Amsoil - (Pablo?) A Recommendation Concern

[dafish]

Here is an email I've sent to Amsoil. Who knows what quality of response I'll get. Anybody here go an opinion?


Originally Posted by Questions sent to Amsoil From dafish
Amsoil Technical Support:

I'm hoping for clarity regarding Amsoil's product recommendation for transmission/transaxle fluid for a 2018 Polaris Rzr turbo. The Polaris oil recommended is Polaris AGL. The confusion about Amsoil's recommendation comes for the following conflicts:

• Historically Amsoil recommended your Synthetic Chaincase & Gear Oil for this application, although at times Amsoil has also recommended its synthetic tractor hydraulic fluid as well as an AGL alternative. In the last few years, really since Amsoil created a specific AT/UTV product line, Amsoil has specified your Synthetic ATV/UTV Differential and Transmission Fluid.

Amsoil's Synthetic ATV/UTV Differential and Transmission Fluid is reputed to be a high quality synthetic 75W90 weight oil, but none the less a 75W base viscosity oil.

• Polaris AGL has been independently tested and shown to be essentially a 5w-20 motor oil, or perhaps an ATF. It's certainly not a 75w gear oil. (which could be as low as 10W on the J300 sales, or as high as 20W).

• The Polaris transmission includes upper bearings that require excellent "splash" lubrication and "Climbing" characteristics sometimes associated with lighter oils. It also includes a chain drive component. Heavier gear oils, like 75W90, are often discouraged in such circumstances due to concerns of chain stretch induced by the heavier viscosity.

o Note the original Amsoil recommendations not only conflict with todays, but don't include the above concerns.
o The factory Polaris warranty is quite short, and Amsoil's support of same doesn't really offset the concern of longer term use.



Questions:

1) What is the actual gear weight rating (ie 75w90, etc..) of Amsoil's Synthetic ATV/UTV Differential and Transmission Fluid?

2) Would you ask someone, possible with a product engineering background, to speak to the apparent 75W weight oil recommendation concerns of chain stretch and reduced splash, and inconsistency with Polaris's own AGL viscosity?

3) Does Amsoil make an ATF that is GL-4 rated?

Let me be clear: This isn't a challenge to the quality of Amsoil products. I've immense respect for Amsoil. While I hope I've shown there is superficial room to question this particular product recommendation, I'm confident Amsoil has an excellent response available.

My thanks,

 

[Pablo]

Please post their response. I am curious as well.

Interestingly Amsoil product AUF corresponds closer to the AGL (~9 cSt @100°C). Maybe Amsoil Tech thinks the rear gears need an ~15 cSt fluid.

I actually don't buy into a lighter 75W-90 synthetic gear oil not protecting chains. I think there is a lot of anecdotal info being tossed around.

 

[MolaKule]

Here is some info summarized from the Amsoil Data Bulletins (PI's, PDS's):

Synthetic Chaincase and Gear OIl (Product Code TCC)

100C Viscosity 10.3.cSt
40C Viscosity 68.6 cSt
Vi 136
The viscosity would be commensurate with a 5W30 Engine Oil or a 75W80 SAE Gear Oil.


Synthetic Tractor Hydraulic/Transmission Oil (Product Code ATH)

100C Viscosity 10.1.cSt
40C Viscosity 55.4 cSt
Vi 171
The viscosity would be commensurate with a 5W30 Engine Oil or a 75W80 SAE Gear Oil.


Synthetic ATV/UTV Transmission & Differential Fluid (Product Code AUDT)

100C Viscosity 15.6.cSt
40C Viscosity 120.4 cSt
Vi 136
The viscosity would be commensurate with a 15W40 Engine Oil or a 75W90 SAE Gear Oil.

When I say "commensurate" I mean similar viscosities but not necessarily the same Anti-Wear chemistry.



Some comments and Questions:

Quote
Polaris AGL has been independently tested and shown to be essentially a 5w-20 motor oil, or perhaps an ATF. It's certainly not a 75w gear oil. (which could be as low as 10W on the J300 sales, or as high as 20W).


What has the testing or analysis shown in terms of viscosity and Anti-Wear properties? This independent analysis would be very useful.


Quote
• The Polaris transmission includes upper bearings that require excellent "splash" lubrication and "Climbing" characteristics sometimes associated with lighter oils. It also includes a chain drive component. Heavier gear oils, like 75W90, are often discouraged in such circumstances due to concerns of chain stretch induced by the heavier viscosity.


I have never heard of chain stretch caused by a higher viscosity oil within certain limits.

Chain stretch can be caused by two primary wear factors in the pin, roller, and bushings of a chain: 1) too low a base oil film thickness at high temps, 2) not enough anti-wear chemistry..

