Does Redline kill trannies?

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

Originally posted by Terry:

Their products save weak components not damage them from the analysis I see.


One of that problems is that emerging symptoms of a problem are often what causes people to go to another lube or some magic elixor.

Transmision or other widget gets a just little bit noisy, or shifts a little bit stiffer, or ..... Then they try another lube or a magic elixor and the transmission fails, then they blame lube or magic elixor instead of whatever was happening that caused them to change lubes in the first place.

I'm not saying that is what happend in the Toyota transmissions, but it happens a lot.
 
quote:

Originally posted by gmttr1:
..... it is pretty much impossible for the individual owners to bring litigation and be in any meaningful position to support their hypothesis. The costs and engineering obstacles are pretty much insurmountable.

That’s why there is something called a class-action suit.
 
quote:

Originally posted by MolaKule:

So how is it Redline's fault if the formulation was not released? One can reverse engineer and get close, but never really duplicate the exact fluid.

It's certainly not the fault of any outfit that does not purport the fluid meets, exceeds, is usable when it calls for, or complies with "Standard A" if the consumer uses it in an application that calls for "Standard A".

If, however, an outfit reverse engineers a "Standard A" fluid, puts words like "meets", "exceeds", "recommended for", or "suitable for" "Standard A", and the consumer uses it in lieu of the properly certified fluid, and it damages the equipment, I'd use words like "fault", "liable", or others to that effect.
 
XS650, You hit the nail on the head. Let say a transmission is starting to shift with some slop. The person goes and gets the transmission drained and refilled with M1 Gear Lube. On the way home fromt he shop the transmission will not shift at all. SO the guy tells all of his friends "What ever you do do not put M1 Gear Lube in your transmissions as it will casue it to fail"!!! Now two days latter the shop calls him and tells him a $.68 roll pin failed. He is not likely to retract his statement. We all know that M1 Gear Lube had nothing to do with the roll pin shearing!

Now I am not claiming that this is the case in this situation at all. I am only makeing sure that we are all at least aware of this happening alot on the internet.

It has been my experince the Getrag,New Venture and ZF have have all had more then their share of unexpected transmission failures! I can remember when manual transmissions were almost problem free so long as fluid was chaged regularly. In the last 10 years I have seen manual transmission failures triple even though the number of manual transissions sold to non-fleet consumers has droped to an all time low.

AISIN makes the most durable OEM transmissions in my opion.

It is too easy to spot lubricant failure. Without access to the total number of failures and the lubricants used in each failure it is impossable to see the whole picture.

If the DU bushing explanation is accurate this is a design/material flaw. Any automotive design company that designs a part with seals or buschings that are that sensitive to the base stock used is neglignet!!

P.S. I ran Redline C+ in a Dodge transmission requireing ATF+4 and had no problems with it at all!! I have never had a fluid related failure with any brand of automotive lubricant from a major supplier or from a boutique blender.

[ September 24, 2004, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: JohnBrowning ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by gmttr1:
To me, Amsoil is just a much larger Redline. Still a botique company with the botique culture that goes with it. I have heard though that Amsoil is more conservative than at least Redline when it comes to recommending their products.

By far, the most responsible and dependable company in this regard is ExxonMobil.


Brand loyalty is something we see a lot on BITOG.

For me, I used to be a die hard, always the maintained it was the best, fight you over your opinion, Castrol user. It was Castrol or nothing.

Having been a member on this newsgroup has shown me, if nothing else, that none of these big corporations are our friends and that one can never just assume that a given product is top shelf simply because it came from a given company.


Example 1: I used to use GTX 5w30, but when I looked at the actual specs given to me from the company, I saw that the flashpoint was only 400 degrees. Too low for me and so it goes the way of all things.

Example 2: I somewhat question the validity of Syntec being called true synthetic. However, the fact that it has good specs and has consistently produced very good UOA's here tells me that it may be a good oil to use regardless.

From what I have read, the various companies we talk about here all produce products that may or may not be right for a given application and that one cannot simply assume that because it is GTX, M1, AMSOIL, Redline, Penzoil, etc., that it will be right. Ultimately, we discuss them with our peers and choose what it best for us, not what a potentially misguided brand loyalty may require.

