I will show folks what info I have when I get back to my home PC...
Last edited by a moderator:
Is Red Line MTL 70W80 ok to use in an NV4500 manual transmission?
- Thread starter Ducati996
- Start date
MolaKule, I respect your knowledge and the quality of information you bring to the table. However I don't need the arrogance evident in "...this line of misinformation..." and I don't think you need it either. You'll note that I say "I believe that...."
I offer the information that I have gathered on MTL, in attachments 1 through 7. Some are dated, and some are more recent. I cannot provide specific data to back up the statements.
I also provide comments, empirical findings on Non-Shock final drive product... more recent information, albeit NOT related to the MTL product. I may have to send this in two postings, as 10 is the limit, for attachments...
I stand to be corrected if the MTL product is the go-to magic elixir, that provides substantially better shift-feel/clash-free performance than other Mfrs' products, with every bit as good (or better) protection for gear faces, flanks, and rolling-element bearings.
Attachments
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
Why are we even discussing Redline Shockproof type oils in an MTF thread?
MolaKule
Staff member
My reference was not to you personally. My reference was to the incorrect information you repeated that had come from somewhere on the internet and I now see the sources (your attachments) from where that misinformation came.
I am direct, but since you don't know me personally I don't think you can make the case that I am arrogant, and that is a descriptive term that is offensive. So stop the personality references and let's talk facts.
Some times people get into discussions on other sites and come here for clarification on one or more topics. We're more than happy to do that because we have a wide range of expertise available here.
I don't believe any one MTL is the magic elixir, but there are some good aftermarket MTL's in the global marketplace that satisfy the performance targets of many vehicles.
As I have stated many times, before you change your MTF, it only makes sense to pull a sample, send it off for analysis, and put the results here on BITOG. By looking at the general chemical signature and the viscosity, we can make recommendations for aftermarket replacements.
Last edited:
I agree... let's talk facts, or at least decent information that can be gleaned from a variety of sources.
Those attachments I provided - and some are rather old - are ones I searched-out and found, oh, maybe two or more years ago if memory serves. Some of that anecdotal information dates to the '2000's - and well, I would agree that the formulation for Redline MTL may have changed since then.
Redline would appear to have a formulation that really concentrates on synchronizer performance, and they claim a downwards inflection of coeff. of friction versus relative speed of the synchro (cone-clutch) parts (as the latter drops to zero) - (reference the image I attach)... Redline claims this downwards inflection allows no "last-minute" stick/slip occurances (which lead to gravelly-feeling synchro performance)... and which they intimate many of their competitors' products seem to exhibit. This notion of fundamentally different slipperiness (?) (in deference to enhanced synchro behaviour) seems pretty inspired, and for many (not all) manual transmission cars - is just what the Dr. ordered.
How they achieve this, I don't know. I suppose it is proprietary.
However, in general, better-feeling shifts appear to me to be the result of generally lower viscosities. Perhaps going towards the least viscosity that a given SAE spec range allows is one way to achieve this. I don't know if Redline's MTL, when at the full-temp condition, veers towards, say, the low-end of SAE 80? (for their MTL - 75W-80 product)? Incidentally, I believe i'm correct in saying that the SAEJ1306 (?) spec actually changed twice, since its original formulation... (so its on its third - different - viscosity range currently).
What I seem to have found, when I searched for empirical behaviour, wear-evidence, physical sump- and ledge build-up of deposits - was presented in earlier posts. I don't know if this behaviour is that common, or indeed, whether it continues to occur to this day?
The conjecture, here, is that if there are deposits, and said deposits are largely a product of the oil itself (and not so much swarf due to wear) - then the net oil that is left is substantially different from what a VOA would reveal. That, it seems to me, would not be a good thing!
Do you have general info re the UOA's that Redline MTL generally tends to show?
Finally, if Redline MTL has some brilliant chemistry that makes for excellent feeling shifts, does the oil "wear out" in terms of i) the feeling of "new" is rather fleeting; and/or ii) does it very readily sheer in service, so that its viscosity is substantially reduced in short order?
I am all-in for Redline MTL if indeed it can be shown to be as protective as the typical OEM-fitted lubricants (which notably are not Redline MTL). Who wants notchy cold-shifts? On the other hand, I am willing to nurse my manual transmissions to full operating temp in deference to gaining full protective performance of the lubricant for the long-haul.
BTW, I don't seem to be able to attach the pdf's I want to attach... Dunno why this is the case...
Attachments
MolaKule
Staff member
a. Formulations do indeed change, sometimes overnight. The data is dated.
b. Ah, now we get to what I believe is your thesis. How did you determine that Redline is trading wear protection for shift quality? How did that Mu(v) chart lead you to the conclusions you have made?
c. Shifting depends highly on the design vs horsepower being shifted and the leveraging component of the shift forces on the synchronizer.
d. How did operational parameters and transmission design affect the oil results? Were oil analysis done in each case to show some correlation, or was it that assumptions were being made without any proof?
e. What about the MTF chemistry that led you to this conclusion? What could a VOA possibly reveal?
f. What do you mean? What trends?
g. All oils decompose over time, hence the Service Intervals. The first thing that happens is that mechanical shear tends to thin the oil to a lower viscosity. Then, prolonged exposure to heat conducted from the engine eventually results in oxidative thickening.
Last edited:
Thx, MolaKule, for your detailed response. I can only get to my PC once a day so my answers will have to wait; great discussion
...Incidentally, I misquoted the SAE number. It is SAE J306... not 1306. Here's something on that from Lubrizol... https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...wQFnoECDEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2W_YJsje-a4oL1KPO7J6sD
The prb that I see, here, is that if say a Mfr specs 75W-80, then you 'kinda need to know when the design work for the transmission occurred, and may need to ref. the J306 spec that was in play at the time of that design work - to truly know what viscosity of gear lubricant to run in your transmission/transaxle, no? I suppose the owner's manual could be assumed to keep up with these SAE changes, and if a specified lubricant recommendation needs to be changed - that they'd do it...
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
It is simpler than that. "As I have stated many times, before you change your MTF, it only makes sense to pull a sample, send it off for analysis, and put the results here on BITOG. By looking at the general chemical signature and the viscosity, we can make recommendations for aftermarket replacements."
The reason being is that the Grade Charts https://bobistheoilguy.com/viscosity-charts/ cover a "range" of viscosity, so you cannot really know the actual viscosity of the OEM's XXWYY fluid until it's tested.
I'm not sure I understand this comment. If you want to know what the wear-status of the transmission/transaxle is (by way of swarf, metals), then the UOA makes sense, and if you want to know what the "spent-" or potentially spent- or potentially sheared-in-service viscosity is... then, by all means, UOA. But it seems to me that if you want to know what the Mfr wants, by way of oil viscosities, NEW oil, then (provided the OEM-fitted oil is available {it is, for my Mazda6}) then do a VOA, correct?
Of course I do recognize that an SAE "weight" (viscosity) rating/spec comprises a range of viscosities.... hence my mentioning SAE J306 (which is now on its third iteration).
Under separate cover I will respond to your (MoleKule) post, above - the long one; pls stand by.
a) - I agree
b) - this is a snippet of what I said.... "Redline would appear to have a formulation that really concentrates on synchronizer performance...." and what I mean, here, is that their marketing effort appears to play this up. The Mu(v) chart I attached only is in reference to their claim, i.e. the focus they appear to have on shift-feel... and I do not cite this attachment in reference to wear protection. The technical papers they put forward claim superior synchronizer behaviour with their formulation. Now, other than that the VW contention that synchronizer performance optimization goes in opposite directions from balance of transmission/transmission component longevity optimization (I am guessing, here, that VW principally refers to viscosity), the only thing I point to are the attachments I provide above suggesting (some rather strongly) that Redline MTL does not provide optimal longevity of the gear tooth surfaces, the rolling element bearings, or for that matter the composite (glass-filled nylon?) rolling element cages (in the case of the Honda transaxle comment). Are these "wear" comments due to lower viscosities that Redline may try to "plumb", in deference to shift feel? I do know that AW additives, I believe, counter lower viscosity lubricants' tendencies to have heightened wear... but I do not have the knowledge to view the VOA's for Redline MTL to conclude that their formulation is- or is not optimal for component durability for these components. I do, however, see in some of the attachments that at least two parties have noted sludge, or fluid component drop-out into sumps and onto ledges. Seems to me that one can conclude that if something drops out of suspension - something that when the lubricant is new (and properly in suspension) adds-to the performance of the fluid - well, that is likely not good!
c) your comment that "Shifting depends highly on the design vs horsepower being shifted and the leveraging component of the shift forces on the synchronizer".... I am not sure that HP comes-in to the picture, or at least the power that the transmission/transaxle is transmitting. The shift does not occur under power, but during a break in the application of the power (actually, the torque, not the power). A high torque-rated transmission has heavier components... and there is more inertia in said heavier components... but then presumably the cone-clutches are commensurately more-HD, bigger. What I said is that generally, lower viscosities of lubricant generally appear to make-for smoother-operating synchronizers.
d) your comment: "How did operational parameters and transmission design affect the oil results? Were oil analysis done in each case to show some correlation, or was it that assumptions were being made without any proof?" and then my "d)" I quote: d. What I seem to have found, when I searched for empirical behaviour, wear-evidence, physical sump- and ledge build-up of deposits - was presented in earlier posts. I don't know if this behaviour is that common, or indeed, whether it continues to occur to this day?
I offer only empirical information per the attachments, and it is not correlated to specific design parameters, and directly related UOA's. All I can see from those few attachments is that the posters seemed ardent in their dislike for the product (at least, at the time they posted the comments) - and at least one of the posters seems to have been pretty scientific in his/her approach of determining wear (in the Hewland transaxles he was dealing with). I would agree, those are dog-boxes, not synchro boxes... and they would have needed EP formulations for the R&P...but they certainly did wear (according to the poster) in areas other than the R&P (like gear faces).
I think I've covered-off the rest of the comments.... but all I am saying is that I appear to have uncovered some negatives.... that might have some merit and I have to restate that:
-if Redline MTL has some brilliant chemistry that makes for excellent feeling shifts - that's great.... but is there any anecdotal evidence out there that the effect is of limited duration? Short-lived? And is there any info out there that suggests that Redline MTL lubricants shear in service pretty early-on? and
-I am all-in for Redline MTL if indeed it can be shown to be as protective as the more typical OEM-fitted lubricants (which notably are not Redline MTL). Otherwise I am willing to nurse my manual transmissions to full operating temp in deference to gaining full protective performance of the lubricant for the long-haul (because to some extent shift-feel when cold goes counter to full operating temp gear and bearing longevity when speaking of viscosities, and allowing that AW formulations affect and modify this general rule).
Oh, I found an old (2006) snip from Ferrari Life that is strange...
Attachments
I use the word "empirical" in my post, above, whereas perhaps the word "anecdotal" might be more à propos in a number of those circumstances...
MolaKule
Staff member
Yes, "anecdotal" is a better choice of usage in this discussion when no empirical info is given.
The viscosity has everything to do with horsepower and torque, gear design, bearing loads, and operating temperatures. Most MT's that are designed for higher viscosity fluids design their shifter/fork assemblies with higher leverage forces.
Last edited:
Where does RL 'claim' that? That said, I'm under the impression you
highly underestimate the importance of synchronizer performance.
Synchronizer performance is what the driver actually feels, and it's at
the same time a relevant factor for synchronizer wear.
Slipping synchronizers aren't a good thing. Nobody wants that.
Again, where do the claim that?
Perhaps but I don't think so. I'd guess RL's chemistry relies as much on the
same well-known additive suppliers as anyone else's transmissions fluids.
In general - yes. However additive chemistry is the other important factor
for the resulting friction between the cones, and it's friction what accelerates
and decelerates synchronizers, finally making a shift possible.
The contrary is true. Actually Redline MTL 75W-80 is at the thicker end of a
75W-80 when hot at 10.4 cSt, while Castrol Transmax V 75W-80 is 8.1 cSt and
Ravenol MTF-2 75W-80 is 7.4 cSt at 100°C.
.
MolaKule
Staff member
Right, I realize what you previously stated as I read every comment. No need to repeat those comments.
So it has been established that some of the commenters referenced in the anecdotal comments do not like this product. They could try other products such as Amsoil, Ravenol, etc., and then report their testing and oil analysis. There is a worldwide supply of MTF's for making informed choices.
Whether it is brand XX or YY MTF they used, what I am saying I do not accept the previously referenced anecdotal comments as having any empirical basis as proof for problems.
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
Here is what I stated previously and it hasn't changed:
g. All oils decompose over time, hence the Service Intervals. The first thing that happens is that mechanical shear tends to thin the oil to a lower viscosity. Then, prolonged exposure to heat conducted from the engine eventually results in oxidative thickening.
I have not seen any data that Amsoil or Redline or Ravenol or whatever MTF shears any worse than the others in a healthy transmission.
MolaKule
Staff member
Since we have no real empirical data to support those anecdotal comments, the continuing comments of trading wear for shift feel is preposterous. Formulators can formulate an MTF that can provide good wear control AND shift performance in one fluid.
I don't sell anything here on BITOG, and I am not trying to convince you to use any one fluid. So please make your decisions based on tribological data, not anecdotal comments, since anecdotal comments have no basis in empirical, laboratory testing.
I believe your questions and comments have been answered by many people here so unless you have a new question or comment (not previously submitted), this thread has the potential of being closed.
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
Back to the OP's question:
They are NOT interchangeable since the other fluid has too low a viscosity.
The Redline MT-85 has the proper viscosity for a 12 cSt fluid, if that is the original requirement.
As to where RL claims that... I am adding-in their product leaflet...I can't argue with you about what your impression is... but actually I highly prize the smooth-as-butter, no "double-bump evident" operation of synchronizers that are in good nick. So much so that I don't go out of my way to buy a used manual transmission car... as if anyone is going to "knacker" the synchro... it's 'gonna be me, not the P.O. Of course I am NOT going to knacker the synchro's... I drive the car, when cold, either starting in 2nd (on a down-gradient) or I go only to a walking pace in first, before I slowly shift to 2nd. I double-clutch most downshifts in order to preserve the synchro's... and, indeed, I highly value their smooth operation. To this day, I can't fathom individuals who claim "my car shifts just as smooth cold as it does warm; no difference". I have had quite a number of manual transmission vehicles, and for NONE of them can I claim that. There are many ham-fisted drivers out there, who are NOT attuned to when their car "talks" to them! Synchro-feel "talks " to me.
I am attaching three product leaflets from Redline. The one where the graph of friction coeff. versus relative RPM speaks to this..
OK... but their graph would appear to intimate their product has got something in it that differentiates itself relative to Others' lubricants.
Ok, I agree...
I looked it up... You are right.
I am adding-in the three leaflets from Redline in my next post... as I don't know if the format of this post will come out in an unscrambled manner, sorry.
The three pdf leaflets, that I converted to images... Sorry, the TITLE on the first one should read "1997 dated - p. 1 of 2.jpg"
Attachments
Last edited:
