What the heck is up with transmission oil?

K Shackleton:

Sorry but your wrong about my bikes oil recommendations!

Page 39 of the Honda 2005 CR250F and page 13 of the 2001CR500 manuals recommend the following in decending order:

Pro Honda HP Trans Oil (my choice)
Pro Honda GN4
Pro Honda HP4
4 Stroke engine oil
SAE 20/50, 20/40,10/40, 10/30 based on OAT
non molybdenum additives

I guess your 2001 KX250 manual doesn't cover Honda recommendations.

As far as Exception to accelerated wear goes, I'm sorry. I simply stated that ATF in my 1979 YZ125F turned dark at a faster rate, that is a indication of wear from lack of film strengh. By the way, the bike had steel drive plates not aluminum in case you might be thinking that colored the oil black. Rub ATF and oikl between your fingers. The ATF will have a grab to it and yes it probably does give better action to your clutch. Does that mean it's better? I give up and I personaly don't care.

Have fun on your bike, good luck and be happy.

MTK:

I've never had a Ford and I don't plan on getting one anytime soon. Therefor I have no experience with type F and yes your 500 lbs of torque is more than my 58.

I'm glad you happy with it in your bikes but I choose not to experiment with mine.

I take no offense to you high lighting and quoting me, that is what you choose to do to express your self. And yes, opinions are like Assholes, everyone has one.

Last time I checked this was a question, answer and opinion web site. People can take it or leave it.

This could go on for ever just like the morons that choose to use Av Gas in their bikes, is that another touchy one for you? I hope not.

As far as developing opinions go, you got yours from people that you claim are in the industry. I've got mine from witnessing it in the Supercross and National Pits and seven years as a Certified Honda Tech 1984 -1991.

I left the industry to pursue other areas and have recently started again. Perhaps I missed the new ATF revolution.

Red,
There is no revolution really. What we have been dealing with here is a long standing debate. Most often this debate consists of not only opionion, but myth.
And most of the opinions on motor oils are based on myth. And when folks like MTK read what is being posted, he KNOWS that he is seeing opinionated myth. And I agree with him.

The Energy Conserving myth is one that will never end. Not only has the misinformation been passed along from the users, but the MFG's go along with it, as the issue effects their bottom line.

But lets talk about the "logic" used by many...especially when they tout what a manual says to use...
A manual that states to use 20w50, 20w40, 10w30, 10w40 is basically giving you an open ended choice. These choices deal with viscocity only. Although I see that you added a "non-moly" clause...
which again stems back to the EC myth...but I will digress on that one for now...
with the four oil choices you have above...there could be hundreds of different types of oil and hundreds of different formulas.
Could be conventional organic petroleum oil, or perhaps hydro-cracked petroleum, or maybe polyalphaolifin, or might be polyalphaglycol, or perhaps it's an ester base...
ALSO...what are the barrier additives of these oils? There could be a multitude of differing chemicals and products used for the barrier rhelm of lubrication, and just as many differing percentages and combinations of each. Many of these oils will have propriatary formulations that we don't even know what the mfg is using.

But when we consider the recommendation of Type F ATF, it is an absolute. All type F ATF's are formulated almost exactly alike. There is a very small window of components that will make the fluid a TypeF ATF...and even though Valvoline makes their own version of TypeF (TypeFA) it is still basically TypeF.
So, the recommendation of Type F is very very specific. The chemistry of the fluid is known. And the track record of that particular type of fluid is known.
Taking the recommendation of the manual could leave you with alot of experimenting to do, as they have given you choices that are infinate. And yes, you will probably be fine with the name brand stuff that Honda touts...but realise that someone is making that oil for them. Honda does not refine oil.
And there are lots of 10w40 (or 20w or whatever weight) oils out there that will outperform the Honda oils, and for FAR less money to boot.

I see you getting a bit defensive about the topic, but I wouldn't take this thing personally. Many of us have been involved with lubrication issues for many years, and when we hear some of the stuff that is floating around the moto industry like so many turds in the punch bowl, it tends to get our responses. For me, I am attacking the prowess of the subject matter, and not you on a personal level.

