Just curious if GM Synchromesh would protect a 5 speed manual transmission better than the stock recommended ATF+4 fluid. the ATF+4 has low levels of AW's and thinner viscosity but is synthetic. The GM synchromesh fluid has more viscosity and likely more AW's, but is semi-synthetic from what I've read. Any ideas on this comparison ?. Ive used the GM Synchromesh fluid in my transmission and it shifts pretty well, just curious about wear factors ?
Does GM Synchromesh Offer Better Wear Protection than an ATF+4 Fluid ?
- Thread starter Idrinkmotoroil
- Start date
- Status
Since the movement to ATF in manuals was mainly for MPG and not transmission longevity, I'd guess that the thicker fluid will do better.
I don't think that ATF4 basestock(especially when truly unknown) will make up for the AW/EP/Viscosity of synchromesh.
Use the synchromesh, do your transmission a favor, and thumb your nose at the enviroweenies!
I don't think that ATF4 basestock(especially when truly unknown) will make up for the AW/EP/Viscosity of synchromesh.
Use the synchromesh, do your transmission a favor, and thumb your nose at the enviroweenies!
MolaKule
Staff member
The ATF+4, GM Sychromesh, Pennzoil Synchromesh, and the Texaco synchromesh are partial synthetics at best.
The synchromeshes have AW AND EP additives whereas the ATF's have only AW additives.
Our MT fluids are all synthetic with AW and EP additives.
What trans are we talking about here?
It is a NV T-850, used in a 2004 Dodge SRT-4, fwd with quaife lsd. The car makes 260 hp at the wheels and 277 ft lbs torque at the wheels.
- Status
