Transmission / clutch fluid..beat to death

All oils have friction modifiers of some sort in them.
The API starburst on the oil bottles that carries the Energy Conserving designation means that the oil has been certified to meet certain criteria, ie...lower levels of phosphorus. It has been shown that the higher levels of phospuorus that were in most PCMO's "could possibly" foul up a catylitic converter. (unless the rings are worn and the engine sloppy, I doubt this would ever occur...but I digress)

Anywho...that is why the EC rating was established.
And one of the components that formulators may use to bring the oil back to the level that it was with the higher level of phosphorus was molybdenum (moly). RIght away, folks who knew this equated moly with clutch slippage, as some forms of moly could actually plate out on the clutch plates and cause them to slip more than wanted.

The thing is, oil formulators do not use the grade of moly that is known for this (Molybdenum Disufide MoS2). That type of moly will be found in gear lubes, chain lubes, and greases.
Engine oil formulators will use Molybdenum DialkyldiThioCarbamate (MoDTC), which has shown in both real world and bench testing to not cause any clutch hindernance unless the levels of the chemical are way up near 800-1000 ppm, and the oil has been sheared down much thinner than it's original viscosity. You won't find any EC rated PCMO's with that level of moly.

But myth and hearsay often take presidence over testing and facts in the moto world.
Which is obvious by the endless drumbeat by those who really don't have a clue, but they feel it their duty to warn us from using such products with the EC starburst. Either that or they simply want to add to a conversation. (shrug)

If you look at an analysis of a moto specific oil, many more than likely WILL contain moly. Mobil MX4T is a prime example of one of these oils. It is MA rated, which means it has passed testing that makes it useable in a wetclutch environment, yet it contains moly. In fact it contains more ppm moly than Mobil auto specific oils.

Many formulators will use something beside moly to bring their oil back up to the levels they want, yet meet the EC rating crtiteria. Molybdenum is but one of hundreds of choices.

No, if a man uses an Energy Conserving oil in his bike tranny, and finds that there is no clutch degredation...he is not merely "lucky", he is just finding out in real world experience that the warnings that are being thrown around like so many popcorn farts are completely unwarranted and without basis.
In fact, I would venture to say that you would be hard pressed to find ONE EC rated oil that you could make your clutch slip by using. Unless of course you run your oils until they completely shear out of grade down to water...but then just about any oil will cause problems if left in a bike that long.
Not due to moly or any other chemical, but due to the fact that the oil is too thin and full of clutch plate and gear contaminant.

And oil company's that provide moto specific oils take full advantage of the hearsay and myth that folks pass along. They will elevate the price of these moto sprcific oils because they KNOW that they have lots of folks working for them that pass along these warnings carte blanche. And those who listen to these baseless warnings feel they MUST use a MA rated moto specific oil or risk damaging their high dollar investment. So as a result, they shell out big time coin for the moto specific product, that in reality is probably very similar, if not exactly the same, as a lower priced passenger car motor oil setting right next to it on the shelf at Wallyworld.

Slick50 is nothing but Teflon. And if you put it in your bike, your clutch should slip. Why would anyone want to use SLick50 in any motor is beyond me. Not only will the solid teflon make things slip in a wetclutch enfvironment, but it will also clog up oil filters.

Do you know what STP is, teknition?

Jaybird said:

Rob,
Are you getting an aftermarket basket and new springs?

Click to expand...

It's a Moose basket, Hinson Inner Hub and Hinson Pressure Plate.

I filed the basket because the notches were not very deep.

Put it back together and it worked great - until . . . but that's another post I'm putting on here about my race last night. . .

Jaybird said:

All oils have friction modifiers of some sort in them.
The API starburst on the oil bottles that carries the Energy Conserving designation means that the oil has been certified to meet certain criteria, ie...lower levels of phosphorus. It has been shown that the higher levels of phospuorus that were in most PCMO's "could possibly" foul up a catylitic converter. (unless the rings are worn and the engine sloppy, I doubt this would ever occur...but I digress)

Anywho...that is why the EC rating was established.
And one of the components that formulators may use to bring the oil back to the level that it was with the higher level of phosphorus was molybdenum (moly). RIght away, folks who knew this equated moly with clutch slippage, as some forms of moly could actually plate out on the clutch plates and cause them to slip more than wanted.

