use differing kinds of synthetics in my trans,
case,
and diffs. I'm sold on them for gear use.
As for my input, I use NEO gear oil in my trans/transfer/axles in my 4WD
truck and have noticed significantly less heat in the area of the
transmission tunnel on long highway trips. I also use it in the rear
axle of my Ford (sorry, Toyotas don't pull horse trailers THAT well) 1
ton PowerStroke due the conditions it somtimes operates under. For my
daily driver (2WD Toyota pick-up) the standard GL-4 grade works well
with 15-30K mile change intervals.
Just my thoughts...
- --Jim
- --
Jim Brink 1986 Standard Bed 4X4/22R
Toyota/ASE Certified Technician 135,000 Miles
brinkjm@earthlink.net 32" BFG All-Terrain T/As
Stock 4.10 gears
Rear Lock-Right (TRD)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 18:09:45 -0400
From: Ed Ruf
Subject: Replacing fluids
To: Toy4x4@tlca.org
On 10:33 AM 4/26/97 -0700, Nick Krest wrote:
>endorsement. I use the 210 80/140, which is a high viscosity for most
>people, but we'll use my truck for between 12 and 24+ hours straight on
>occasions, so I feel any extra protection the higher viscosity may provide
>is worth it.
Be careful, generalizing this is a fallacy in regard to hydrodynamic
lubrication. Higher viscosity does not necessarily imply greater
protection. In hydrodynamic lubrication the components actually ride on a
certain thickness film of the lubricant. Component clearances are designed
with a certain operating temperature and load in mind. This specifies the
required viscosity of the lubricant. Just increasing the viscosity does not
gain one greater protection, if one is still within the design parameters.
In fact it can be harmful, by reducing the flow rate of the lubricant and
hence the resulting film thickness.
Now, multi viscosity lubricants can be of help here. But one must still be
careful. The true viscosity vs temp curves vary. One need to look at the
temps of the components during use and make the choice. However, you
really need the viscosity vs temp curves to make an intelligent choice.
Just the rating is not necessarily enough, if your looking for long life.
Ed Ruf (egruf@visi.net)
1986 Toyota 4x4 SR5 PU @ 122K, 3.5" Rancho susp. lift, RS-7000's, 31x10.5
BFG-A/T, K&N
1987 Toyota SR5 4Runner @ 118K, KYB GasSprings, 30.5x9.50 Cooper Disc.
1982 Honda XL600R Thunderin' Thumper
1986 Yamaha FJ-1200SC @ 15K
2 yr old, 110#, pure bred white GSD, Kaiser Klaus III, AKC# DL569628/04
------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 07:01:00 -0400
From: Christopher Tull
Subject: Toy4x4 Digest V1 #148
To: Toy4x4@tlca.org
RE: Synthetic Lubricants
Frank:
If you want serious protection, you have to go synthetic. Red Line Oil
has an excellent package of technical literature that they will send for
free, and they will also help over the phone 1-800-624-7958. They also
have a web site www.redlineoil.com, but there is not as much in-depth
tech info here.
- -Chris.
ctull@ix.netcom.com
------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 19:45:46 -0700
From: nickkrest@batnet.com (Nick Krest)
Subject: Replacing fluids
To: Toy4x4@tlca.org
Ed Ruf wrote:
"Be careful, generalizing this is a fallacy
in regard to hydrodynamic lubrication...."
I KNEW that was gonna get me into trouble there. I didn't really look long
and hard at my phrasing before I posted that. In truth, I DID look long and
hard for a good synthetic gear oil. We talked to a lot of people, racers,
engineers, shop owners, schmoes, etc., and made our decision carefully.
It's in an axle with a Detroit Locker that sees a lot of extended use and
high speeds in the desert, hence this is a high-heat, high-stress
application. I wasn't trying to imply that a higher viscosity was going to
keep metal further away from metal, but that's how it must have come out.