The general dirt biking public knows SO much more today than ever before about internal combustion and all the dynamics associated with it. We also have vast knowledge of hydralics and suspension dynamics. In fact, the comman rider today probably knows as much about racing dirt bikes that he could easily be part of a pro tuner team back in the 70's, with the knowledge they have today. And back in the 70's, I think the majority of riders didn't even have half the knowledge that riders of today have.
But, how did we get so smart? Because of forums like this one. The internet has become an intregal part of us compiling knowledge. The bringing together of people with a bit of knowledge here and abit of knowledge there...and before you know it...the whole place is smarter (or at least more enlightened) than ever.

With internal combustion, just about all the variables are known. Then task is to take all of the science that is known, and use it to make an engine run at it's optimum.

With lubrication, it is the same thing...use all the known variables to produce a product that will protect and perform at optimum for a given situation.
The thing is with lubrication is that there are still lots of unknowns in science. Scientists and techinicians are just recently learning lots about what is happening at the surfaces of materials when they are being rubbed together. Many feel that the oil industry is an exacting science that is set in stone, but that is far from the truth. Tribologists are finding out new things almost daily.
This would be most evident in the number of changes you see comman motor oils going through. Heck, the formulas are constantly changing...and because new ideas and discoveries are being made all the time. In reality, lubrication is still in it's baby stages.
If you are interested in more about the new findings in tribology, try doing a search on elastohydrodynamic lubrication, or nanotechnology.

Unless we have these discussions, the same old BS and myth will be passed around like the bisquit bowl at supper. And if you keep on taking the same old yeast roll...how will you ever know that a big ol' catshead with real butter blows the comman yeast roll away?
But then, I'm certain that there are those who prefer the store bought yeast roll...and that's OK too. :)

(I just wanted to add that simply because an oil has darkened, it does NOT mean that it is not doing it's job. Nor does it mean that there has been any degredation going on. It may well be the the dispersant additives are doing their job and holding contaminants, like blow-by carbon, in suspension, as it is desingned to do.)

mtk said:

. . . As for those guys who build them knowing what they're talking about, lubricants is one area where the Japanese fall far short.

Click to expand...

Good thing I drive American vehicles and ride an Austrian bike.

BigRed.....thanks for the clarification....

Here is what you said [refering to ATF] that caught my attention:

"Is has less shock and load protection and will wear out shafts and bearings at a faster rate. "

The bolded part is incorrect....Type F ATF won't wear out parts faster than other lubes.....and it's cheap....which makes frequent oil changes economic....and it is those frequent oil changes that will really save wear on parts. I change mine every second ride....or after every ride if I've been in lots of water or mud.

BigRedAF said:

Last time I checked this was a question, answer and opinion web site. People can take it or leave it.

As far as developing opinions go, you got yours from people that you claim are in the industry. I've got mine from witnessing it in the Supercross and National Pits and seven years as a Certified Honda Tech 1984 -1991.

Click to expand...

You're right, it is an opinion website. However, opinions based upon nothing factual should not be left unchallenged. The users of the site aren't served by BS being allowed to be presented as fact.

Then you go on to basically say I'm a liar ("you got yours from people that you claim are in the industry") and that you're opinion is based on being a Certified Honda Tech as if that is the ultimate trump card. You took classes on how to work on Honda engines and I took Continuing Education classes (on top of my engineering degrees) on oils and additve chemistry; which one do you think is more relevant to the discussion? You spent eight years working on Honda engines and I spent 13 years working on lubricant testing and formulation issues, which is more relevant? The mechanics I dealt with in my career were tasked with working on test engines, not formulating engine oils. I don't say that to disparage mechanics, but rather to point out that they have nothing to do with oil formulation whatsoever. Those guys are very good at building engines, much better than I'll ever be, but when I had a formulation-related question they were not the folks I called. I've read the performance specifications of pretty much every lubricant grade developed in the last few decades. I've been to every oil test facility in the United States. I haven't been certified as an engine technician, but I don't think that matters in this discussion at all.

The funny thing is, if you do some research you'll find that Type F ATF was given as an "insider tip" by Jeremy McGrath's mechanics when he was riding for Honda. So your "Certified Honda Tech" opinion is hardly universal. It's also completely wrong, based upon your own writing on the subject. I pointed out one before, here's another:

I simply stated that ATF in my 1979 YZ125F turned dark at a faster rate, that is a indication of wear from lack of film strengh.