I would not recommend an ATF since it has a viscosity of about 7.2 cSt. If you think the oil is commensurate with a 5W20, then perhaps a 5W20 synthetic engine oil would be appropriate.

But again, this independent analysis you speak of would be very useful in determining which fluid would provide the protection and performance needed.

 

[Pablo]

Thanks Mola.

The other Amsoil fluid in play is AUFD

Synthetic ATV/UTV Front Drive Fluid (Product Code AUFD)

100C Viscosity 9.3.cSt
40C Viscosity 49 cSt
Vi 175
The viscosity would be commensurate with a light 5W-30 (or heavy 5W-20!) Engine Oil or a 75W80 SAE Gear Oil.

 

[MolaKule]

yep, this looks to be a viable alternative to the front drive RZR fluid:

Polaris RZR replacement


Quote
APPLICATIONS
Recommended for use in Polaris® Ranger®, RZR® and Sportsman® front differentials and hubs calling for Polaris Demand Drive® Fluid. Do not use in applications requiring API GL-5 fluid.


However the OP did say:
Quote
I'm hoping for clarity regarding Amsoil's product recommendation for transmission/transaxle fluid for a 2018 Polaris Rzr turbo.


Are there other Drive-line components that need other fluids or greases?

Polaris Driveline Components

 

[dafish]

Gentlemen, thank you both for your help and thoughtful replies. I'll answer each of you in a moment, but wanted to take this port to simply thank you.

-d

 

[dafish]

Originally Posted by Pablo
Please post their response. I am curious as well.


"The Synthetic ATV/UTV Transmission & Differential Fluid Is a 75W90. As far as the 75w that is a winter rating. So it is how well it flows at -20."

That's the entire response! I called and talked to a tech who would only insist their testing showed it was the correct alternative. Sadly, it seems I'm not going to get a quality answer from Amsoil. Shame too. Redline was fantastic, and I certainly believe Amsoil is capable of a quality discussion. I suppose their lax response is an indictment of help desks in general, not just Amsoil, but still Redline was excellent, so...

Originally Posted by Pablo
Interestingly Amsoil product AUF corresponds closer to the AGL (~9 cSt @100°C). Maybe Amsoil Tech thinks the rear gears need an ~15 cSt fluid.


Exactly my point. They are clearly using a different viscosity. There will be implications. Perhaps good, perhaps not. Amsoil really should have addressed their reasoning.

Originally Posted by Pablo
I actually don't buy into a lighter 75W-90 synthetic gear oil not protecting chains. I think there is a lot of anecdotal info being tossed around.


You may be right. Or not. I've no hard data here at all. At the very least you're correct it's acecdotal. Valid? I just don't know.

Do you have any technical resource within Amsoil that might be willing to give us a quality answer?

My thanks for your efforts!

-d

 

[dafish]

Mola:

Thank you for your help. I'm up to speed on the front "Demand Drive" alternatives, so am going to respectfully skip by that aspect. I do find it interesting Amsoil created an alternative solution for it that isn't standards based when they had previously specified their universal tractor hydraulic fluid. That was, as it happens, certified as being a Deere J-20D compatible (what Hilliard, the OEM mfg of the front diff calls for). But whatever.

BTW, I've been reading BITOG since Bob was actively involved. It's been an amazing resource, and it continues to be. My sincere thanks for your part in keeping that tradition alive and well.

So, back to Polaris AGL, their transmission/transaxle lubricant:

Yes, their TCC product is clearly lower weight than their AUDT. Only a few years ago Amsoil was specifying TCC, so they have certainly changed their position. As to what the weight of AGL is/was, please wait a moment. I'll finish this post and change to my ipad where I have the AGL VOA link saved.

It's important to note I'm not saying Amsoil is incorrect in using a heavier weight anymore that I am saying Polaris is incorrect in using a lighter one. Amsoil appears to have changed their recommendation and done so without acknowledgment or comment. That lack of transparency and support of the change does however, undermine credibility.

Here is the VOA link I'd referred to. By and large a 5w-20 engine oil, although I do appreciate a VOA isn't fully definitive.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4457891


Thanks!

-d

 

[dafish]

Pablo:

Re: Anecdotal evidence: It's at the very least a widely held opinion. Note Panzerman's comments at the bottom of page 1 of this thread:

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/5265125/1

Is that extent of personal experience still only anecdotal?

Please allow me to share this:

Polaris has two different transmission strategies. Some are straight transmissions with a separate rear differential. All (i believe) of their ATV's do this, as do their UTV's of 800cc and below. The 1000cc UTV's and related (turbo, etc) all use an integrated tranny /rear diff. A transaxle if you will.

