"Tuning" MaxlifeMV with some redline racing "F"

[TeamZero]

I had ran across at least one person doing this, with good results,,after alot of searching on here..I had never thought of that.. Has anyone else tried it? I have two 3.0L T6 Volvos, that use the 6sp Aisin trans. In this application, they are quite close to max rated torque spec., and there are some failures when used hard. Both spec WS. The one is lower mileage, but is due for first change, and it gets used hard with some track time. The other high mile one, has Toyota T4 in it, and is due for a change. It shifts good, but the find the T4 softened the shifts somewhat, mostly under easy driving. I'm going to try MaxlifeMV, with some RL heavy F , to bring up the vis. I want the higher vis. due to these being so close to max rated load. I think I'll try 2l first, to see how it acts and go from there, after a good flush to get all the T4 out.

I was curious to see if anyone else had tried this?

 

[MolaKule]

What is MaxLifeMV?

What does this mean: " I want the higher vis. due to these being so close to max rated load?"

 

[clinebarger]

I build high performance & max effort competition GM automatic transmissions & if I've learned anything......ATF has little to do with transmission failures & Everything to do with Line Pressure, Friction Area, & Clamping Force.
With Clutch to Clutch (Non-Synchronous) units......Tuning/Calibration can make or break it.

Higher viscosity can help with Planetary Carrier/Geartrian life/Final Drive life in autocross/high load applications, But if this unit burns clutches.....ATF will likely not fix that.

I run Dexron III in my competition TH400's & 4L80E's & hold up just as well as units running Type F & Hydraulic Oil.

 

[wpod]

Are you using the F for harder shifts?

 

[TeamZero]

What is MaxLifeMV?

What does this mean: " I want the higher vis. due to these being so close to max rated load?"

MaxLife™ Multi-Vehicle ATF not the import maxlife

And I want the higher viscosity, as I stated this trans is at or beyond the max torque rating as per Aisin. I am hoping the high vis. with give me a touch more protection at higher loads.

 

[TeamZero]

I build high performance & max effort competition GM automatic transmissions & if I've learned anything......ATF has little to do with transmission failures & Everything to do with Line Pressure, Friction Area, & Clamping Force.
With Clutch to Clutch (Non-Synchronous) units......Tuning/Calibration can make or break it.

Higher viscosity can help with Planetary Carrier/Geartrian life/Final Drive life in autocross/high load applications, But if this unit burns clutches.....ATF will likely not fix that.

I run Dexron III in my competition TH400's & 4L80E's & hold up just as well as units running Type F & Hydraulic Oil.

Thanks for info. Honestly these cars have a very small following, so there is very little info out there. Most seem to be hard part failure from what I have read. Factory calibration has torque limited a bit in first 2 gears for this reason. And as such there is no aftermarket calibration for the trans....factory is all you get, so I'm trying to work within that. So.... the reason I was thinking going this way was, 1 higher vis. for a little more geartrain protection, and 2 by using some F , reduce some slip/heat in the clutches due to the fact I cant change calibration. These have a fairly soft shift unless u are really in the power.

 

[TeamZero]

Are you using the F for harder shifts?

Not so much harder.....just trying to firm them up a bit, and reduce heat/slip

 

[MolaKule]

Not so much harder.....just trying to firm them up a bit, and reduce heat/slip

I think you may be confusing hard shifts with slip.

A harder shift is affected by the dynamic friction coefficient due to fluid/clutch surface interaction, whereas a firm shift implies more line pressure to hold the clutch without slipping.

...From this equation the mean friction coefficient over the clutch face can be calculated, see Fig. 2.3 c). This friction is the total friction containing both viscous and adhesive effects. T„(t) = FN(t)-u.(t)-r. According to an explanation by Andersson [17] the engagement consists of three different phases. Hydrodynamic squeeze is the first phase, where the clutch plate approaches the separator plate and forces oil to flow over and through the paper based material, thus creating a hydrodynamic squeeze pressure which supports the normal load and prevents physical contact. This means full-film lubrication. The friction coefficient versus time, |l(t), rises rapidly during the initial squeeze film phase. The oil film becomes thinner, the shear velocity increases and therefore the shear force and friction also increase. The next phase is called the squash film phase because oil is squashed out from the interior of the porous material. Here some asperities produce adhesive friction. Both the oil film pressure and the asperity contacts support the load. This is a form of mixed lubrication. At the beginning of the squash phase the sliding velocity is high. Oil is still retained in the porous material, but the film is thin. According to hydrodynamic theory, this leads to a high shear force and thus high levels of viscous friction. When the velocity decreases, the hydrodynamic forces will also decrease since the oil film is mainly constant. Increased temperature will lead to decreased viscosity and thus to decreased hydrodynamic forces. In this phase adhesive contact also takes place and must be added to the friction. While the friction is decreasing, the hydrodynamic action is dominant. Finally in the adhesive phase all the load is supported by physical contact and the hydrodynamic effects are minimal. This is a boundary lubrication situation. At the end of the adhesive phase the friction rises considerably. This is when the sliding velocity approaches zero and the friction approaches static friction. In the adhesive phase the material parameters and the additives have a dominant effect on friction, and bulk oil properties are less important. There are no distinct limits between these phases. Later other phenomena have been added to this basic explanation, such as micro-cavitation and bubbles visually seen in the contact by Sanda et al. [18]. Fluid confined in very thin films leads to a tremendous raise in viscosity, see Granick [19], which may explain the rather high viscous friction, see Anleitner [20]...

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:990778/FULLTEXT01.pdf

From above, it is obvious that a thinner fluid allows a faster "squeeze-out" of the ATF so full engagement can occur in a shorter time. The transition to thinner fluids was not only an overall fractional efficiency move to reduce viscous drag, but also a move to shorten engagement lockup times.

As clinebarger inferred, you need to consult a performance transmission shop to improve line pressures to insure sufficient wet clutch holding forces, with a modified valve body as a minimum upgrade.

Shortening wet clutch engagement times reduces the heat that is transferred to the fluid. One thing I did not see in your post was the addition of an ATF cooler, so if you are going to track these puppies, you need extra cooling.

My philosophy is to use a stable LV fluid for the above reasons and keep the fluid cool to prevent acceleration of oxidation.

 

[Hall]

I had ran across at least one person doing this, with good results

What does "good results" mean ? How did they quantify this ?

 

[MolaKule]

What does "good results" mean ? How did they quantify this ?

Exactly, and at what ratios of Maxlife to Type F?

If I were to mix a LV with a Type F, that Type F it would be this: https://amsoilcontent.com/ams/lit/databulletins/g1646.pdf

Use in automatic transmissions coupled to high-horsepower, high-torque engines and where heavy loads place a high demand on transmissions. Use in transmissions that require Allison* C-4 or Ford* Type F fluid. Suggested automatic transmission applications include: • Drag racing cars and trucks • Monster trucks • Stock cars • Off-road 4x4 vehicles • Street hot rods

I still maintain your real issue will not be the fluid, it will be with internal system pressures and valving programming/timing.

 

[JT20]

Redline D6. It might be D4 but one of those two.

 

[TeamZero]

From above, it is obvious that a thinner fluid allows a faster "squeeze-out" of the ATF so full engagement can occur in a shorter time. The transition to thinner fluids was not only an overall fractional efficiency move to reduce viscous drag, but also a move to shorten engagement lockup times.

As clinebarger inferred, you need to consult a performance transmission shop to improve line pressures to insure sufficient wet clutch holding forces, with a modified valve body as a minimum upgrade.

Shortening wet clutch engagement times reduces the heat that is transferred to the fluid. One thing I did not see in your post was the addition of an ATF cooler, so if you are going to track these puppies, you need extra cooling.

My philosophy is to use a stable LV fluid for the above reasons and keep the fluid cool to prevent acceleration of oxidation.

Yes aware of thinner or thicker fluid changing shift feel with no other changes. I dont agree LV fluid is now being used to shorten lockup times. That can be done by software.....its eff. only in my opinion as to why its used.

My issue , is that there are 1, no performance parts available for this trans, and 2 there is no way to change the software in the trans computer. So i'm stuck. I want to use a higher vis. fluid to hopefully lengthen the life of the geartrain. But when using t4, it has slightly softened the shifts......as expected. So.....By figuring whats in trans and adding RL racing (10vis.), im hoping to get some of the friction modifiers out, and bring the Maxlife from about 5.9 to 7.1. Hopefully this will also result is a harder/firmer(whatever u want to call it) shift feel. Yes coolers added, temps are good.

 

[TeamZero]

What does "good results" mean ? How did they quantify this ?

Good results are elimination of soft undesirable shift feel.

 

[TeamZero]

Exactly, and at what ratios of Maxlife to Type F?

If I were to mix a LV with a Type F, that Type F it would be this: https://amsoilcontent.com/ams/lit/databulletins/g1646.pdf

Use in automatic transmissions coupled to high-horsepower, high-torque engines and where heavy loads place a high demand on transmissions. Use in transmissions that require Allison* C-4 or Ford* Type F fluid. Suggested automatic transmission applications include: • Drag racing cars and trucks • Monster trucks • Stock cars • Off-road 4x4 vehicles • Street hot rods

I still maintain your real issue will not be the fluid, it will be with internal system pressures and valving programming/timing.

Its too thin....I would have to use it straight. And I dont have an issue, I am trying to PREVENT an issue.

 

[MolaKule]

Yes aware of thinner or thicker fluid changing shift feel with no other changes.

...Its too thin....I would have to use it straight. And I dont have an issue, I am trying to PREVENT an issue...

NO, your understanding is still confused: thinner or thicker fluid does not do that. The fluid's Friction modifiers affect shift feel.

You were asked before to state the ratio of MaxLife to Type F from the so-called experts you have been reading so what is it?

I think you may be confusing hard shifts with slip.

A harder shift is affected by the dynamic friction coefficient due to fluid/clutch surface interaction, whereas a firm shift implies more line pressure to hold the clutch without slipping.

I dont agree LV fluid is now being used to shorten lockup times. That can be done by software.....its eff. only in my opinion as to why its used....

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:990778/FULLTEXT01.pdf

From above, it is obvious that a thinner fluid allows a faster "squeeze-out" of the ATF so full engagement can occur in a shorter time. The transition to thinner fluids was not only an overall fractional efficiency move to reduce viscous drag, but also a move to shorten engagement lockup times.

So what scientific data do you have to refute the quote from the paper above, that lower viscosity fluids do not shorten engagement lockup times?

Tell us about the clutch material's porosity verses applied forces and what happens during engagement and disengagement.

 

[TeamZero]

I'm not getting into a pissing match. I'll try it and and post back here with results.

 

[MolaKule]

I'm not getting into a pissing match. I'll try it and and post back here with results.

Me neither. I thought you might have some technical, educational information that would add to the discussion.

The amount of Torque a clutch system can transfer is:

T = F*u*r*N, where * means multiplication and,

F is the Force applied to the clutch pack by the pressure of the hydraulic fluid (ATF), where Pressure P = F/(Clutch Area, A), in N/m^2 or psi,

u (Mu) is the friction coefficient which results from, i.e. it is a function of, the clutch surface and the fluids friction modifiers and varies, so it is not a constant as it varies with respect to both time AND relative to the rotational speed of the clutch plate to the pressure plate

r is the effective friction radius and determines the total clutch surface area,

N of course is the number of clutch plate/pressure plate pairs.

The more pairs, the more Torque they can handle. The higher the hydraulic Force applied to the clutch pack, the higher the Torque transmitted. The Larger the radius of the clutch (the larger the clutch area), the more torque the clutch pack can transmit.

 

[Overfill]

...Most seem to be hard part failure from what I have read....

What hard part fails? gears and teeth, or clutches? or something else?

...the reason I was thinking going this way was, 1 higher vis. for a little more geartrain protection, and 2 by using some F , reduce some slip/heat in the clutches due to the fact I cant change calibration.

Why do you think that a different viscosity (mildly higher in this case) will bolster your geartrain protection? Type F shouldn't have any greater AW capabilities than LVs.

 

[MolaKule]

Type F and LV ATFs have about the same amount of Anti-Wear chemistry.

If the LV fluids caused gear and teeth fatigue in the sun gear assembly I would think that we would be seeing a lot of transmission failures since the introduction of Dexron VI in 2006, which by the way, was developed by GM's Roy Fewks and the Afton additive company. Roy Fewks was a former contributor here on BITOG before his passing.

 

[TeamZero]

What hard part fails? gears and teeth, or clutches? or something else?

Why do you think that a different viscosity (mildly higher in this case) will bolster your geartrain protection? Type F shouldn't have any greater AW capabilities than LVs.

Typical failure is planetary/and/or bushing failure in first 2 gears.
The reason my thinking that higher vis is going to help, is that this ONLY happens on these when used hard/full load. Really this trans is past design limit in this application, thats why they have torque limiting in first 2 gears. Maybe I didn't explain as clear as I should have so I'll try again.

I would prefer to keep vis up around 7 to 7.5, as im HOPING this will increase the life/stave off a failure of geartrain. Maybe it wont, but I'm not going to just leave as is and hope for the best.
So using T4, gets me there, but brings up a problem. It softened up the shifts some, as both trans are designed(by designed I mean software calibration) for WS. Now if I could CHANGE that software, I would be good....but there is nothing available. And there are no upgrades/mods from the aftermarket. I'm not looking for tire barking shifts, that would just stress the trans more. I'm looking to get it back to how it felt on WS or maybe just a touch harder/firmer/cleaner/ whatever u want to call it. So by using maxlife at 5.9 vis and mixing in 2L of redline racing F at 10 vis., I come up with 7.1 Hopefully by "removing" some of the friction modifiers by diluting with 2L of the F I will get my shift feel back. Crazy? I don't know....but I'm gonna try it.....lol. At worse I'll be out couple hundred$$ in fluid.
And I'l add LV fluid is not bad , just bad in THIS application in my opinion