Click to expand...

The above statement simply isn't true. Getting dark does NOT indicate anything of the sort. What it does indicate is that the detergent package in Type F ATF, which is quite robust, is doing its job, removing deposits and keeping them in suspension so they can be removed when the fluid is drained. It doen't provide you with any information whatsoever on film strength. It's also doesn't stand up to even reasonable scrutiny since Type F ATF was designed for transmissions. It most certainly has plenty of film strength for gear lubrication since transmissions are known to contain quite a few gears. Lacking aluminum plates isn't too important either since the fiber plates are also a wear item and provide wear particles in the transmission on their own.

You also note that your choice is Pro Honda HP Trans Oil. Do you know what that fluid really is? Honda, nor anyone else in the car or bike world, doesn't formulate lubricants. They buy off-the-shelf products and have their label put on it. Why don't you take a sample of that stuff and send it out to be analyzed? It costs less than $30 to have it done (www.blackstone-labs.com) and I'll bet you'll find that your mystery fluid is actually a type of ATF or pretty close to it.

Finally, I want to echo Jaybird's comments:

"I see you getting a bit defensive about the topic, but I wouldn't take this thing personally. Many of us have been involved with lubrication issues for many years, and when we hear some of the stuff that is floating around the moto industry like so many turds in the punch bowl, it tends to get our responses. For me, I am attacking the prowess of the subject matter, and not you on a personal level."

Jay Bird:

Nice post, very professional.

MTK

I'm pleased to read that you have advanced your education in the field of lubes. Actually my wife prefers Astro Glide, whats in that stuff?

I still never ran Type "F" and only said that the ATF that I used turned dark at a faster rate. Jay Bird summed it up in a nice tone without the personal attacks, that's the way we learn from this site.

As far as Jeremy is concerned, I will speak with him and Roger and RJ at the Phoenix Super Cross but I doubt it will involve ATF because I'm not really intertested in using it in my bike. When RJ rides my bike Sunday at ACP I will run it be him since he is very involved in all forms of testing.

Yes even I know that Honda, Yamaha, Kawaski and Suzuki don't refine or produce their own oils. I really could care less what's in the HP oil that I use in my gear box. It actually has a rearend gear smell to it but pours like a 5/30. All I know is that it works fine for me and is priced at only 3.99 per quart, seems reasonable.

Being a Honda Tech isn't the ultimate Trump card, I never claimed it was. Actually most of those guys can't even jet a bike. Watching them clean and oil an air filter is a very scary thing too. Most of the dirt goes down the boot. Having worked at a dealership I learned that based on the majority of what I saw I would never take a bike there for any work.

I'm only reading and responding to posts as an opinion on topics that I have run accross over the past 27 years of racing and attending the sport. I never claimed to be the expert that you are so you win.

BigRedAF said:

I still never ran Type "F" and only said that the ATF that I used turned dark at a faster rate.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter; all ATF formulations have robust detergent packages in them, which is why they get darker faster than engine oil in this usage. More importantly, "getting darker" is a completely meaningless bit of data as far as lubricant performance is concerned.

BigRedAF said:

Jay Bird summed it up in a nice tone without the personal attacks, that's the way we learn from this site.

Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should have followed his lead?

Yeah, I admit my post was a bit of a personal attack on you.

But you're the one who basically called me a liar (in case you forgot, you said, "As far as developing opinions go, you got yours from people that you claim are in the industry.") to begin with. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sit too well with me. I could have worded things a bit more delicately, but I admit that I get a bit miffed when someone I don't know from Moses calls me a liar on a worldwide forum. I guess I'm funny that way.

I also like how you've now backpedaled down to "this is what I use and I like it," from your original position of "these products clearly cause additional wear" like you claimed before. You also don't know what you're really using and may very well be paying $3.99/quart at the Honda dealer for something you could get for $1.19/quart at AutoZone, but that isn't an issue to you either. You like it and that's that and using anything else will cause additional wear, because you said so, of course.

BigRedAF said:

Being a Honda Tech isn't the ultimate Trump card....

Click to expand...

Then why did you post that information? The only reason I can see is to give your opinion additional validity in the eyes of other readers. But then later you go on to admit that you wouldn't let many techs touch your bikes because they're incompetent.