Sorry for any confusion.
- Nick
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 07:25:11 -0400
From: Ed Ruf
Subject: Replacing fluids
To: Toy4x4@tlca.org
On 07:45 PM 4/26/97 -0700, Nick Krest wrote:
>Ed Ruf wrote:
>
> "Be careful, generalizing this is a fallacy
> in regard to hydrodynamic lubrication...."
>
>I KNEW that was gonna get me into trouble there. I didn't really look long
>and hard at my phrasing before I posted that. In truth, I DID look long and
>hard for a good synthetic gear oil. We talked to a lot of people, racers,
>engineers, shop owners, schmoes, etc., and made our decision carefully.
>It's in an axle with a Detroit Locker that sees a lot of extended use and
>high speeds in the desert, hence this is a high-heat, high-stress
>application. I wasn't trying to imply that a higher viscosity was going to
>keep metal further away from metal, but that's how it must have come out.
Nick,
Sorry if I've caused trouble. I forgot to add my own caveat. From your
original message it WAS clear to ME that your aplication called for it. I
just wanted to make the point the generalization doesn't hold true, i, for
your desert hauls it's required, but say if one only does this every other
month then I'd be worried about having the right viscosity when the lube
isn't up at the higher temps. Same goes for running heavier weight motor
oil, just for the added benefit. We ran 50 wt Amzoil in the SCCA car at R&E
Racing, because races in the summer at Willow Springs see temps of an easy
125F in the shade. But, that doesn't mean we ran the same weight in the
hauler.
Being new to the list, I'm not familiar with the scope and everyone's
background, so I'll tend to err on the conservative side.
Ed
________________
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 20:09:19 -0500
From: Todd Hornsby
Subject: Replacing fluids
To: Toy4x4@tlca.org
I saw some posts regarding GL4 and 5 lubricants. Just a few additional
comments:
What you are mostly likely to see in the stores as a GL4/5 'Combo'
lubricant. This stuff is just fine for both trannies and diffies all
around. (I like the Mobil1 stuff)
As stated earlier the friction modifiers for a GL4 'Only' oil aide smooth
shifting for a manual transmission and of course the GL5 'Only' lubricant
while intended for axles will work ok in a transmission. You may perceive a
slightly smoother shifting with a GL4 Only in the tranny over a GL4/5 or a
GL5 stuff (your mileage may vary).
If this warning was posted earlier, please excuse as I missed it. NEVER put
a GL4 Only lubricant in an axle/differential. A GL4 Only lubricant can ruin
a hypoid gear in short order. Damn I hope I am remembering this correctly!
Herein lies the major reason why the mass market oil companies, both dino
and synth, prefer the GL4/5 combo stuff. It would be very easy for a
hapless buyer to put the wrong stuff in the axle, followed up by litigation
etc. etc. Besides it's easier for the larger retailers to stock, display a
basic generic 'gear oil' rather than the added complexity of two types of
gear oils. Yes you can find specific GL4s and 5s in some stores but not as
readily as the GL4/5 combo stuff. The specialty synth. oil companies
(Redline et al) happily fill the specific GL4 and GL5 market niche.
Dino or synthetic GL4/5 combo glop works fine for me in any gear box from
bumper to bumper. I also like the Redline MT90 GL4 for transmissions and
Redline 75W90 GL5 for axles. For LSD additive I've had very good results
with GM PosiTrac additive over other brands I have tried. (it's often
cheaper to boot)
>Downsides to synthetics: They are more prone to leakage, and they are
As for leakage this was an issue in the 70s. Gasket/sealant technology and
engine tolerancs have come a long ways since then as have synthetics
themselves. I don't believe this is an issue today and I have never seen a
vehicle spring leaks OR leak any worse after switching to synthetic motor
or gear oil. For me the downside is cost of synth motor oil. The cost for
synth gear oil is hardly worth considering over the life of the vehicle.
One of the biggest upsides for synth. in transmissions for me is lower
temperature lubricity. Back in Denver in the morning my cars were all but
unshiftable for first 5 minutes with dino oil. I'd putter in 1st until I
got out of my neighborhood and got the dino juices flowing. The synth just
allows me shift as easily as I would on a nice midsummer day right out of
the blocks!
Personally I'm not a big fan of synths in the engine for various reasons
not the least of which is cost but I often throw a token quart in with dino
oil at oil change for kicks. Anyway I'm getting off topic. I suggest
reading more about motor (not gear) oil in the Consumer Reports article
from last year. I know it pissed off a lot of Amsoil folks (so what's new?)
but it was well done and accurate IMHO.
Saludos,
Todd
________________________________________________________________________
- -Todd Hornsby (San Antonio, TX) http://www.texas.net/~toddh
- -toddh@texas.net alt: thornsby@alumni.cs.colorado.edu
------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 19:58:53 -0500
From: Todd Hornsby
Subject: Replacing fluids (pt1)
To: Toy4x4@tlca.org
Hi Rich
At 11:33 AM 5/2/97 -0700, rich wrote:
>todd wrote:
>from last year. I know it pissed off a lot of Amsoil folks (so what's new?)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>i became a synthetic oil fan myself because when i switched over i
>DID notice a difference in the engine performance, it idled much
>smoother and i didn't notice big differences in engine performance
>at oil changes (when i used dinosaur oil, i noticed a big change
>in engine smoothness when i started the engine with fresh oil).
First, I mischose my words. Actually I am a fan of synthetics but not all
of their claims (especially Amsoil) and obviously not the cost. I also
forgot, one of my cars IS running 100% synthetic (must be time to change
the oil). Synthetics offer some significant gains in oil performance over
dino in certain areas and that cannot be refuted.
2nd, I can't explain a sudden difference in engine operation in your
particular example. Motor Honey can make a pretty dramatic and sudden
difference in a noisy engine too. I've seen dyno data on engines and a
favorite is the before and after test with diff oil. A dyno tests a
vehicles torque and converts it to HP using the standard HP formula. You
often see those ads claiming 2% or 4% hp increase or whatever. It's all in
the statistical noise. You could take the same engine and run it on the
same dyno and never get two readings that close to each other. It's all in
what an experienced dyno operator calls 'noise'. Great stuff for the
marketing types. If you add up all the 'claimed' hp increased for all those
nifty bolt on gizmos and slap them on an engine do you really think they
are all really there? I don't and have seen the dyno tests to prove it.
I noticed you underlined my Amsoil comment. Was there a point? If you
happen to be an Amsoil dealer you have my undying gratitude since you
didn't try and sell me something or got all defensive. Thank you! I have
several friends who are into the Amsoil system but they don't bug me with
sales pitches. I'm sure their motor oils are good but I have a hard time
with some of their claims and therefore prefer other synth. brands such as
Mobil 1 and Redline among others.
>i am curious on what it said in the report, because i DO know
>people with cars with over 300,000 miles on the engine thanks
>to using synthetics, but i rarely listen to anybody brag about
>150,000 miles engine running great with dinosaur oil...
Well the report is from July '96. I don't have a copy handy any longer.
I'll make some further comments on the CU report in part 2.
On those 300,000 mile engines did your friends atleast own and operate two
vehicles similarly sticking dino in one and synth. in the other? Just
asking. Consumer Reports did as you can probably guess.
Look I'm not bashing synth. It's great stuff and I often stick a token
quart in with my dino oil for my 4Runner. One car already has synth. and 2
others CANNOT run synth. due to engine design constraints. They also offer
'blended' synth. dino oil at about $2/qt. I don't trust this stuff because
their is no standard for the ratio and none of the manufacturers are
listing their ratios. Technically they could get away with 1% synth. and
99% dino. When I blend I know exactly how much I blend in. As you probably
know synthetics have to be 100% compatible with existing dino oils.
>from my experience with oils, i had a turbo engine car before,
Turbos are notoriously short lived and would be ideal candidates for usage
of a synthetic oil IMHO. Don't know much about diesels except they often
last 300,000 to 500,000 with *diesel rated* dino oil. They have always been
reputed as long lived engines.
>now i have a camry which i use synthetic oil and it runs
>great
I bet it does run great and if you sell it maybe I'll be in the market ;)
>also, it may be a little more expensive, but i don't change
>the oil as often, so it turns out to be the same.
My own opinion is that I 'think' you can get away with longer change
intervals. What concerns me is blow-by and contaminants. Most any piston
engines produces noxious fumes in the crank case and has combustion blow by
getting past rings and water condensation. We have things like PCVs and oil
filters that help. But a lot of crap still get in and stays in the oil
possibly turning it nasty and corrosive. Synthetic has no more immunity to
this than dino oil. It is very important to still change the oil filter
regularly even when you don't change the synth. oil in an extended service
situation. I can't stress that one enough.
I don't know about the cost equaling out in my specific situation. I spend
about $8-10 for dino oil a year for my 4Runner. If I doubled my oil change
interval and went to Redline my cost would be closer to $28 a year. At ~$20
more a year over 15 years is $300. To me that's not pocket change. Arguably
in an extended drain interval you should change the oil filter MORE often
but I'll cede that point and say the oil filters cancel each other out
since I chose the more expensive Redline oil (personal favorite) for my
illustration. I easily get 15 years (~180,000 miles?) out of my engines w/
dino oil. Been there done that. For all I know my engine could die tomorrow
because I sinned and didn't use synth. or it could keep on going for
another X years. Who really knows but all indications are that it will keep
on going for now. As for claiming this many miles or that many with this or
that oil is very unscientific and in my opinion illustrates very little.
I'm sure your mileage will definately vary on this one. ;-)
I'll add some info to the CU report in part 2. (wish I still had the article)
________________________________________________________________________
- -Todd Hornsby (San Antonio, TX) http://www.texas.net/~toddh
- -toddh@texas.net alt: thornsby@alumni.cs.colorado.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 19:56:21 -0500
From: Todd Hornsby
Subject: Replacing fluids (pt2)
To: Toy4x4@tlca.org
Part 2: Consumer Reports article on motor oil:
As I recall (spotty here folks) they tested oils in NYC taxicabs of 100,000
miles and did a lot of analysis of the used oils as well as complete engine
tear downs and detailed inspectections using micrometer and such (If I
remember correctly). If you want the details get a back issue don't rely on
me!
A good acquaintence of mine who is a freelance automotive magazine writer
posted a response to the CU report that I think is much better than
anything I could write. He's been working on an extended test report of
Redline oil involving extended change intervals and spectrograph analysis
which is coincidental to the CU report though helpfull background
information. He said it would be alright to pass on his response to the CU
report though I have removed his name/email to protect him from unwanted
flaming.
I modified the following not to mention other makes of vehicles of no
interest to this group and reduce likelihood of flaming and deleted his
comments regarding oil filters and his own testing of Redline oil as
non-essential. Otherwise I have left his excellent response intact, my
editing is in "[]":
- ----------------------------------------------
Hib Halverson wrote:
First, let me say, the article is an outstanding discussion of the durability
of engine oils and oil change intervals. Only Consumer Reports could do
such a detaled, unbiased piece of journalism because they accept no
advertising.
Even the best of the car magazines, cannot say that.
If it has a major weakness, it is that CR did not publsh any of the test
numbers, just the conclusions. Undoubtedly part of their test procedure was
spectrographic oil analysis and it would have been interesting to see some of
those numbers. My assumption is that Consumer Reports sees its audience as
predominately non-technical, so perhaps they saw publication of technical
statistics as something that would be of little use to their mainstream
readers and might cloud the understanding of the results. However, though I
would have like to have read them, the lack of that data, in my opinion, does
not degrade the credibility of the test results or the magazine article.
One subscriber on one of our lists commented that they discounted the test
results because their [car] was not a New York City taxicab, the type of
vehicle and duty cycle used in the test. On the contrary, the taxicab duty
cycle is quite like that of a street high-performance engine in some ways,
especially in its need for oil changes. Taxis see a lot of idle time, which
is extremely tough on oil. They see a lot of high-load, medium engine speed
operation which, again is hard on oil...and is kinda like how we drive our
[cars] a lot. So you see, some of the NYC taxicab "oil aubuse" is similar
to that of that seen with some [cars].
Where taxicab duty may depart from the [car] duty cycle is with engines
that [ours] see the cold starts and short trips that some infrequently
driven show cars may see. Also, NYC taxicab duty seldom sees high rpm
operation in hot temperatures as do some [cars] that are driven hard in the
extreme southeast or desert-southwest parts of the country in the summer.
The main issue the story dealt with was oil's durability and change
intervals. In summary, the story says that as long as the oil you put in your
engine is 1) of the viscosity recommended by the manufacturer, either factory
fill or any substitute viscosities recommended in your owner's manual and
2) carries the so-called API "Starburst" symbol, *regardless* of brand; it
will be durable to at least the manufacturer's oil change interval.
As for oil change intervals, the Consumer Reports tests confirm what car
manufacturers and many oil industry engineers and chemists (not marketing
people, but technical expert types) have been saying for years and that is
that, for a vehicle that sees duty that does not include a predomination of
short trips, operation in dusty conditions or frequent extreme temperature,
changing the oil at less than the manufacturer recomendation (ie: the
proverbial 3000 mile oil change) is a waste of money and offers no durability
gain. The CR piece is another portion of convincing evidence, based on
testing of the oil and engine disassembly and measurement of critical
reciprocating parts, that there is no wear advantage to changing oil at
3000 vs. the normal 6000 or 7500 miles. I may get a ton of flame on this,
but my shields are always on standby....let's stop this 3000 mile oil
change myth.
Instead of giving the money to Jiffy Lube, put the money in the bank for a
trip to your favorite [deleted] event. Thirty years ago, oil technolgy was
such that oils may have needed a change every 3000 miles. Not so today.
That said, there are some situations where more frequent oil changes are
advised. Those would be 1) the short trip/no warm-up duty cycle, 2) A lot
of driving in dusty conditions 3) repetitive operation where extreame oil
temperature is seen or 4) Corvettes that are driven less than their oil
change interval mileage per year. The first three of these should observe
either the short trip oil change schedule listed in the owner's manual. In
the case of infrequently driven vehicles, an oil change annually,
regardless of mileage, is a good idea.
Note that the Consumer Reports article did address the use of synthetic oils.
However they only tested two of them, Mobil 1 and Penzoil Performax, both
mass-marketed products. They did not test any premium synthetics such as
Red Line. The CR said that, for the taxicab duty cycle, their testing
showed synthetics to have no significant durability advantage and thus one
could assume that synthetics might be an unnecessary expense for a Corvette
that sees normal duty cycle. However, CR also points out that there is
significant
evidence that synthetic oils *do* offer durability enhancements in engines
that see extreme oil temperature. An example are the LT1/4s [Chevy
smallblock V8] that do not have a damn oil cooler. In testing last week, I
again demonstrated convincinly that synthetic is not only desirable, it is
a necessity in those engines.
During a 38 mile, aggressive diriving session over mountain roads NE of Los
Angeles, I saw 265 deg. oil temperature and that was on a day where the
ambient was only 80 deg. If it had been 90-100 deg. outside, I'd have
gotten the check gauges light which comes on, I believe, at 275 deg. oil
temp. This is why LT1 and 4 are factory-filled with synthetic.
Another place I am not sure I fully agree with Consumer Reports conclusions
is their statement that there is no signfiicant advantage to using a 10W-30
over a 5W-30. That may be true with the relatively "normal" oil
temperatures seen in NYC taxicab duty. However, a 5W-30 petroleum-based oil
contains less oil and more VI improvers than a 10W-30. My belief, base on
information supplied to me a few years ago by Red Line oil, is that in
extreme temperature duty-cycles, the differences between 5W-30 and 10W-30
oils, become more appearent. So, I still feel that high-performance engines
are no place for 5W-30 petro-based oils.
Lastly, I want to address the extended drain interval issue. This is probably
one place that I know there may be some [listmembers] that are confused by
the CR article, because some of the posts I saw indicated that on
this issue. What CR found, in testing three of their taxicab engines on
synthetic oil to double the oil change interval, is that running synthetic
oil out12,000 miles posed no durability problems. Now, the story goes on to
say that two of the engines on synthetic at extended drain interval developed
problems however the magazine also clearly states that these problems had
nothing to do with oiling or the oil being tested.
Bottom lines:
If you use petro-based oils:
--Make sure they have the API Starburst
--If your Corvette sees normal dutycycles, change the oil every
6000-7500 miles and a filter at half that.
--If your car's duty cycle is short trip/no warm up or operation in
dusty conditions use the appropriate manufacturer's recomendation.
If your [car] sees even occasional operation at high oil temperature use
synthetic oil.
If your Corvette is factory filled with synthetic, keep using it.
If you run your car hard, substitute a 10W-30 for the 5W-30
If you use synthetic oil, you can go to an extended drain interval. 12000
miles is a good base-line number. Remember to change filter every 3000-4000
mi.
________________________________________________________________________
- -Todd Hornsby (San Antonio, TX) http://www.texas.net/~toddh
- -toddh@texas.net alt: thornsby@alumni.cs.colorado.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 23:41:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: DRM033@aol.com
Subject: Replacing fluids (pt2)
To: Toy4x4@tlca.org
In a message dated 97-05-02 23:07:42 EDT, you write:
> The CR piece is another portion of convincing evidence, based on
> testing of the oil and engine disassembly and measurement of critical
> reciprocating parts, that
> there is no wear advantage to changing oil at 3000 vs. the normal 6000 or
7500 > miles. I may get a ton of flame on this,
> but my shields are always on standby....let's stop this 3000 mile oil
> change myth.
It is good to hear somebody agree with me after all the comments people had
about an earlier post I made. I may be young, but common sense tells me
(along with some real world "tests") that 3000 miles is way to early and
completely un-necessary. If I changed my oil every 3000, I would be changing
my oil roughly every 2 months. Sounds strange whan another truck we have
went 3 years without touching the oil, oil filter, air filter, spark plugs
(you get the idea). It may not be good to go that long, but that truck runs
just as good now at 160,000 as it did when we got it at 40,000.
It still comes back to marketing strategy. We know motor oils have improved
over the years. If the oil companies were to make "1,000,000 mile" claims or
such, two things would happen 1.) complaints filed left and right. 2.) they
would kill their business. If they told us how long their products really
worked efficiently, do you think people like us would change it every 3000?
NO!
I prefer to look at engine oil like everything else on my truck. Sure I check
it on a reagular basis. If I know a part or fluid has been subject to
extreme wear, I give that part special attention.
Anyway, didn't it use to be "every 3 months, or 3000 miles"? What happened
to the 3 months part? If you look, I bet you would see that every 3000 miles
comes more often, meaaning more oil consumption per year, meaning they sit
back and laugh that the unsuspecting and easily duped public has fallen for
another one...
David
DRM033@aol.com.
------------------------------
Back to the top of this thread
Back to the top of the Driveline - Clutch to Differentials Threads Group
Back to the top of the Technical Discussion Groups
Back to the top of the Toy Thread Tree