The thing is, oil formulators do not use the grade of moly that is known for this (Molybdenum Disufide MoS2). That type of moly will be found in gear lubes, chain lubes, and greases.
Engine oil formulators will use Molybdenum DialkyldiThioCarbamate (MoDTC), which has shown in both real world and bench testing to not cause any clutch hindernance unless the levels of the chemical are way up near 800-1000 ppm, and the oil has been sheared down much thinner than it's original viscosity. You won't find any EC rated PCMO's with that level of moly.

But myth and hearsay often take presidence over testing and facts in the moto world.
Which is obvious by the endless drumbeat by those who really don't have a clue, but they feel it their duty to warn us from using such products with the EC starburst. Either that or they simply want to add to a conversation. (shrug)

If you look at an analysis of a moto specific oil, many more than likely WILL contain moly. Mobil MX4T is a prime example of one of these oils. It is MA rated, which means it has passed testing that makes it useable in a wetclutch environment, yet it contains moly. In fact it contains more ppm moly than Mobil auto specific oils.

Many formulators will use something beside moly to bring their oil back up to the levels they want, yet meet the EC rating crtiteria. Molybdenum is but one of hundreds of choices.

No, if a man uses an Energy Conserving oil in his bike tranny, and finds that there is no clutch degredation...he is not merely "lucky", he is just finding out in real world experience that the warnings that are being thrown around like so many popcorn farts are completely unwarranted and without basis.
In fact, I would venture to say that you would be hard pressed to find ONE EC rated oil that you could make your clutch slip by using. Unless of course you run your oils until they completely shear out of grade down to water...but then just about any oil will cause problems if left in a bike that long.
Not due to moly or any other chemical, but due to the fact that the oil is too thin and full of clutch plate and gear contaminant.

And oil company's that provide moto specific oils take full advantage of the hearsay and myth that folks pass along. They will elevate the price of these moto sprcific oils because they KNOW that they have lots of folks working for them that pass along these warnings carte blanche. And those who listen to these baseless warnings feel they MUST use a MA rated moto specific oil or risk damaging their high dollar investment. So as a result, they shell out big time coin for the moto specific product, that in reality is probably very similar, if not exactly the same, as a lower priced passenger car motor oil setting right next to it on the shelf at Wallyworld.

Click to expand...

Jaybird

First off, no I'm not an engineer of oils and i have no idea what STP is, but i do know first hand that if you put that crap in your bike your clutch WILL slip.

I have 3 bottles of oil sitting in front of me.

#1 is motomaster 10w30 automotive oil, manufactured and bottled by Imperial oil (Exxon) for canadian tire corp.

#2 is Yamalube 4stroke 10w30 (recommended gearcase oil for YZ250)

#3 is Mobile1 MXT4 10w40 motorcycle oil

On bottle #1 there is an API logo with the words ENERGY CONSERVING as well as on the bottle itself it clearly states "CONTAINS FRICTION MODIFIERS for improved fuel economy"

On bottle #2 There is no API logo and it does not say "energy conserving". It does clearly state on the front of the bottle "NON FRICTION MODIFIED"

On bottle #3 there is NO API logo and it does NOT say energy conserving. There is a API rating on the bottle however that includes the MA rating that tells us lesser folk that some engineer somewhere has tested this oil and it is safe for use in a wet clutch application.

Since, as I've already stated, I'm not an engineer, I will trust the ratings on the bottle of oil to indicate to me what is actually in the bottle. You can call me a fool or ridicule me in any way, shape or form you like but what it all boils down to is I will pay a few dollars more for the TESTED oil to put in my $8000 bike and be sure that my clutch and other components will be ok...YOU on the other hand can take the cheap road,save yourself a few bucks , take your chances and test the oils out yourself (after all,why trust some multi million dollar oil research facility to do what you can do in your backyard?)

If automotive oils and transmission fluid were good to put in your bike then why would the bike manufacturer not recommend them? They have no stake in how much motorcycle oil is sold to you by the oil companies.
Yes, running transmission fluid in your bike may give you less drag and the extra couple of 10ths in a motocross race but there are penalties for it which is increased wear. I personally don't race so I have no need to squeeze the last few 10ths out of my bike and I prefer to take the longevity of the bike as a more important factor in the equation.

