What the heck is up with transmission oil?

[ellandoh]

edit; replied to disappearing post :)

 

[Roooster]

Damn, first post and I've already been censored.

ATF belongs in automatic trannys, unless otherwise specified. No one yet has articulated a reason to use ATF in a motocross bike, or in any application that doesn't recomend it.

I don't believe for a second the japanese engineers are ignorant about oils, despite what some here have suggested. Given a choice on who to believe, the manufacturer's recommended oil, or a poster claiming to be an "expert", it's a no brainer.

 

[BigRedAF]

MTK

I'm not rying to get under your skin but after rethinking the four ball test data I'm seeing that ATF has the same wear/damage as motor oil but at a temp and RPM that are quite a bit lower. Is this an indication that it doesn't have the film strength or protection found in the motor oil? or am I reading it wrong?

 

[jackdrinker]

First of all...the warning folks against "Energy Conserving" oils is big bunch of BS.
Can't blame them since you hear this nonsense everywhere. But, it is not a concern. Find me someone who has trouble with their clutch slippping from using an energy conserving type oil, and I will show you someone whith sacked out clutch springs, previously glazed plates, and notched clutch basket fingers. The oil DID NOT cause their problem.
Funny how most of the folks who make it a point to steer people away from energy conserving oil wouldn't know castor oil from cod liver oil.

Type F ATF is loaded with barrier type lubricant additives. To recommend staying away from it due to it's inability to handle shock loads is...well...it's simply ignorant.
Type F ATF was desinged for a former Ford transsmission that is almost exactly like the transmission and wet clutch found on a motorcycle.

Now, there is a difference between TypeF ATF and Mercon/Dexron type ATF's.
Type F (don't mistake this with other types of ATF) works in a different way than Dexron/Mercon type ATF's do...Type F has a dynamic coefficient of friction that is reduced when the revs are high, which is exactly opposite of how Dexron/Mercon type fluids work.

HA,.... Sorry but my 2005 Ninja with 600 miles didn't have a grooved basket, burned plates or "sacked" springs... But it had sooooooo much slip... This was an error on my part, I ran Quaker State that clearly said "energy conserving"... I dumped it at the track during the track day, refilled it with my normal 10w40 and a warm up lap later, it was butter....

My fellow riders in Redline Superbike will argue your point and the riders with track-o'-holics and sportbike tracktime will throw your statement to the wind.... My buddies low 7' second busa runs.... Castrol 10w40 non-low E..

 

[Rich Rohrich]

Damn, first post and I've already been censored.

Hopefully you'll get the idea and back it down a notch. ;)

 

[Roooster]

Hopefully you'll get the idea and back it down a notch.

Funny, I thought I was right in line with a couple of others here. But, I hear ya.

 

[Rich Rohrich]

Funny, I thought I was right in line with a couple of others here. But, I hear ya.

It works on the merit system. The more useful info you contribute to the site the more leeway you're likely to get. :cool:

 

[john3_16]

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

I like this quote by MTK...I've seen alot of VOA's (virgin oil analysis) and have seen alot of the claims made on labels about "special additives made specifically for wet clutch motorcycles" busted...Almost all engine oils contained the same additives but vary in their amounts...I've yet to see a VOA of Honda GN4 but my guess is that Supertech at Wallyworld is just as good if not better for a 70 percent reduction in cost.

 

[john3_16]

Damn, first post and I've already been censored.

ATF belongs in automatic trannys, unless otherwise specified. No one yet has articulated a reason to use ATF in a motocross bike, or in any application that doesn't recomend it.

I don't believe for a second the japanese engineers are ignorant about oils, despite what some here have suggested. Given a choice on who to believe, the manufacturer's recommended oil, or a poster claiming to be an "expert", it's a no brainer.

Trust me...The guy is an expert in lubrication technology.I also know of a guy that works for SWRI and tests oils for use in Mac, Cummins, and other major diesel engine manufacturers running engines 24 hours a day 7 days a week while measuring wear rates while the engine is running with radiowave measuring tools. The manufacturer of these engines demand that an oil will hold up and protect the engine adequately because their customers make their purchases based on engine longevity and reliability and they fully expect these big diesels to last a million miles on the road...So these manufacturers will demand that oils have certain specs, otherwise the oil cannot be reccomended for use with their engine...