I know, I know, shut up Bob....

Bob W.
 
Thanks for the feedback. I agree with Terry on some of the smaller compnies inovating new technologies (not to sound to much like a boot licker). The big companies really never market products for specofic applications. Just my opinion of course. mikeyoinutt
 
This is the same type arguement that guy made about his mechanic saying M1 causes certain Porche engines to blow up or something like that. Word gets passed around and the next thing you know is that everyone and their grandmother is saying the same **** thing.

However, while the big guys like XOM and other do have the $$/R&D to pay for testing and developing, the little guy's don't. But, 9 times out of 10 the smaller companies make an excellent product IMO. Sometimes severly over hyped, sometimes not.

I can see where it can be a bit sketchy at times with "meeting the specs." For instance, if your car calls for an A3 rated oil and you walk into Advanced Auto parts and look at RL, guess what, it doesn't say it on the bottle. So I'd think most people would pass on it and move to another brand. Thats just one example but you get the point.
 
quote:

Originally posted by mikeyoilnutt:
The big companies really never market products for specofic applications.

That explains Mobil 1 0w30 Racing Motor Oil, Mobil ATF 3309, and so on.

And where do these little companies buy base stocks?

If the big companies are so uninventive, these base stocks wouldn't exist.
 
quote:

If the big companies are so uninventive, these base stocks wouldn't exist.

The big kahuna's are inventive, although the big dog usually won't produce or release until little people like AJ Amatuzio starts digging into market share.


Case in point;
Chevron sitting on Hydrocracking technology for 18 years before producing lubricant bases for the automotive market is a good example. Group 1 was inferior but all the players allowed crap API approved and spec'ed oils to be the base oil of the masses until little folks started stealing market share with a superior lube product.

Key to consumer is to be informed and ignore brand , look for quality.

Why this board exists.
 
To me, Amsoil is just a much larger Redline. Still a botique company with the botique culture that goes with it. I have heard though that Amsoil is more conservative than at least Redline when it comes to recommending their products.

By far, the most responsible and dependable company in this regard is ExxonMobil. My experience has been that the big guys are going to be more conservative in their recommendations. If they think their lube is suitable for an application, they just go out and get it certified/approved by the equipment manufacturer or at the very least do adequate independent testing to support the recommendation.

BTW, have you every asked Redline as to why their lubes do not have industry-standard certification whatsoever (API, ACEA etc). They will give you the most idiotic answer imaginable. That it would unnecessarily add a "lot of cost" to the customer, blah blah blah. I say, complete horse-manure!! Every 60c brand of the cheapest, house-brand oil on the retail shelves has at least a API certification, so it clearly could not be costing the manufacturer more than a cent or two per quart (and even at 1-2 cent, I think I am hugely overestimating the cost).
 
It is my understanding that at least Toyota faced this situation with some cars that were under some of their warranties and at least in one other case, they decided to "goodwill" an out-of-warranty repair. In order to maintain their customer goodwill, Toyota fixed the transmissions but then their legal department got involved with Redline and put an end to their baseless "recommendations". As I have said above, I would much rather that Toyota had gone full force at Redline and set a good precedent. You know, given a choice between greedy manufacturers that want to sell me their OEM fluid at inflated prices and greedy AND stupid aftermarket fluid manufacturers that want to sell me the WRONG fluid at semi-inflated prices, my choice would be rather clear!! In the ideal world, we'll have plenty of quality aftermarket fluid manufacturers that support their products responsibly, but it helps for them to know that if they screw up, there are consequences.

Actually, I believe fluid-related failures are more common than the occasional news story that meets the eye. The real problem here is PROVING that the failure was fluid related. Even when John Q Public experiences what clearly appears to be a fluid related problem such as was the case with many Supra owners, it is pretty much impossible for the individual owners to bring litigation and be in any meaningful position to support their hypothesis. The costs and engineering obstacles are pretty much insurmountable.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyoilnutt:
Boy this manual trans. fluid stuff is hard to keep track of. Does anyone know if people who have used Redline and had transmission failures gone after Redline legally to pay for repairs? mikeyoilnutt

 
Last year, when I asked Dave at Redline if I could use D4 in a Honda AT, he told me they hadn’t tested it in a Honda so he didn’t know.