BigRedAF said:

I'm only reading and responding to posts as an opinion on topics that I have run accross over the past 27 years of racing and attending the sport. I never claimed to be the expert that you are so you win.

Click to expand...

And why is this 27 years of racing and watching relevant? What does sitting in the stands or at the starting gate bring to the table as far as useful information on lubricants? Being able to ride in a race doesn't tell you a damn thing about the subject matter at hand. Sitting in the stands matters even less.

Baseless opinions aren't useful to anyone involved.

This isn't about "winning," it's about not letting BS get run up the flagpole as gospel. No one is served by allowing wrong information to go unchallenged.

Am I a lubricant expert? No, but I do know a lot more about lubricants than 99% of the general populace. But more importantly, I worked with a lot of lubricant experts so I had ready access to expert information on lubricants.

If he'd asked about "what piston is best" you wouldn't have seen a two-page diatribe from me about Wisecos being better than Pro-X because I have no knowledge on the matter either way.

Lubricants, however, are an area I DO have significant knowedge of and that knowledge could prove useful to other members of this site. So I posted it. My opinion is based on data and knowledge of lubricants; yours isn't based on any kind of data, at least as far as I can tell. Your opinion contained the following:

"ATF fluid is an old trick from the 70"s. It is thin and has less drag but don't use it. Is has less shock and load protection and will wear out shafts and bearings at a faster rate."

"I always considered ATF as a type of hydrolic fluid not an oil."

"I simply stated that ATF in my 1979 YZ125F turned dark at a faster rate, that is a indication of wear from lack of film strengh."

All of the above are direct quotes from posts you made in this thread and every one of them are false. So exactly what do you really "know" on this subject?

You didn't say "I used this product because that is what Honda recommends" and leave it at that, but rather you said "that product will cause damage if you use it," which is completely baseless.

This site is about sharing knowledge, not baseless opinions.

MTK

You clearly have way to much time on your hands.

I think all of the relevent info on this subject has been said and the poor guy that started this mess can decide what he wants.

Perhaps you can write the big four and inform them of all the benifits so they can use ATF and save $1.50 per bike.

I hope you don't loose any more sleep over this subject but like I said "you win" so get over it.

mattb348 said:

...the manual only says 10W30 or 10W40 motor oil; it doesn't even mention gear oil. Heck, it doesn't even tell you to avoid friction modifiers. How stupid is that? LOL.

Click to expand...

Actually it does. The API Class rating of the oil (SH, SI, SJ, SL) indicates the the additive package in the oil.

In a two stroke transmission, I like using ATF Type F. I change it every 4 to 5 hours. I've never blown-up a transmission.

On my YZ250F I use Mobil 1 Extended Performance (15W-50) because Rich says so. Plenty of friction modifiers in that stuff (API SL rating) and the clutch feels fine. So I have to agree with Jaybird on the Energy Conserving myth.

I suggest putting the correct amount of slippery liquid in each fluid compartment, checking it before each ride, and changing it regularly. It works for me and I know very little. :ride: :nod:

I raced round one of the CMC Copper State Classic in Buckey Arizona today, that is irrelevant to most but I had a chance to speak with an Amsoil Rep. He was present because Amsoil is one of title sponsors of the 17th annual six race series.

Although they do not make a dedicated transmission oil for motorcycles they do produce a 10W/40
Motorcycle Oil for 4-cycle engines. He went on to say that it was JASO MA rated without API energy conservation ratings which is Greek to me.

Once I got back to the house this evening a quick flip into my manual and a bit more reading than I did before neted the information about the JASO MA rating, it's prefered.

As CAPTAIN OBVIOUS said, I too have used oils in the past that were API energy conservation and had no problems with clutch slipage.

The Amsoil rep had nothing to say about ATF other than it's normal life was anywhere from 50,000 100,000 miles depending on application. We all can agree that by changing our gear box oil every 2-3 rides we wouldn't even put a dent in those figures.

Heres the wierd part. He said that when ATF reaches a temp above 180F it becomes unstable and service life is then reduced to 2500 - 5000 miles. Again we wouldn't put a dent in those figures either but why the instability problem not assiocited with conventional or synthetis oils at such a low temp. Perhaps this is why heavy duty trucks with towing packages come with factory installed transmission coolers.