Personally it doesn't matter to me what you run in your bike because I don't have a cent invested in it and I'm not paying to fix it ...as far as I'm concerned you can put mazola corn oil and crushed banana peels in there if you want, I'll stick with manufacturer recommended lubes.

Tek

First off,
I am not trying to ridicule you at all. I was simply discussing the issues and asked a question. You made a statement that calls for some clarification....
Did you add STP to your bike to find out that it will make the clutch slip? If so, isn't that going against the grain of what you are trying to tell us? What bike mfg told you to put STP in the tranny of your high-dollar investment? Are we contradicting ourselves here?:think:

STP oil treatment is ZDDP and calcium along with a good dose of Viscosity Index Improvers (VII's). ZDDP is a compound that gives us phosphorus and zinc...the exact same things that are taken out and replaced by something else to make the oil EC certifiable. I very much doubt that a tranny will slip using STP ( using the prescribed levels), however I have not tried it for myself.
Phophorus is an Anti-Wear (AW) additive. And Moly is considered an organic-metallic Friction Modifier (FM). When introduced into a tranny, moly will adhere itself to all of the surfaces, including the fiber clutch plates, and create little tightly packed whiskers that protect the materials from shearing themselves off.
An AW additive such as phophorus will only adhere to the metal surfaces and not to the composite material that clutch plates are made of.
They are very similar in how they protect, but with slightly differing mechanisims.
Normally, AW additives do not show much adverse effect on wet clutch actions. But they do provide good protection for gears.

Although I personally feel that with most all clutch problems there is almost always something besides the fluid to blame, I do feel that there can be problems associated with adding an "oil thickener" such as STP. First off, the shear resistance of the oil can rob you of HP, as it takes more energy to push the thicker fluid into tight clearances and between gears. This also contributes to more heat. And viscosity index improvers are known to break down under high heat and help to degrade the whole oil package faster.
This is one of the reasons we should be careful in using a multi-viscosity oil with a huge swing in the numbers...A 5w-40 has a difference in the first number to the second of 35, whereas a 15w-40 has a difference of 25. The 5w-40 has to have viscosity improvers added at a higher level to be able to obtain the larger swing in the numbers, and as a result it will degrade faster than the same oil with a lesser swing between numbers, like the 15w-40.

This would be only with similar oils, and when we bring synthetics into the picture that are formulated using group IV PAO, or even a group III dino oil, have a natural ability to withstand degredation much better than a group I or II organic (dino) base oil can. So do not be afraid to use a 5w-40 that is made from synthetic basestock...such as Rotella T 5w-40. It can handle the heat, so to speak.

When we talk 4 cycles engines, adding something like STP can only help to slow the flow down. And we need to have flow that is addequate to get the oil circulated as quickly as possible, yet not have it so thing that it cannot protect the journal bearings and high impact areas of the cams.
Also, the slower the flow, the more heat that is not being dissapated, and as a result the oil degrades faster and provides less protection for the critical areas.

In a nutshell, I doubt very seriously that STP will cause much adverse effect on the clutch action, but can create otehr problems we simply don't need.
But it sure isn't because it is a friction modifier.
A lube engineer or smart person may well come in and debate with me about the calcium content of the oil acting as a FM agent...but I am not a smart person. And I would love to hear more about that part.:nod:

As far as your logic on what to use...as you, I could give a monkeys ripe toss what you use...I only take acception to those who throw around track myth and dealerspeak BS, when they have less than a clue as to what they are providing.
And on ATF, it is completely adequate to take care of the gears in the tranny of a 2T engine. That is confirmed not only by the content, but in real world experience by thousands of folks over the last two or three decades.

High dollar boutique oils are a scam...not to say that they aren't good oils, most all of them are. But they are NOT worth the extravegant price points they have. The mfg's know this...and love that track myth and dealerspeak abounds. It means free advertisement and increased revenues.
Bike mfg's are simply using liability as a driver for their recommendations, unless of course they have an OEM money deal with an oil mfg, like KTM does with Motorex.
Of course they used to tout using nothing but Shell products at one time...as they had an OEM money deal in place with them. Like magic, Shell is no longer any good for KTM bikes. But you know what....KTM used to recommend ATF!
Go figger.....:rotfl:

welll....tell ya what....if your willing to "test" out the stp in your clutch case i'm even willing to buy it for ya. When i was young and foolish, I did in fact add some stp to my first street bike, and i can tell you for a FACT it WILL make your clutch slip.