It seems odd to me they both use AGL. Unless Polaris has reformulated their AGL.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted by dafish
Mola:...Yes, their TCC product is clearly lower weight than their AUDT. Only a few years ago Amsoil was specifying TCC, so they have certainly changed their position. As to what the weight of AGL is/was, please wait a moment. I'll finish this post and change to my ipad where I have the AGL VOA link saved.

It's important to note I'm not saying Amsoil is incorrect in using a heavier weight anymore that I am saying Polaris is incorrect in using a lighter one. Amsoil appears to have changed their recommendation and done so without acknowledgment or comment. That lack of transparency and support of the change does however, undermine credibility.

Here is the VOA link I'd referred to. By and large a 5w-20 engine oil, although I do appreciate a VOA isn't fully definitive.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4457891

Thanks!
-d


I have to agree with Royal Purple's response from the above link:

Originally Posted by Post#3377272
...Polaris, though makers of excellent ATVs and UTVs, provides ambiguous and occasionally changing fluid recommendations for their vehicles. Our recommendations are based on what we could determine based on the scant information available on the Polaris lubricants, and field use by many of our customers. If warranty compliance is a concern for you on your 2014 Polaris Ranger 570 we recommended sticking to the OE AGL Synthetic Gearcase Lubricant...


Amsoil and other companies are always attempting to catch up with changing lube formulations. And it is for sure a fact that Polaris does not blend their own lubricants. They may specify the lubricant properties, but contract with a blender to produce that lubricant.

From the analysis in the above link, it does appear the Amsoil

Originally Posted by Pablo
Synthetic ATV/UTV Front Drive Fluid (Product Code AUFD)

100C Viscosity 9.3.cSt
40C Viscosity 49 cSt
Vi 175
The viscosity would be commensurate with a light 5W-30 (or heavy 5W-20!) Engine Oil or a 75W80 SAE Gear Oil.


is the closest formulation to the Polaris AGL with respect to the older analysis from the above link.

We cannot assume that it is simply a modified 5W20/30 engine oil. Blenders (or their consultants) do an extensive analysis on these products in an attempt to get as close to the original formulae as is possible.

 

[Pablo]

I assume Amsoil is being logical and calling for the AUDT where required. I see no evidence of this being specifically a wrong or harmful application. The basic allegation in this thread is that AUDT is too viscous across the temperate range to protect a/the chain. Can we some direct evidence AUDT would be insufficient?

 

[dafish]

Pablo, kind sir, we do know they aren't using manufacturer specified viscosity's right? And we know Amsoil changed their recommendation to a thicker oil somewhere around 2015. Is it not on them to explain why they changed? Granted they would not be alone in the "my oil is better" claim, but Amsoil at least once had a reputation for backing their words with facts. Granted in this case it's just been obfuscation, but the Amsoil of old would have been transparent and informative.

As to supporting the concern, was Panzermans experience not adequate? And this next thread calls into question lubricity concerns in some other transmissions. Surely you would agree it makes sense to question what options we as owners have to better lubricate the transmission. Is Amsoils oil actually better than stock AGL? It might very well be. I've done everything I can to solicit a quality statement. Including engaging you. Not that I've seen an informative Amsoil response as a result. Unless you think the response I shared w/you was quality answer, and I'd don't expect you'd think that.

https://www.rzrforums.net/rzr-xp-4-turbo/547566-help-broken-transmission.html

 

[dafish]

All:

I'm going to take a somewhat informed but largely uneducated stab at this:

At this moment I'm inclined to suspect the industry is not well served by Polaris trying to stretch AGL's applicability across two reasonably different transmission families.

Tranny Type 1: Similar to Panzermans, and everything 800cc and below (I believe). The differential is separate from the tranny and that transmission uses a chain drive. While not conclusive, there is recurring anectotal evidence that these chain drives are affected negatively by thicker oils. More importantly, they also don't need a GL-5 oil, for they don't have a final drive.

Guess: This transmission is well served by a GL-4 manual transmission fluid of lighter viscosity. It has no need of a friction modifer as it has no synchrous, but so what? It's a simply enough unit. Polaris may well be using engine oil, ATF, or darn near anything. Personally I'd use light syntheitc GL-4 rated MT luid (as would Redline) and I'd call it a day.

Tranny Type 2: Like mine, an integrated transmission and differential in one unit. A transaxle. And this transmission has no chain at all.

Guess: Here it gets more complicated. I can appreciate a GL-5 oil would better support the rear differential, but the oil analysis from Blackstone shows Polaris made no such change. At this moment I'm concerned AGL is inadequate, (warranty is so short it won't affect Polaris), but can't find any engineering support of what direction to change or why.