This type of criteria doesn't exist for most engine manufacturers..It should but it doesn't because the average consumer's car will not log that many miles....Truckers are in the business of logging mile after mile and reliability is their primary concern....If you want to know about oils and what protects well, look at what the diesels use.

To make a long story short..The fellow at SWRI will echo the same thing MTK is telling you.

Just because something is not mentioned in the manual doesn't mean that there aren't better alternatives..My RC51 manual reccomended SG rated oil...The point is that the author of the manual chooses the simplest explanation for the consumer while throwing a suggestion to use their brand oil. They aren't going to make it complicated and suggest that you look at various VOA's or their method of refining base oils to determine which oils are the best to use. If you've ever seen a VOA you'll know that just because the labels says "best for motorcycles" doesn't mean that the statement is true...And a VOA will tell you what is exactly in the oil.

Just like the idea that every part that comes stock on a motorcycle straight from the factory is perfect because the "engineers know better" is completely false as well.

For example....For years Kawasaki dirtbikes came with a soft rubber transmission oil cap...That thing is lucky to last past 4 oil changes...I went through a bunch of them and I know other peole did too...Surely the engineers know better..right? You would think that after 20 plus years of using the same cheap material they'd figure it out..Well they finally did with the 05' KX250.

 

[mtk]

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

Kinematic viscosity is tested at 100C (212F), which is why all the data is shown at that temperature. And as you've surmised, it's also a pretty safe bet that the products are all stable at that temperature. I'm not exactly sure what products you were looking up, but 7.5 centistokes is probably the spec for ATF at 100C, which is why everyone showed the same result.

As for the four-ball wear test, marketing crapola is the one, and only, place that thing is used. To be honest, I've never even seen one before, nor have I ever seen any reference to results of that "test."

That is the same reason why all "oil treatments" are crapola. There are plenty of oil tests that measure wear and yet all the snake oil guys rely on this four-ball BS test for their "wear data," rather than the real thing. The sad thing is, their marketing is really slick and it suckers people, stupid and smart alike. For example, my ex-father-in-law is a maintenance engineer (licensed Professional Engineer) for a mining company, i.e. a reasonably smart fellow. He asked me about ProLong or DuraLube (or something, I forget the exact product) for use in their machinery because it was patented. He figured a patent meant it was decent. I reviewed the patent data he got and found a bunch of ASTM tests referenced, but not one of the actual engine tests listed. Given that, I told him it was crap. If it wasn't, they'd have ran a pair of engine tests and shown reduced wear in a running engine. The fact that they didn't tells me they can't.

 

[mtk]

To make a long story short..The fellow at SWRI will echo the same thing MTK is telling you.

Probably because we've sat in the same meetings together. :bang:

Southwest Research Institure (SwRI) is a fascinating place, with all kinds of neat stuff going on there. However, my personal favorite was watching the C5 Galaxy do touch-and-go practice from outside the engine lab. Much more interesting than watching an engine run at steady state on a dyno. ;)

 

[jeffd]

Damn, first post and I've already been censored.

ATF belongs in automatic trannys, unless otherwise specified. No one yet has articulated a reason to use ATF in a motocross bike, or in any application that doesn't recomend it.

That is strange...
Then why did Ford spec ATF type F for my Mustang's T5 MANUAL 5 speed tranny? Could it be a fluke? Nope. I have had 3 Mustangs and they all used ATF in a MANUAL tranny.

What the heck is up with that? :laugh:

Granted - you did say "unless otherwise specified"...
But there are lots of folks that use it and use it well without issues.

 

[Rich Rohrich]

As for the four-ball wear test, marketing crapola is the one, and only, place that thing is used. To be honest, I've never even seen one before, nor have I ever seen any reference to results of that "test."

ASTM D2783 and ASTM D 4172 four-ball wear and EP tests are pretty common tests here and in Europe.

The Southwest Research Institute has these tests as part of their lab offerings as well.

http://www.swri.edu/4org/d08/Certs/A2LA 17025 Chemical.pdf

For whatever it's worth. ;)

Please don't mistake this as some sort of endorsement of Amsoil or it's rather "slippery" marketing methods. If someone left a case of Amsoil on my doorstep I'd pour it in my driveway to keep the dust down before I'd use it in my engines. :)

 

[Jaybird]

... it's rather "slippery" marketing methods.

lol...brilliant.

When we talk ATF for a bike tranny, keep in mind that Mercon and Dexron type fluids are not acceptable. They are build differently than TypeF ATF, and handle friction in a different way.

I think the last date of specification for TypeF was like 1976, so good info on the fluid is a bit harder to find.
One thing for certain is that tranny fluids have always had high temperature and the resulting oxidation in mind.
Since heat degredation is a major concern in the design of ATF's, you will find them to be mucho hefty in the temp handling department...albeit not the consensus from at least one Amsoil guru.

(note the 572 degF flashpoint of TypeF in this prod info sheet)
http://www.pzlqs.com/Tech/Pdsheet/DomesticMarketing/Gear&Transmission/pdf/TypeFAutomaticTransmissionFluid.PDF

Back in 1976, all TypeF was built using organic (dino) oils for the basestock. These basestocks were then, as they are now, limited in the heat handling department. Now, if had a TypeF fluid that is built with the latest synthetic base fluids like polyalphaolefin (PAO) and synthetic esters, you'd have a fluid that not only is void of friction modifiers (for the metal aspect of the thing), but you'd also have a fluid that is absolutely unsurpassed in both the heat handling and the gear protection area. PAO and ester bases not only fight heat degredation, but they can also protect from friction at the barrier level, which is something that NO dino oil can do.

The following stuff is just such a fluid. I would put my money on this stuff being the absolute best fluid that could possibly be used in a 2-cycle dirt bike tranny. BUT...at $10 a qt. it simply doesn't cut muster.
But, if money is of no concern to you...give it a try....just don't stop changing the fluid out every ride or two.
http://www.specialtyformulations.com/SFRGlide.htm

@ ~$1 a qt. for conventional TypeF...for me, it's a no brainer.

jackdrinker,
There is always that one anecdote you hear about someone who's clutch was instantly fried upon use of an EC oil.
Thing is...for every one of those anecdotes, there will be 100 others that state they have noticed no problems at all.
I realize that folks who race bikes, or play race...often get to a point that they feel very superior in knowledge of such things as oils...but most of what they have is more hearsay passed from rider to rider and from track to track...from message board to message board.

Yes, there are always going to be times when something happens that everyone in the general area will be in agreement of the root cause...but without a complete forensic investigation, I simply can't buy the evidence of one single event.
I realize that you are describing the general consensus of lots of riders who put their bikes through a bit more than the average street rider may. And they would be the ones to see a problem if it truely exists...BUT these folks who put their bikes through more rigors than normal, need to have their bikes serviced on a more frequent level, and by compentent mechanics. You know as well as I do that many folks put much more energy into the actual riding than they ever do when it comes to proper maintenance.

But, you know what....bottom line is that there really aren't any EC oils that are so superior to non-EC oils that it even makes a difference. Simply don't use the EC ratred oils.
If we are looking to "throw my statements to the wind" then by all means I would accept the challange of a test.
Until then, I will comment on your description of trouble with your 2005. If you changed the oil and it immediately came back to the action you had before, then surely you can't blame Friction Modifiers on this. If Friction Modifiers were to blame for a slipping clutch, it would mean that the plates are impregnated with the material...and it would take more than simply changing the oil to stop the degredation of the clutch action. More likely the same materials you blame for the problem were still in play with the new oil as much as the were before you changed.

I wasn't there...but I know from your description of events it was most likely something else that was the root cause.

 

[Jaybird]

Since we are touting test labs...these guys not only test, but are active in the development of the testing procedures and testing equipment.
http://www.falex.com/index2.htm

Just about any regime of lubricant testing procedures will include the Four Ball Wear test, Four Ball EP test, and most times Timken as well as Pin and Vee.

 

[ChopperDave]

I like baby oil. (and so does the mrs) :fft:

 

[mtk]

ASTM D2783 and ASTM D 4172 four-ball wear and EP tests are pretty common tests here and in Europe.

The Southwest Research Institute has these tests as part of their lab offerings as well.

http://www.swri.edu/4org/d08/Certs/A2LA 17025 Chemical.pdf

For whatever it's worth. ;)

Please don't mistake this as some sort of endorsement of Amsoil or it's rather "slippery" marketing methods. If someone left a case of Amsoil on my doorstep I'd pour it in my driveway to keep the dust down before I'd use it in my engines. :)

That's true, but those tests aren't in any engine oil specification I've ever seen. They may be used in ATF specs or industrial lubes or something as I'm not as familiar with those as I am the engine oil specs. No matter, it's still a poor excuse for a wear test when there are much more useful tests available.

As for Amsoil, it's sad they insist on selling their products the way they do because I honestly think they made a decent product. But their whole Amway marketing plan is enough to turn off most folks, me included.

 

[mtk]

Since we are touting test labs...these guys not only test, but are active in the development of the testing procedures and testing equipment.
http://www.falex.com/index2.htm

Just about any regime of lubricant testing procedures will include the Four Ball Wear test, Four Ball EP test, and most times Timken as well as Pin and Vee.

Those guys have no involvement in engine oil testing to my knowledge. Their list of tests are a far cry from what SwRI can do.

As far as test development is concerned, much of that is done in ASTM committees, so the whole industry has a stake in the development of new tests. GM is one lone exception in that they develop engine oil tests for use by industry, or at least they used to. That may not last too much longer due to their poor financial state.

Also, as I said the four-ball test isn't part of any engine oil specification I've ever seen. It may be used elsewhere, but it isn't used in engine oil testing.

 

[mtk]

That is strange...
Then why did Ford spec ATF type F for my Mustang's T5 MANUAL 5 speed tranny? Could it be a fluke? Nope. I have had 3 Mustangs and they all used ATF in a MANUAL tranny.

It called for Type F?

Are you sure it wasn't Mercon fluid?

Type F is an old category and hasn't been used in a long time. As far as I know, Ford now has two Mercon and Mercon V, which are not compatible. I've not seen Type F in a Ford manual, ever, since it was out of use long before I ever opened a car owner's manual.

But your point is valid in that quite a few manual transmissions call for an ATF of some sort.

 

[ellandoh]

i have atf type f in the transfer case of my jeep (recommended), i would imagine its doing some serious protecting when i slap it in 4LO :nod:

 

[Rich Rohrich]

No matter, it's still a poor excuse for a wear test when there are much more useful tests available.

No arguement there. :cool:

 

[Roooster]

That is strange...
Then why did Ford spec ATF type F for my Mustang's T5 MANUAL 5 speed tranny? Could it be a fluke? Nope. I have had 3 Mustangs and they all used ATF in a MANUAL tranny.

What the heck is up with that?

Granted - you did say "unless otherwise specified"...
But there are lots of folks that use it and use it well without issues.

I don't know, like I don't know why my Honda isn't using a mustang tranny. And, yes, "unless otherwise specified" means exactly that. But, the reason why your mustang might call for using ATF type F probably has something to do with the type of synchros it uses. Some oils are too slippery for some type of synchros and there use causes gear crunch while shifting.

Tell me again, WHY would I want to deviate from the factory spec oil and use ATF? Why is it better? Please provide reference material that states so. We may be among some oil experts here, I have no idea, but I need more than "trust me". I have a pretty good job, so the price difference isn't an issue, and if it was I have no business with a $5k bike. :laugh:

At best, it seems ATF might not be worse than factory spec. But I've yet to see anything that says it better for my application.

 

[ellandoh]

this thread nor this forum is all about you, there are many people interested in the subject, many that arent as well off as you and the price difference does make a difference to them . since we can see that many many folks here have had good luck with this product and we can see by reading this and many other threads on this forum atf is at least equal in its protection for our purpose why not save some money?? then you could get a 5000$ bike instead of a 95 cr250

 

[Roooster]

this thread nor this forum is all about you, there are many people interested in the subject, many that arent as well off as you and the price difference does make a difference to them . since we can see that many many folks here have had good luck with this product and we can see by reading this and many other threads on this forum atf is at least equal in its protection for our purpose why not save some money?? then you could get a 5000$ bike instead of a 95 cr250

Hey, don't get mad at me because you can't afford the correct oil. As far as I know, while ATF might be cheaper it also might cost a rebuild sooner. And there goes your cost savings.

I have a 2005 model, not sure why it keeps showing a 95'.

 

[ellandoh]

i can afford any oil i so choose to use, im just saying if you dont like the info then you dont need to believe it , just as i dont choose to believe you joined this site yesterday, set up your profile with a 95 and today you have an 05 :nener: unless you can in your words "Please provide reference material that states so"

lets see a pic