When they test oils as you probably well know they put different additives in it and test it to see what it will do. After all the pencil pushing and calculating is done, the way they do this is to take a brand new engine and tear it apart and mic everything then reassemble it and put it on a dyno. Then they put their test oil in the engine and run it. Sometimes they run it normally and then tear it apart and mic it again to see how their oil did in that circumstance. Sometimes they run the engine screaming at full throttle all day long for 2 or 3 days straight and then tear it down. Sometimes the engine grenades all over and they go back to the drawing board.
My point is basically that there are different additive packages for different applications. The additives that are packaged in the oil for my old chevy pickup arent necessarily good additives for a dirt bike engine running at 4 or 5 or more times the typical RPM thet the truck is running. If one oil was good for everything they wouldnt hire oil engineers to design and test different oils and invest billions of dollars in research facilities. They would just have one tap and all the oil would come out of that and they could slap different labels on the bottles so they could charge whatever they felt like that day.

Sorry if I pissed in your cornflakes with my first post as you are obviously the head oil guru around here and I unknowingly posted what I had been informed was correct not realizing I ,along with a billion other people are just puppets for the oil companies. Im hoping they will send me my cheque soon.

So now i will let you carry on guruing and will leave my comments off this site so I dont unknowingly post something that you may not like or have heard 1000 times before.

Tek

Maybe I'm talking out of my ass here, but if it works...use it, if it doesnt work...dont use it. Seems pretty simple to me. When I use ATF in my tranny it comes out looking and smelling much the same as it did when I put it in. My clutch feels better and my bike shifts better. Here's the real kicker, it only costs me $1 a quart.

I don't really care who tested what, how much they paid to test it, or what the dealer/manufacturer tells me to use. If I find a better shifting oil that makes my clutch feel this good, I'll use it. But, not at the expence of not being able to afford very frequent oil changes. I can't afford to toss out $10 a quart oil ever 1-3hrs like I can with $1 a quart ATF. After all, isin't fresh cheap oil better than dirty expencive oil?

I use butter in my transmission... :laugh:

margarine has a better additive package, i cant believe its not butter works unbelievably, if you can afford it though

I am definately NOT the "oil guru" around here.
There are members here who can run rings around me in both chemistry and physics.
I am but a student of tribology. And hope to be until I hit the pine box.

And I have entered into so many of these threads concerning folks passing along track myth and dealerspeak BS that your small bit of rant won't effect the humidity of my cereal one bit, tek.
I think you do offer up quite a bit more speculation than you do fact.
But then, so do all the folks who pass along that sort misinformation.

It is normally (this is mererly my opinion) due to the fact that they have spent loads of cash buying into the silly BS that gets thrown around, and feel they need to find some sort of justification for spending $10-$12 qt. for oil.

Other times I have seen folks who provide track myth on a regular basis, as well as try to pass them selves off as an "oil guru", throw this sort of stuff around to others and expect them to blindly follow their logic. And the moment anyone provides an alternative viewpoint, the fight begins. They simply can't stand that anyone would challange the information they have been providing, no matter if they are shown to be wrong or not.
These types simply will not discuss things in a civil manner. They feel they were previously seen as the daddy rabbit of oil, and their thrown has been challanged.
Many times these folks will also add that they are "A" riders, which we all know makes a person an authority on all things moto. (major eyeroll)

And, tek...
I think you would be surprized to see just how many times an oil mfg or formulator will provide two nearly identical oils that are both marketed to different applications, with two completely different pricing structures.
It's not the engineers that work for these companies that are pulling the wool over your eyes, its the bean counters and marketing genius' that do that. And they have no plans at all on sending you, or anyone else a check. And why should they? You keep sending them one.

I like this discussion. I have been racing for 20 years now and have tried several oils. I prefer a straight weight of 30w oil. It is cheap and available anywhere. I am hard on my clutches so I change oil after every race, no exceptions. If I was to ride in the winter then a lighter weight oil would be used, possibly a 20w or even ATF. Please keep this going, I like a spirited debate!

Mark

Masterphil said:

I can't afford to toss out $10 a quart oil ever 1-3hrs like I can with $1 a quart ATF.

Click to expand...

Whats $10.00 a quart???? I must have missed a post somewhere. In bulk I pay less than $4.00 for the Bel-Ray (agreed still more than $1.00 quart ATF, but acceptable for me).

You should start reselling that oil. I commend you on being able to purchace BelRay at that price.
It is normally priced right along with MX4T, Motorex, etc...moto specific synthetics. ($10-$12 qt.)

I have only seen one analysis of their oil and it is chock full of Antimony. Antimony is a fine additive, and I wish more folks would formulate using it. BUT, the amounts of the addative that they put in the oil is outrageously high. Antimony only needs a very small part per million count to be effective, similar to moly.
Too many additives or too much of any one additive not only increases the price, but can be detrimental to the rest of the package as it is possible for additives to fight for space and actually counteract one another in some circumstances. However, they are bit light on other adds ( the ZDDP is similar to the levels of EC rated car oils), so I can only assume they are depending on the powess of antimony (which Btw is a FM) for the basis of their oils protecting properties.


( I edited my comments that I had typed about BelRay's technical FAQ's and dealerspeak BS tactics...I dont want to provoke another Amway...errr....Amsoil type debate)

In relation to the disagreement above (and in lots of various other posts) I think one ought to consider the following - both of which have been in my signature at one time or another . . .

“Most men quarrel because they do not know how to argue.” ---- G.K Chesterton

“The degree of one's emotion varies inversely with one's knowledge of the facts – the less you know the hotter you get."
--- Bertrand Russell

In this thread it would appear that teknition is taking this approach.

(Note: I admit that I have taken the lower road of both of these statements on many occasions in the last 34 years. It's very easy to do.).

teknition said:

Yes, running transmission fluid in your bike may give you less drag and the extra couple of 10ths in a motocross race but there are penalties for it which is increased wear. I personally don't race so I have no need to squeeze the last few 10ths out of my bike and I prefer to take the longevity of the bike as a more important factor in the equation.

Click to expand...

My .02 worth - I don't know much about this stuff other than some experience from a little bit of experimentation. However. . .

My father-in-law has run his own auto transmission shop for 25 years. He regularly turns down work even though his "shop" is hardly "sexy" - it's built out of 18 inch pieces of firewood held together with mortar made from the sawdust from the firewood. ;)

He has built his own modified class race cars (460 ci motor, body and all), builds trannys for racers that last for years and currently races a CR 125 kart in the WKA karting series.

If there's one thing he knows about, it's transmissions and the effects of motor oil and transmission fluid in various applications. He personally uses Bel Ray 80wt in his kart (because the prior owner used that).

However, when I was talking with him about ATF in MX applications, he said that they would be perfectly acceptable and would provide MORE than sufficient protection and lubrication to the MX transmission.

Longevity is an issue for me as well - but based on his testimony and what I have read here I doubt that increased wear is going to be an issue arising from ATF usage, and I would not hesitate to use it pending the actual, real world results as far as shift feel, etc . . . In fact, after having a clutch issue at the track, I just put ATF back in mine Saturday night.

Whether your particular clutch plates will prefer ATF to whatever other oil you may choose would seem to me to be the proper question.

apparently , all oil is safe to put in my bike , as every person who's ever tried throwing any caution to another person here has been shot down . and we should take all their words.

energy conserving= ok
friction modifier= ok
atf type f= ok
atf d/m III = ok
high mileage= ok
dino= ok
synthetic= ok
blend= ok
hydraulic= ok
formulated for diesels= ok

what isnt ok , thats what i want to know, why doesnt everyone just go to the dollar store and get cases of mazola?? i bet you wouldnt find much wrong with that if i changed it every 16 minutes of riding. maybe spending an extra 5.00 for a weekend trip without having to study the chemistry on an oil bottle is worth it to some people?? peace of mind

just changed my clutch fibers and plates after 3 full seasons of abuse, 150.00 , for peace of mind, EVERYTHING was as new :nod:

chalk one up for Honda and Spectro (moto specific)oils :moon:

I don't claim to be the king rabbit of oil or anything else for that matter. I was just trying to save someone the expense of having to change out a clutch for the sake of 2 dollars worth of oil.
I dont know where you guys are buying this oil for 12 bucks a quart but i bought my yamalube right off the dealers shelf for $4.95 a litre canadian and since my bike holds 750ml per oil change that equates to $3.71 canadian. Around here atf goes for roughly 2.50 a litre. I dont know about you but for less that 2 bucks difference I'll take the proper oil for the bike. Sure beats the cost and agrivation of having to change my clutch out when I could be riding instead.

Tek

I've been using Autolab 10w30 seems to work great no slippages, I change every 2 rides. it's only $1.88 Canadian a quart. :cool: :ride:

robwbright said:

My .02 worth - I don't know much about this stuff other than some experience from a little bit of experimentation. However. . .

My father-in-law has run his own auto transmission shop for 25 years. He regularly turns down work even though his "shop" is hardly "sexy" - it's built out of 18 inch pieces of firewood held together with mortar made from the sawdust from the firewood. ;)

He has built his own modified class race cars (460 ci motor, body and all), builds trannys for racers that last for years and currently races a CR 125 kart in the WKA karting series.

If there's one thing he knows about, it's transmissions and the effects of motor oil and transmission fluid in various applications. He personally uses Bel Ray 80wt in his kart (because the prior owner used that).

However, when I was talking with him about ATF in MX applications, he said that they would be perfectly acceptable and would provide MORE than sufficient protection and lubrication to the MX transmission.

Longevity is an issue for me as well - but based on his testimony and what I have read here I doubt that increased wear is going to be an issue arising from ATF usage, and I would not hesitate to use it pending the actual, real world results as far as shift feel, etc . . . In fact, after having a clutch issue at the track, I just put ATF back in mine Saturday night.

Whether your particular clutch plates will prefer ATF to whatever other oil you may choose would seem to me to be the proper question.

Click to expand...

Well, we have beat this to death so I am making an exit comment...

ATF will provide better clutch action and shifting...

...at the price of increased wear and tear on the gears.

ATF has additives for clutch packs in automatic transmissions that do also help clutch action in dirt bikes.

Its is thinner than any gear lube I know so it can help a notchy bike shift better.

It DOES NOT have the gear cushion additives that gear lube does (because an automatic transmission does NOT need them...). The design and action of our transmissions is different than an automotive automatic.

In the '70's a lot of racers used ATF to help with shifting and clutch action but also knew they were going to get increased wear and tear on the gears. This was an acceptable tradeoff.

So the answer to which is better soley depends on how you ask it. Whats better for the gears? Gear lube hands down. Which provides the better clutch action (and possibly shifting depending on the bike), the answer is ATF.

I don't use ATF because I expect the longest life out of the bike and don't care about the miniscule difference in clutch feel. I also would not buy a used bike if I know its been run on ATF (but thats just my opinion).

However; if you are racing and need that extra bit of performance and won't be keeping the bike long term then its likely a good trade off.

DLHamblin said:

ATF will provide better clutch action and shifting...

...at the price of increased wear and tear on the gears.

Click to expand...

Does an auto tranny not have planetary gearsets?

DLHamblin said:

Its is thinner than any gear lube I know so it can help a notchy bike shift better.

Click to expand...

It did mine.

Masterphil said:

Does an auto tranny not have planetary gearsets?

.

Click to expand...

Yes, (thats what ATF is good for and made for). Your bike does not. It is a constant-mesh sequential transmission

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/automatic-transmission.htm

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/motorcycle3.htm

I know the difference, but I fail to see how ATF does not offer enough protection, especially since it is used in T56, ZF, and other MANUAL transmissions with very simular gear engagement (not shifting, but the way the teeth mesh).

Masterphil said:

I know the difference, but I fail to see how ATF does not offer enough protection, especially since it is used in T56, ZF, and other MANUAL transmissions with very simular gear engagement (not shifting, but the way the teeth mesh).

Click to expand...

I don't know. The ones who could provide the data likely won't (the oil manufacturers and likely the bike manufacturers).

It does help with clutch and can help a notchy bike shift better; I have never questioned that. Also based on the average life (in hours) of a dirt bike you likely would never wear out a tranny (unless you just neglected changing it). I just feel its not the best as far as gear life goes.

If someone chooses to use it for the clutch/shifting performance, thats an acceptable choice; but I will stop short sayng its "better" for the gears as I have seen nothing to support that.

so everyone uses everything