Me bike has a water temp guage and it has not exceeded 170 yet. I run a mixure of 40% coolant and 60% distilled water with a water wetter agent. I have never ran any other combo in this bike but it has netted a 25 degree drop in water temp in a friends CRF450 which be the way still runs 195.

I just thought the temp of the oil was interesting and plan more research into it later. If anyone has a correct answer or a site with info please pass it along.

i just use the stuff at the cycle shop that says it was designed for bikes 2or4 stroke wet clutch systems . says it outperforms other oils and trans fluids. if i change my oil every trip and it cost me 2bucks extra every time , i guess i just blew 50 bucks last year. never had a problem, never had to worry about it
golden spectro 80w

It takes one marketing seminar for a person to decide that Amsoil is the answer to all oil problems, and they can't wait to distribute Amsoil fluids.
Two or three of these marketing circus' and they become experts on all oils. Just ask them.

We need to take things we here at the races, trade shows, Amsoil marketing circus', with a grain of salt.
Just like the rep you talked to, Red...he obviously is loading you up with nothing but BS. If he weren't, he would probably distiguish just what type of ATF he was talking about when he was talking about degredation. He doesn't have an ATF in his lineup...yet he seems to know all about it.
Hmmmwas he talking Mercon? TypeF, Full Synthetic?....
You see what I'm getting at here?

As far as the MA certification goes...yes, it is a way to see if an oil has been tested and found OK for chared sump motorcycles...hoiwever, there are many other oils on the shelf that do not have the MA designation, yet would pass the MA tests. They only pay to have the MA testing and certification done on those oils that they plan on elevating the price to about twice what it is actually worth.
So, yes...manufacuturers DO INDEED prefer that you chose an MA rated fluid.
If you think oil mfg's aren't counting on John Q. Public to be cluless and ignorant...think again.

CaptainObvious said:

Actually it does. The API Class rating of the oil (SH, SI, SJ, SL) indicates the the additive package in the oil.

In a two stroke transmission, I like using ATF Type F. I change it every 4 to 5 hours. I've never blown-up a transmission.

On my YZ250F I use Mobil 1 Extended Performance (15W-50) because Rich says so. Plenty of friction modifiers in that stuff (API SL rating) and the clutch feels fine. So I have to agree with Jaybird on the Energy Conserving myth.

Click to expand...

Gee, I will stir some more; the article on Eric's site is dated 1999, Mobil changed the oil in the early 2000's (2002? Can't recall, its when the red cap went away...).

That said I know a lot who still use it and have no problems.:)

BigRedAF said:

The Amsoil rep had nothing to say about ATF other than it's normal life was anywhere from 50,000 100,000 miles depending on application. We all can agree that by changing our gear box oil every 2-3 rides we wouldn't even put a dent in those figures.

Click to expand...

This would apply to automotive automatic transmissions and has no relevancy to use in a motorcycle transmission.

BigRedAF said:

Heres the wierd part. He said that when ATF reaches a temp above 180F it becomes unstable and service life is then reduced to 2500 - 5000 miles.

Click to expand...

The transmission in a two stroke dirt bike is unlikely to reach those temps.

BigRedAF said:

Me bike has a water temp guage and it has not exceeded 170 yet. I run a mixure of 40% coolant and 60% distilled water with a water wetter agent. I have never ran any other combo in this bike but it has netted a 25 degree drop in water temp in a friends CRF450 which be the way still runs 195.

Click to expand...

Coolant temperature is not transmission oil temperature.

Vic said:

The transmission in a two stroke dirt bike is unlikely to reach those temps.
.

Click to expand...

Interesting thought; I wonder what temperature range they do run at?? Since the close (connected) proximity of the tranny to the engine; perhaps 180 isn't out of the ordinary?

DLHAMBLIN and VIC

I too used Mobil 1 in my last bike a 2002 YZ250, no problems. I was unaware of the hype with the friction modifiers, I didn't read the recommendations untill sometime later and by that time didn't care.

As far as the tranny temp goes, I considered just sticking a meat temp probe into the filler hole after a good ride for grins. The base gasket will somewhat insulate the cases from getting a 1/1 heat transfer from the head and cylinder. However the water pump is attached to the right side case and has the hot water transferring heat directly to the right side case which of course contains the oil.

An other consideration is that the engine is probably hotter than the water since I doubt the water can pull all the temp away from the metal its in contact with. One more variable is the temp generated by the friction occurring in the clutch itself.

Anyway, I just posted this info as a food for thought. As I stated, we will never even come close to approaching the 2500 -5000 or 50000- 100000 miles intervals at the rate that any of us change fluids.

For those just joinning us I'm not using ATF just wondering about the temp stability issue that I was told about. I'm heading out of town today thru Thursday and plan on checking up on the Amsoil reps comment about the temps. I just find it interseting.

JAYBIRD:

I agree with you, thats why I want to follow up on his comment.

Truth is; when you consider the life span of the average dirt bike and how many (few?) miles that is or its life (or between teardowns/rebuilds) compared to a car or even a street bike; just about any oil regularly changed would likely work.

DLHamblin said:

Truth is; when you consider the life span of the average dirt bike and how many (few?) miles that is or its life (or between teardowns/rebuilds) compared to a car or even a street bike; just about any oil regularly changed would likely work.

Click to expand...

My point precisely! I suspect MOST engine lubrication related wear & damage is due to lack of regular service (checking levels/changing, etc.) more than what type of fluid is used. The harsh environment that we subject our bikes to (dirt, water, high pressure water directed at our engine components) leads to rapid contamination of these fluids. How many of you have seen milky-brown oil drained from a bike? How many of you change your hydroscopic brake (& clutch) fluid BEFORE your brakes (or clutch) get 'mushy'?
Now there is a poll question for you. :nod: :ride:

CaptainObvious said:

Actually it does. The API Class rating of the oil (SH, SI, SJ, SL) indicates the the additive package in the oil.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't tell you anything about the additive package in the oil, but rather it tells you what standards that oil was tested against and passed. SG was a new battery of tests. SH was the same tests, but allowed for the use of MTAC (Multiple Test Acceptance Criterion) for multiple test results. There was no "SI" category, as this would have been confused with either "Spark Ignition" or SI units. SJ and SL were more changes in the testing battery required.

Additive packages change all the time, based on new technologies that the additive companies develop and also based on new blends of oil.

In a nutshell, when a new category is released every company fomulates "fat" on the addtive package to be sure they will pass it. No one wants to be caught without product on the shelf when a new category is released. Over the life of that category, they cut back on addtive treat levels until they just pass the tests required for the category. Extra addtives cost money and all that. Then a new category comes along and they do it over again. All of this applies to "conventional" oils for the most part. Mobil 1, for example, isn't formulated like this since they're aiming for a much higher performance point and more importantly, a much higher retail price to the consumer.

BigRedAF said:

IHeres the wierd part. He said that when ATF reaches a temp above 180F it becomes unstable and service life is then reduced to 2500 - 5000 miles. Again we wouldn't put a dent in those figures either but why the instability problem not assiocited with conventional or synthetis oils at such a low temp. Perhaps this is why heavy duty trucks with towing packages come with factory installed transmission coolers.

Click to expand...

He's also wrong as it is temps over 240F which are bad for ATFs, of most any variety. Temps of 180F are just fine and right in line with the operating temperatures of most auto transmissions.

But don't take my word for it since I don't know what I'm talking about. You can keep listening to Amsoil salesman and make your decisions based upon that wealth of knowledge. :coocoo:

MTK

I found info on Kinematic Viscosity, it seems to be standard at 7.5. Amsoils own site shows it to be consistant at temps up to 212F. Pennzoil and Texaco's productucts are the same. Perhaps this is a industry point of standard measure? I don't know.

Wear measured on a four ball wear scale are as follows on Amsoils products. Their 10W/40 synthetic 4-Stroke M/C oil is .40mm scar after 1 hour at 302F, 1800 RPM. Their ATF was .40mm scar after 1 hour at 167F and1200 RPM.

From the data it is clear as mud. I guess they are adjusting the temps and RPM's to get a minimal wear sacr of .40mm. Or we can assume that they are testing to product under conditions that they assume they will operate at. Either way the have a flash point of ATF 435F and Oil 453F.

Also I can only assume that since the viscosity of 7.5 on ATF was given at 212F it has to be stable to at least that temp. Therfor the reps coments were crap!

Have a good day,

Red