Open: Is Tranny type 2 why Amsoil went to a 75/W90 weight oil in the transmission? If so, what about the tranny type 1 folks above? Shouldn't they still use the "old" Amsoil recommendation? Cause Amsoil made a blanket claim that 75W90 was the one and correct oil for all UTV transmissions.

And what of the upper bearing we're seeing reports of chronic failures on in the type 2's? (link in previous post) You'd sorta think a thicker oil might be the wrong direction for potentially oil starved bearings, but here I'm guessing . I do think this is yet another place Amsoil could have reported their solution was addressing, had they engaged, and had they called out this new transmission type as the reason for their change things would be different. But their techs have denied there's even been a change. Which is obviously untrue, so what is one to do with that?


Is there a better oil? Perhaps. I don't know, and I probably won't. But I'll keep reading Mola's threads. He's certainly plenty of informative posts to study.

My respects to all,

-d

 

[dafish]

Mola:

Apologies for the following simplelon question!

As regards oil getting, "climbing" is a term I've heard used" to higher bearings in a splash (non pressurized) lubrication system, what are they things I should be looking for? Does a lower viscosity help "splash", or does maybe a higher viscosity help "cling"? Is there any kind of generalization that can be made?

My thanks!

-d

 

[MolaKule]

Lubricants designed for transmissions, transaxles and other gear boxes that have a wet sump have both surfactants and tackifiers, regardless of the viscosity.

The surfactants assist in wetting all parts and the tackifiers assist in the cling.

The gears in wet sump gear boxes lifts the oil and may also sling the oil around the enclosure so the lubricant migrates around and on the machine parts, including the bearings.

 

[dafish]

Originally Posted by MolaKule
Lubricants designed for transmissions, transaxles and other gear boxes that have a wet sump have both surfactants and tackifiers, regardless of the viscosity.

The surfactants assist in wetting all parts and the tackifiers assist in the cling.

The gears in wet sump gear boxes lifts the oil and may also sling the oil around the enclosure so the lubricant migrates around and on the machine parts, including the bearings.


Great! Thanks!

So can I assume that as a generalization:

A hyraulic fluid with have no tackifiers or wetting agents.
A motor oil will have little to no tackifiers
An ATF may have some, but not lots
A MTF should have strong tackifier package
A gear oil would have ___ (Mola??_


Do you happen to have a current link to reading or a post showing lower viscosity MTF's? Something in the 9-10Cst range?


Iowa huh? I'm was born in council bluffs and spent 15 years in the QC...


Thanks!

-d

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted by dafish


So can I assume that as a generalization:

A hyraulic fluid with have no tackifiers or wetting agents.




We're discussing gear oils.


Originally Posted by dafish
A motor oil will have little to no tackifiers


We're discussing gear oils. Not needed since an IC engine has a pressurized lubrication system.


Originally Posted by dafish
An ATF may have some, but not lots


Not needed since an automatic transmission has a pressurized lubrication system.


Originally Posted by dafish
A MTF should have strong tackifier package


No, the amount is determined by gearing and bearing placement.

Originally Posted by dafish
A gear oil would have ___


A gear oil, way oil, or chainsaw chain and bar oil would have a greater amount of tackifier.


Originally Posted by dafish
Do you happen to have a current link to reading or a post showing lower viscosity MTF's? Something in the 9-10Cst range?


What are you asking for isn't clear.

 

[dafish]

I know, and I'm not as confused as it sounds. (Well, maybe). This forum is quite unique. The level of misunderstanding in other powersports forums can be ghastly. I was attempting to point out another typical add pack difference, in general, between the types of oils.

We've done what can be done, and Amsoil has had more than adequate opportunity to chime in. It's time to draw this thread to closure, I will add this:

I've read posts referring to an Amsoil document defending use of their chain case lube as a replacement for AGL, and stating 75w/90 was too thick. There is also a Youtube video of a guy reading that document and presenting himself as an Amsoil dealer. Now, without explanation, they have flip flopped. The user community is left no explanations, or perhaps "can you prove this oil doesn't work", which is simple obfuscation. The Amsoil of old would never have done either.

However, It seems likely a Gl-4 rated MTL will do well in what I called the "type 1" transmission above, and Redlines 75w/85 Gl-5 rated gear oil should do well in the "type 2" transaxle, and so progress for AGL users looking for alternatives has been made.

My sincere thanks!

 

[MolaKule]

Some suggestions:

If your concerns are with Amsoil specifically (which it seems to be), write them a letter laying out exactly what questions you would like to have answered. Keep the letter framed to a specific transaxle. [This applies to any other company as well].

Send them an exploded view of your specific transaxle (see my link above) and frame your question in terms of, "design vs. lubricant " requirements.

I.e, don't go off the path with generalizations or comments not related to your specific transaxle design.

Stated another way, specificity is your friend.

So with that we will close this thread.