If you want to sue Redline, bring your written guarantee of performance with you to court.
 
Every transmission seems to like one fluid over another for good shifting quality.
I'm not currently using Redline [after trying a few of their gear lubes], but I don't believe they cause extra wear or destruction.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Terry:

Chevron sitting on Hydrocracking technology for 18 years before producing lubricant bases for the automotive market is a good example.....

Key to consumer is to be informed and ignore brand , look for quality.

Why this board exists.


I don't believe Chevron's 18 year trek to market with hydrocracking had to do with more than the time it takes for a market to develop, capital to be accumulated, and technology to be matured. Certainly Red Line or Amsoil didn't develop hydrocracking.

The vast majority of consumers do not even know this board exists.

That's why the industry has standards.
 
Great discussion!

Jon Dalton - It would have been interesting to analyze the used MT-90. It's possible we could have been keyed into something....

Were any of the "failing" Getrag fluids analyzed?

As for Amsoil, they are typically quite conservative about their recommendations. When a manny transmission calls for an ATF, they most always say "ATF" and only when I push they'll say "Supershift ATF" (synthetic type F)...some transmissions actually do call for motor oil, btw.
 
Jon Dalton, simple math says you changed to RL MT-90 at 170,000 KM (or 100,000+ miles) in your Tercel. This may not seem like a lot of miles, but 100K miles is a lot use. When you changed it, your trans was used, especially if you ran the factory transmission fluid. I seriously doubt RL MT-90 is at fault for your bad transmission.

I have a couple questions. How often did you change it in the initial 170,000 KM? What do you think regular manual transmission fluid would have done to your trans in the last 50,000 KM?
 
quote:



The vast majority of consumers do not even know this board exists.

That's why the industry has standards.

But those who do come this board are much more lubricant savy that those who haven't visitied.

Yes, the industry has standards, and again they are minimum performance standards.

I don't think XOM would have introduced M1 R had it not been for RP, Redline, and Amsoil stirring up the pot.

BTW Mickey, has the M1R been API approved?
 
Does any one else think that it is odd that a large automotive design firm like Getrag would use a bushing/seal material not suiteable for all automotive lube base stocks and solvents? THe esters that Redline uses are common automotive type esters. Redline uses more then most blenders but they are not radicaly different in any way.
 
quote:

Originally posted by MolaKule:



I don't think XOM would have introduced M1 R had it not been for RP, Redline, and Amsoil stirring up the pot.

BTW Mickey, has the M1R been API approved?


The primary difference between M1R and regular M1 appears to be the lack of an API or other ratings. No other differences show on their spec tables.

From Mobil's website:
code:



SAE Grade 0W-30R 0W-30

Viscosity, ASTM D 445

cSt @ 40ºC 56 56

cSt @ 100ºC 10.3 10.3

Viscosity Index, ASTM D 2270 175 175

Sulfated Ash, wt%, ASTM D 874 1.2 1.2

HTHS Viscosity, mPa·s @ 150ºC 2.99 2.99

Pour Point, ºC, ASTM D 97 -54 -54

Flash Point, ºC, ASTM D 92 234 234

Density @15º C kg/l 0.851 0.851





Interesting. Smells like the same base with possibly some different additives that don't show in the brief list of specs. Or perhaps they just want to share some of the prestige of the botique oil companys by selling a non-rated oil
 
quote:

Originally posted by XS650:
The primary difference between M1R and regular M1 appears to be the lack of an API or other ratings. No other differences show on their spec tables.

Mobil 1 Racing motor oil does not meet any current API Service Category.

In particular, it contains phosphorous at levels which exceed the current API limits for Service SL.

Mobil provides no words like "suggested for", "exceeds", or "recommended for" any API Service Category for Mobil 1 Racing motor oil.

The reference material on it suggests that you:

"Follow the viscosity grade and API service category recommendations in your vehicle owner's manual."

while the Racing motor oil is:

".... intended for professional and amateur "weekend" racecars, as well as modern high-output engines of all kinds."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom