Mobile Delvac/Synchromesh VS. Amsoil MTG 75/90 for G56

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote
There has been much
controversy regarding lubricant selection, with many owners and industry experts arguing that using ATF+4 to lubricate the transmission, as Chrysler recommends, can cause it to fail prematurely. Mercedes-Benz recommends a thicker 75W or 90W gear oil in their trucks that are equipped with the G56. It is debatable whether anything is gained by switching to a 75W/90W gear oil, but many owners choose to do so. A tooth was removed from the input shaft gear for the 2007.5 model year, resulting in a ratio change for the 6.7L Cummins version. When equipped in 6.7L applications, torque was derated to 610 lb-ft for 2007.5 to 2012 model years, and has been derated to 660 lb-ft for 2013 to current model years. Meanwhile, the Cummins Turbodiesel is available with up to 900 lb-ft equipped with an automatic transmission.


"Synchronized in all forward gears and reverse." Which means it needs friction modification chemistry.

None of articles linked ever addresses the friction modification chemistry.

How many Documented transmission failures have been presented from owners using ATF+4?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by 4WD
This comes full circle to the Delvac ???


http://carbonitecummins.com/Documents/Trans Oil Comparison.pdf


I've read this as well as many others, carb cumins analysis doesn't include the Amsoil Synchromesh or the Amsoil MTG.

If you want to go down the hole on this there are 4 or 5 very long in depth threads on this on cumins forum and the end result is Mobile Synthetic Delvac sae 50 is the way to go but running it straight (which I did) is way too nochy and that is why I did the research and created the 3/5 mix to test which at this point seems to be better than the Amsoil MTG but I'd really like to look at the chemical make up of the two and see where it's either good or if it's deficient.

And on the heat issue, since there seems to be no real data on the Amsoil MTG I'll just have to assume there is some chemical make up that makes it generate heat under load or when exposed to ambient heat.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by 2009ram2500
Originally Posted by 4WD
This comes full circle to the Delvac ???


http://carbonitecummins.com/Documents/Trans Oil Comparison.pdf


I've read this as well as many others, carb cumins analysis doesn't include the Amsoil Synchromesh or the Amsoil MTG.



That's because they are not chemists or formulators or gearheads with experience in both.

Here is one example bold:

Quote
Finally, look at the Pennzoil Synchromesh. Viscosity is better than ATF, but still significantly lower than
the baseline. As far as detergents, calcium is very low
but holy magnesium batman!The combination of
detergents in this sample was off the charts. I have no doubt in my mind that you would have an
extremely clean transmission with virtually no debris build up at all. Phosphorus is slightly higher, Zinc is
slightly lower. That would indicate a better EP additive, but a weaker AW additive.
Overall, I believe this
would be good oil for use in a transmission that requires thinner oil, but due to the recommend oil's
viscosity I don't think this would be a suitable substitute for MobilTrans SHC DC.



No definitive conclusions can rightfully be determined without extensive mechanical measurements of metal loss, microscopic examination of gear teeth and bearings, etc.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by 2009ram2500


And on the heat issue, since there seems to be no real data on the Amsoil MTG I'll just have to assume there is some chemical make up that makes it generate heat under load or when exposed to ambient heat.


None of the fluids are exothermic.

Anytime you put in say a thicker 75W90ish fluid in a machines speced for a lower viscosity fluid, horsepower is converted to heat because you have to move the more viscous fluid and churn the fluid with more input power.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by MolaKule
Originally Posted by 2009ram2500


And on the heat issue, since there seems to be no real data on the Amsoil MTG I'll just have to assume there is some chemical make up that makes it generate heat under load or when exposed to ambient heat.


None of the fluids are exothermic.

Anytime you put say a thicker 75W90ish fluid in a machines speced for a lower viscosity fluid, horsepower is converted to heat because you have to move and churn the fluid with more input power.



You're pretty funny as you told me in previous threads to run the Amsoil MTG75/90, now your telling me not to run it. please stop with the opinions and recommendations, I'm looking for facts and your continued hammering on your confused recommendations are not helping resolve anything here.

Like Sargent Friday, just the facts

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...41286/all/Mobil_Delvac_SAE_50_compatable


Thanks
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by 2009ram2500


You're pretty funny as you told me in previous threads to run the Amsoil MTG75/90, now your telling me not to run it. please stop with the opinions and recommendations, I'm looking for facts and your continued hammering on your confused recommendations are not helping resolve anything here.

Like Sargent Friday, just the facts

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...41286/all/Mobil_Delvac_SAE_50_compatable


Here is what I said in Post #4925086:

Quote
The Amsoil MTF has a viscosity at 100C of ~ 9.4 cST and contains the required friction modifiers for synchro assemblies.

I recommend you use the Amsoil MTF ALONE and thoroughly drain your tranny of the current mix.


I said Amsoil MTF, not MTG.


You're hillarious as well.
lol.gif

Originally Posted by 2009ram2500
I formulated my own mix of 3 qts Amsoil Synchromesh to 5 qts Mobile Delvac SAE 50 (This 3/5 blend's Viscosity is 88.76CsT at 40c / 14CsT at 100c


No, you mixed some fluids and you did NOT formulate anything.

Again, How many Documented transmission failures have been presented from owners using ATF+4?

You have suggestions on what to use.
 
Last edited:
No answer to my question as to why you're overfilling your transmission. Extra oil being unnecessarily churned in the transmission, will add heat to the oil. Also potentially causing aeration of the oil, which won't lubricate or cool as well.
 
Good luck getting an answer as I have asked a number of questions that did not get answered.

2009ram2500 starts a new thread on the same topic he started 3 years ago.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...41286/all/Mobil_Delvac_SAE_50_compatable

In the 2015 thread he implies his transmission absolutely required a 75W90ish fluid without providing any specs or background information and many tried to help him find a 75W90 fluid.

Then he comes back here complaining of shift quality while using a fluid that is not suitable for his transmission, does not use a fluid containing any synchro friction modifier, has the wrong viscosity, and on top of that, he thinks he's a formulator.

Then he divulges that Chrysler requires a 7.5 cST fluid while the manf. requires a 75W90, then argues when someone suggests a fluid somewhere in the middle.

This reminds me of a person doing the same thing repeatedly while seeking a different answer or outcome.
 
Last edited:
Ok … this is getting a bit "human" when you are actually very pragmatic … How does the Delvac 1 "40" look if the "50" is too viscous … ? Thinking something available in larger containers would be worth pricing out …
 
Except I've actually done the testing instead of just running my mouth.

Obviously it's all magic fairy dust in your world.

For someone who names himself molacule you sure don't seem to be able to answer the simple questions posed as to why the additive package on the MTG gets hot under load while the Delvac/Synchromesh mix does not. Evidenced by your answer it's a viscosity difference which I've already tested and started was/ is exactly the same which ruled out viscosity as the reason. In fact you paid so little attention to what I posted that you still think I'm running the 3/5 mix.

As I requested in the 1st sentence of this post I'm not long for opinions or who uses what (as I fully expected many of the typical uneducatec responses this post got) I'm looking to be educated on the science of how the additives work I'M NOT LOOKING FOR SUGGESTIONS as it's my [censored] writting the checks not yours.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by 02SE
No answer to my question as to why you're overfilling your transmission. Extra oil being unnecessarily churned in the transmission, will add heat to the oil. Also potentially causing aeration of the oil, which won't lubricate or cool as well.


Read this
https://www.cumminsforum.com/forum/...ory-fill-not-atf-4-a-30.html#post5357132

Front bearings gets cooked on long up hill pulls under load.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by MolaKule
Originally Posted by 2009ram2500


You're pretty funny as you told me in previous threads to run the Amsoil MTG75/90, now your telling me not to run it. please stop with the opinions and recommendations, I'm looking for facts and your continued hammering on your confused recommendations are not helping resolve anything here.

Like Sargent Friday, just the facts

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...41286/all/Mobil_Delvac_SAE_50_compatable


Here is what I said in Post #4925086:

Quote
The Amsoil MTF has a viscosity at 100C of ~ 9.4 cST and contains the required friction modifiers for synchro assemblies.

I recommend you use the Amsoil MTF ALONE and thoroughly drain your tranny of the current mix.


I said Amsoil MTF, not MTG.



So here is the guy who owns gorilla juice ( which I think is total crap) giving some good reasons and stating guys who've ran MTF roached their synchros and at least giving an explanation of why he believes this occurs based on formulation and additive packages.

https://www.cumminsforum.com/forum/...es-benz-factory-fill-not-atf-4-a-31.html


So here's someone recommending NOT to use MTF based on susposid real world experience/testing so if you have real reasons or can explain the additive packages not quote MSDS sheets or manf specs please add to the conversation otherwise opinions you know what they say about opinions and [censored]es everyone has one.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by MolaKule
2009ram2500 said:
You're pretty funny as you told me in previous threads to run the Amsoil MTG75/90, now your telling me not to run it. please stop with the opinions and recommendations, I'm looking for facts and your continued hammering on your confused recommendations are not helping resolve anything here.

Like Sargent Friday, just the facts

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...41286/all/Mobil_Delvac_SAE_50_compatable


Here is what I said in Post #4925086:

Quote
The Amsoil MTF has a viscosity at 100C of ~ 9.4 cST and contains the required friction modifiers for synchro assemblies.

I recommend you use the Amsoil MTF ALONE and thoroughly drain your tranny of the current mix.


I said Amsoil MTF, not MTG.


P.S. here's the post where you contradict yourself from today's "recommendation" and recommend the Amsoil MTG I referred to in the thread.

#3949969

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...-compatable-manul-trans-oils#Post3949696
 
Last edited:
Just looking at intents and purposes … the mixing was for an in between viscosity …?
MolaKule as an actual PhD formulator (and other top ten engineers here like Shannow) warn against mixing chemistry and brands that are not a fully engineered product … This is an unknown fluid at this stage …
In that vein I have asked about the "40" version of the Delvac … a KNOWN viscosity fluid between the two that has been mixed and formulated by one of the majors for heavy duty use …
 
Originally Posted by 4WD
Ok … this is getting a bit "human" when you are actually very pragmatic … How does the Delvac 1 "40" look if the "50" is too viscous … ? Thinking something available in larger containers would be worth pricing out …


I appreciate that 4wd, it looks interesting but again I don't know if the mobile synthetic Delvac transmission fluid has the best additive package for this transmission that's the entire reason why I even posted this, was to learn
about additive packages and how they work anf effect the oil and metals involved based on my tested real world results.

The viscosity is right on but I'm thinking I need to get educated and find the best additive Packages every if it's a blend " I formulated"
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by 2009ram2500
Originally Posted by 4WD
Ok … this is getting a bit "human" when you are actually very pragmatic … How does the Delvac 1 "40" look if the "50" is too viscous … ? Thinking something available in larger containers would be worth pricing out …


I appreciate that 4wd, it looks interesting but again I don't know if the mobile synthetic Delvac transmission fluid has the best additive package for this transmission that's the entire reason why I even posted this, was to learn
about additive packages and how they work anf effect the oil and metals involved based on my tested real world results.

The viscosity is right on but I'm thinking I need to get educated and find the best additive Packages every if it's a blend " I formulated"
smile.gif



OK, but if you are mixing two different lubes with two different additive packages, both of which have been vetted for specific performance characteristics as standalone products, the characteristics of the blend are not going to be predictable. So the logic of going with a fully formulated fluid that's more in-line with the viscosity characteristics you seek is sound.

ATF, while often recommended for the sake of convenience, is certainly not the best choice for many manual transmissions given that's not its primary market. So I can certainly understand your resistance to using the ATF+4. On the other hand, your current experience with the AMSOIL product would indicate it's not the right choice either. So, given that you are looking to keep the viscosity in the spot that your blend was and you believe the Delvac 50 product too heavy, I think 4WD's recommendation on the Delvac 40 makes the most sense.

The Delvac product is a fully formulated lubricant for this type of application. On top of that, Mercedes obviously tested it in this specific gearbox. Ergo, if your goal is to try and mimic the FM and other traits of the OEM Mercedes fluid while reducing the viscosity, sticking with the Delvac family seems to be the logical move
21.gif
 
"...The real question is "what is the underlying cause of this failure".....without that determination it could happen again.....Was the rig already deleted when you bought it?? Towing heavy in it's earlier life with the previous owner(s)?? The combination of the two could be death for the trans. if a large right foot was involved. And all that is assuming it always had adequate amounts of the correct fluid in it...."


"Which gears are cracked? Cracked gears = abuse. Fried bearing = towing hard in 6th gear. IMHO ATF = abuse. I would have thought the DMF would have gone first or maybe has and been replaced by the PO. If only these trucks could talk. Check Carfax and find out what that truck has been up to.'''"

Speculation and no documented causes of failures stated. Could be metallurgically related - have you thought of that?



Originally Posted by 2009Ram2500
: The viscosity is right on...


You don't know that.

Originally Posted by 2009Ram2500
...but I'm thinking I need to get educated...


Not a truer statement found in this thread. But first, you have to be willing to learn.
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by 2009ram2500
Except I've actually done the testing instead of just running my mouth.

Obviously it's all magic fairy dust in your world.



Actually, it's real world chemistry.


Originally Posted by 2009ram2500
... why the additive package on the MTG gets hot under load while the Delvac/Synchromesh mix does not. Evidenced by your answer it's a viscosity difference which I've already tested and started was/ is exactly the same which ruled out viscosity as the reason. In fact you paid so little attention to what I posted that you still think I'm running the 3/5 mix.


I have no idea what you're running and what the mixes are because you have not clearly stated anything.

If would be nice if you stated all of the mixes you made and showed the tested viscosities and monitored temperatures, not what you think those viscosities might be, Where are the full Blackstone reports from each mix?

Originally Posted by 2009ram2500
.As I requested in the 1st sentence of this post I'm not long for opinions or who uses what (as I fully expected many of the typical uneducatec responses this post got) I'm looking to be educated on the science of how the additives work I'M NOT LOOKING FOR SUGGESTIONS as it's my [censored] writting the checks not yours.



Uneducated opinions are what you have proposed thus far.

I can tell you how each additive component works, but you have to act as if you have an open mind. Otherwise I have to assume you are simply here to argue because of boredom, lost girlfriend, or whatever.

Remember, this is your second thread on the same topic so whats with that?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top