Oxidation is caused by heat, nothing else. The initial oxidation (in the bottle) is therefore zero (0).. and a reading of 43 is high given only 4000 miles on the lube.
Amsoil MTF - Honda owners beware?
- Thread starter reynoldsequation
- Start date
- Status
Scroll down for the 2 pics of a magnetic drain plug with Amsoil MTF:
http://9thcivic.com/forum/threads/changing-manual-transmission-fluid.5587/page-3
http://9thcivic.com/forum/threads/changing-manual-transmission-fluid.5587/page-3
I found another 9th Civic member (search mikey6P) posting this last October:
I ran amsoil exclusively for about 60k miles (honda mtf -> amsoil->amsoil) at about 20k intervals. Tranmission got progressively louder over time. Rebuilt at 80k and EVERY bearing in the transmission was toast. Done. On the verge of falling apart. There was abnormally high amounts of metal "sludge" in the case. No other parts (synchros, gears) showed abnormal wear. My theory and the mechanics theory was that the amsoil can not protect as well as Honda MTF.
Caveat Emptor, Amsoil may not be your best bet.
I ran amsoil exclusively for about 60k miles (honda mtf -> amsoil->amsoil) at about 20k intervals. Tranmission got progressively louder over time. Rebuilt at 80k and EVERY bearing in the transmission was toast. Done. On the verge of falling apart. There was abnormally high amounts of metal "sludge" in the case. No other parts (synchros, gears) showed abnormal wear. My theory and the mechanics theory was that the amsoil can not protect as well as Honda MTF.
Caveat Emptor, Amsoil may not be your best bet.
Originally Posted By: reynoldsequation
Oxidation is caused by heat, nothing else. The initial oxidation (in the bottle) is therefore zero (0).. and a reading of 43 is high given only 4000 miles on the lube.
Not at all correct when interpreting the oxidation number on a UOA. Oxidation of an organic fluid is never zero. And a fluid containing Esters and PAO's can start at 40-50-60.
Oxidation is caused by heat, nothing else. The initial oxidation (in the bottle) is therefore zero (0).. and a reading of 43 is high given only 4000 miles on the lube.
Not at all correct when interpreting the oxidation number on a UOA. Oxidation of an organic fluid is never zero. And a fluid containing Esters and PAO's can start at 40-50-60.
Does your transmission have a oil pump or scavange pump?
Originally Posted By: reynoldsequation
Oxidation is caused by heat, nothing else. The initial oxidation (in the bottle) is therefore zero (0).. and a reading of 43 is high given only 4000 miles on the lube.
Yeah....no. Base oil composition drives the virgin oxidation values. Fluids containing esters will not have a virgin oxidation number of 0.
Oxidation is caused by heat, nothing else. The initial oxidation (in the bottle) is therefore zero (0).. and a reading of 43 is high given only 4000 miles on the lube.
Yeah....no. Base oil composition drives the virgin oxidation values. Fluids containing esters will not have a virgin oxidation number of 0.
Been running the Amsoil in my 2000 HX for a few months. Bought car at ~142k (assuming gear fluid never changed), poured in Pennz Synchromesh, then went to Amsoil around ~158k ? Amsoil has improved shifting. I can't imagine there being any wear differences between the fluids I've used.
I also imagine that the guys on 'civic' boards might think they own race cars and drive a bit differently than I do.
I also imagine that the guys on 'civic' boards might think they own race cars and drive a bit differently than I do.
Originally Posted By: reynoldsequation
For now, do you (iluvhonda) have any info on the 'troubled' history of this particular transmission? Appreciate it... thx.
P.S. You see, besides a possible fluid issue, there's the possibility of structural issues within the tranny itself.
Just research. About a couple years ago there was a news broadcast about a group of angry Civic Si owners trying to recall their faulty transmissions because of a grinding issue. My father (61 y/o) owns a 2007 Si and had the recall work done. Which was replace the syncro for third gear? Still a so-so manual transmission. Drive it easy, gonna be notchy, drive it hard gives you no problems. Has only used HG MTF. Havn't changed it in 50k miles probably.
Also agree with the guy above me. The car was prob ragged on all day everyday.
For now, do you (iluvhonda) have any info on the 'troubled' history of this particular transmission? Appreciate it... thx.
P.S. You see, besides a possible fluid issue, there's the possibility of structural issues within the tranny itself.
Just research. About a couple years ago there was a news broadcast about a group of angry Civic Si owners trying to recall their faulty transmissions because of a grinding issue. My father (61 y/o) owns a 2007 Si and had the recall work done. Which was replace the syncro for third gear? Still a so-so manual transmission. Drive it easy, gonna be notchy, drive it hard gives you no problems. Has only used HG MTF. Havn't changed it in 50k miles probably.
Also agree with the guy above me. The car was prob ragged on all day everyday.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: reynoldsequation
Oxidation is caused by heat, nothing else. The initial oxidation (in the bottle) is therefore zero (0).. and a reading of 43 is high given only 4000 miles on the lube.
Yeah....no. Base oil composition drives the virgin oxidation values. Fluids containing esters will not have a virgin oxidation number of 0.
Correct. AMSOIL MTF has a baseline of 37 absorption units right out of the bottle. It really didn't change when you consider the residual fluid in the transmission.
So we have a misinterpreted single UOA, a picture of a magnet with ferrous debris and a claim.
OP - what is Amsoil telling you?
I would absolutely love to see a UOA of the used initial Honda factory fluid at any mileage. That would be telling. Not so much after the Amsoil fluid, unless you switched again to the Amsoil MTF.
Originally Posted By: reynoldsequation
Oxidation is caused by heat, nothing else. The initial oxidation (in the bottle) is therefore zero (0).. and a reading of 43 is high given only 4000 miles on the lube.
Yeah....no. Base oil composition drives the virgin oxidation values. Fluids containing esters will not have a virgin oxidation number of 0.
Correct. AMSOIL MTF has a baseline of 37 absorption units right out of the bottle. It really didn't change when you consider the residual fluid in the transmission.
So we have a misinterpreted single UOA, a picture of a magnet with ferrous debris and a claim.
OP - what is Amsoil telling you?
I would absolutely love to see a UOA of the used initial Honda factory fluid at any mileage. That would be telling. Not so much after the Amsoil fluid, unless you switched again to the Amsoil MTF.
I've read that a lot of Honda owners put in the GM Synchromesh fluid into their manual transmissions.
Well, Pablo, there appears to be nobody yet interested in this issue except you, and based on your acerbic language I take it you've made up your mind even before the discussion gets interesting.
Like you, I'm an Amsoil dealer myself and spent a week with Amsoil's chief chemist Troy Paquette (and Aj's son, Alan) during our week of Industrial training in Superior back in the late 90's) Don't bother asking about Troy or what he thinks... he jumped ship long time ago. Jumped ship may not be the right term... i don't know; he could have been let go.
But I intend on pursuing this perplexing situation with Blackstone and Honda directly, just in case this excess wear issue is Amsoil related and not Honda's manufacturing problem covered under warranty.
There will be considerable discussion at 9thCivic so feel free to join us down there. Do be aware, though, we practice good manners over there. As a rule we try to gather evidence carefully before jumping on people.
As you can see, I began this discourse with a literal question mark specifically to Honda owners -- having no evidence of a problem elsewhere. Until I see concrete evidence elsewhere that's still my opinion. This shouldn't involve Amsoil. Innocent until proven guilty, you know... it's still America after all.
A few last notes: I find Oil Analyzers too close to Mother Ship Amsoil for a completely unbiased opinion. Not that I have any evidence of bias, no. It's just that I remember when they put up the first Oil Analyzers (Amsoil funded) building right next to Amsoil.
By the way, they had no answers for me. They couldn't explain the oxidation anomoly (the MTF baseline is 50 so i'm told) and my reading is 43... which makes no sense at all, to either me or my customer service rep. Naturally, given the introduction of heat there must have been at least Some oxidation, yet a negative reading was recorded. That's beyond my pay grade for sure.
As you can see from the UOA they recommended a Ferrogram. When I agreed to a Ferrogram they said they had already disposed of the sample.
That's it from the cheap seats. If anybody would like to follow this discussion look us up over at 9thCivic.
Again, my seat of the pants recommendation is for all Honda MTF users to conduct UOA and/or switch to OEM until the dust settles. But ultimately it's up to you and your good judgement.
Like you, I'm an Amsoil dealer myself and spent a week with Amsoil's chief chemist Troy Paquette (and Aj's son, Alan) during our week of Industrial training in Superior back in the late 90's) Don't bother asking about Troy or what he thinks... he jumped ship long time ago. Jumped ship may not be the right term... i don't know; he could have been let go.
But I intend on pursuing this perplexing situation with Blackstone and Honda directly, just in case this excess wear issue is Amsoil related and not Honda's manufacturing problem covered under warranty.
There will be considerable discussion at 9thCivic so feel free to join us down there. Do be aware, though, we practice good manners over there. As a rule we try to gather evidence carefully before jumping on people.
As you can see, I began this discourse with a literal question mark specifically to Honda owners -- having no evidence of a problem elsewhere. Until I see concrete evidence elsewhere that's still my opinion. This shouldn't involve Amsoil. Innocent until proven guilty, you know... it's still America after all.
A few last notes: I find Oil Analyzers too close to Mother Ship Amsoil for a completely unbiased opinion. Not that I have any evidence of bias, no. It's just that I remember when they put up the first Oil Analyzers (Amsoil funded) building right next to Amsoil.
By the way, they had no answers for me. They couldn't explain the oxidation anomoly (the MTF baseline is 50 so i'm told) and my reading is 43... which makes no sense at all, to either me or my customer service rep. Naturally, given the introduction of heat there must have been at least Some oxidation, yet a negative reading was recorded. That's beyond my pay grade for sure.
As you can see from the UOA they recommended a Ferrogram. When I agreed to a Ferrogram they said they had already disposed of the sample.
That's it from the cheap seats. If anybody would like to follow this discussion look us up over at 9thCivic.
Again, my seat of the pants recommendation is for all Honda MTF users to conduct UOA and/or switch to OEM until the dust settles. But ultimately it's up to you and your good judgement.
There is no doubt about it. The oxidation baseline is 37 for MTF. Your UOA is 43. The viscosity is nearly at the baseline of unused MTF (9.7 cSt at 100°C) and dropped just a tad. To say the oil is not holding up due to heat or to say "is 50 so i'm told" is just not correct. These two parameters where changed just slightly by mixing with the OEM fluid.
The level of calcium is 213 ppm, and the aluminum is 86 ppm in the report. AMSOIL MTF does not contain this amount of calcium. In fact, AMSOIL MTF is formulated with a baseline of 38 ppm of calcium, to which his level of 213 ppm is nearly six times the amount that is in our formulation. It’s clear that residual OEM fluid remained in his transmission by proof of the elevated calcium. In the end, these results show no deficiencies with the AMSOIL MTF, or does a single UOA show how it is performing. As the vehicle progresses and accumulates miles, the wear metals will subside with the next change - even if you change to a different fluid or use MTF.
The level of calcium is 213 ppm, and the aluminum is 86 ppm in the report. AMSOIL MTF does not contain this amount of calcium. In fact, AMSOIL MTF is formulated with a baseline of 38 ppm of calcium, to which his level of 213 ppm is nearly six times the amount that is in our formulation. It’s clear that residual OEM fluid remained in his transmission by proof of the elevated calcium. In the end, these results show no deficiencies with the AMSOIL MTF, or does a single UOA show how it is performing. As the vehicle progresses and accumulates miles, the wear metals will subside with the next change - even if you change to a different fluid or use MTF.
Originally Posted By: reynoldsequation
At least a few of us (at 9thcivic.com) have recently noticed very questionable results from using Amsoil MTF in our manual transmissions. In my case the wear metals are sky high, borderline critical. All cars are within a year old. I tested mine because somebody claims to have lost a tranny at 80,000 miles to Amsoil MTF. As a former Amsoil salesman for their industrial lubricants division, that got me and others thinking.
If there is interest, will post results and pics. But in general be very cautious about using Amsoil MTF in high heat applications. In my case oxidation was surprisingly high (43) while Aluminum (86) was also quite high for only 4000 lubricant miles. Normal OEM fluid replacement is 30,000 miles.
The visual results (of used Amsoil MTF) were also shocking, with all samples looking like black diesel oil. (Remember, MTF is free of combustion related contaminants)
More to follow. For now, recommend immediate replacement to OEM or equivalent.
It's more than just you having this issue with the Amsoil fluid. I wonder if the results would improve if all of you changed back to the OEM fluid? That would be a simple and effective test to determine if the fluid in question is the problem.
At least a few of us (at 9thcivic.com) have recently noticed very questionable results from using Amsoil MTF in our manual transmissions. In my case the wear metals are sky high, borderline critical. All cars are within a year old. I tested mine because somebody claims to have lost a tranny at 80,000 miles to Amsoil MTF. As a former Amsoil salesman for their industrial lubricants division, that got me and others thinking.
If there is interest, will post results and pics. But in general be very cautious about using Amsoil MTF in high heat applications. In my case oxidation was surprisingly high (43) while Aluminum (86) was also quite high for only 4000 lubricant miles. Normal OEM fluid replacement is 30,000 miles.
The visual results (of used Amsoil MTF) were also shocking, with all samples looking like black diesel oil. (Remember, MTF is free of combustion related contaminants)
More to follow. For now, recommend immediate replacement to OEM or equivalent.
It's more than just you having this issue with the Amsoil fluid. I wonder if the results would improve if all of you changed back to the OEM fluid? That would be a simple and effective test to determine if the fluid in question is the problem.
Same here. Anybody can post anything they want, claiming any sort of "failure" or whatever. Nice that the poster came here 10 posts ago to warn us all of impending doom. Thanks!
The story can be quite gruesome and convincing that "X" oil ruined my transmission, right up until it gets out that he thought the transmission held 1 quart instead of two.
A former Amsoil rep? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. And I always get suspicious when I hear "former". He states a bunch of stuff categorically as true, yet Pablo shows different. Hmm, shouldn't a former Amsoil rep know these things?
Originally Posted By: Artem
I call baloney on the OPs story, respectfully, of course.
The story can be quite gruesome and convincing that "X" oil ruined my transmission, right up until it gets out that he thought the transmission held 1 quart instead of two.
A former Amsoil rep? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. And I always get suspicious when I hear "former". He states a bunch of stuff categorically as true, yet Pablo shows different. Hmm, shouldn't a former Amsoil rep know these things?
Originally Posted By: Artem
I call baloney on the OPs story, respectfully, of course.
The explanation of 50 to 43 for the oxidation is quite simple and anyone familiar with a UOA process knows the answer immediately. It is called margin of error. These tests are not 100% repeatable. 43 and 50 are close enough to fall well within the margin of error in and of itself.
Lets just assume that 50 is the proper virgin number is accurate and the 43 is also 100% accurate, considering the dramatic increase in calcium and other elements, there was quite a bit of non-amsoil fluid in the transmission. This fluid will likely bring the oxidation number down a bit since it contains no esters.
This is all true if you want to assume your UOA is 100% accurate, which it is not.
Lets just assume that 50 is the proper virgin number is accurate and the 43 is also 100% accurate, considering the dramatic increase in calcium and other elements, there was quite a bit of non-amsoil fluid in the transmission. This fluid will likely bring the oxidation number down a bit since it contains no esters.
This is all true if you want to assume your UOA is 100% accurate, which it is not.
"Honda Owners Beware" is a highly inflammatory title for what turns out to be an argument that connects a lot of very widely spaced dots. Looks to me like you went off half-cocked with what you thought was a scoop. You were rightly challenged on your command of the facts and got some mild rebukes for coming on too strong.
You (and we) would have been better served if you'd uses the title, "Anomalous Amsoil MTF UOA Results," presented the facts and waited for what opinions and data came along. As it was it came across as a "hit piece," whether you like to see it that way or not.
You (and we) would have been better served if you'd uses the title, "Anomalous Amsoil MTF UOA Results," presented the facts and waited for what opinions and data came along. As it was it came across as a "hit piece," whether you like to see it that way or not.
Last edited:
So what 'data' do we actually have?
One anecdotal story of a failed trans. Perhaps a few UOAs - but how many show trending over multiple UOAs on a single trans?
Such a big jump to this conclusion would surely require a pole vault.
One anecdotal story of a failed trans. Perhaps a few UOAs - but how many show trending over multiple UOAs on a single trans?
Such a big jump to this conclusion would surely require a pole vault.
Right.
Originally Posted By: reynoldsequation
There will be considerable discussion at 9thCivic so feel free to join us down there. Do be aware, though, we practice good manners over there. As a rule we try to gather evidence carefully before jumping on people.
Originally Posted By: reynoldsequation
There will be considerable discussion at 9thCivic so feel free to join us down there. Do be aware, though, we practice good manners over there. As a rule we try to gather evidence carefully before jumping on people.
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
Absolutely... I will post any and all information. Let me run through the rest of these responses and I will post both my UOA (from Oil Analyzers) and a couple revealing pics.
Yes, would still love to see your data.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
There is no doubt about it. The oxidation baseline is 37 for MTF. Your UOA is 43. The viscosity is nearly at the baseline of unused MTF (9.7 cSt at 100°C) and dropped just a tad. To say the oil is not holding up due to heat or to say "is 50 so i'm told" is just not correct. These two parameters where changed just slightly by mixing with the OEM fluid.
The level of calcium is 213 ppm, and the aluminum is 86 ppm in the report. AMSOIL MTF does not contain this amount of calcium. In fact, AMSOIL MTF is formulated with a baseline of 38 ppm of calcium, to which his level of 213 ppm is nearly six times the amount that is in our formulation. It’s clear that residual OEM fluid remained in his transmission by proof of the elevated calcium. In the end, these results show no deficiencies with the AMSOIL MTF, or does a single UOA show how it is performing. As the vehicle progresses and accumulates miles, the wear metals will subside with the next change - even if you change to a different fluid or use MTF.
Sounds to me like someone in the civic bunch was playing with their home chemistry sets.
Absolutely... I will post any and all information. Let me run through the rest of these responses and I will post both my UOA (from Oil Analyzers) and a couple revealing pics.
Yes, would still love to see your data.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
There is no doubt about it. The oxidation baseline is 37 for MTF. Your UOA is 43. The viscosity is nearly at the baseline of unused MTF (9.7 cSt at 100°C) and dropped just a tad. To say the oil is not holding up due to heat or to say "is 50 so i'm told" is just not correct. These two parameters where changed just slightly by mixing with the OEM fluid.
The level of calcium is 213 ppm, and the aluminum is 86 ppm in the report. AMSOIL MTF does not contain this amount of calcium. In fact, AMSOIL MTF is formulated with a baseline of 38 ppm of calcium, to which his level of 213 ppm is nearly six times the amount that is in our formulation. It’s clear that residual OEM fluid remained in his transmission by proof of the elevated calcium. In the end, these results show no deficiencies with the AMSOIL MTF, or does a single UOA show how it is performing. As the vehicle progresses and accumulates miles, the wear metals will subside with the next change - even if you change to a different fluid or use MTF.
Sounds to me like someone in the civic bunch was playing with their home chemistry sets.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked