Bolt-on frame boxing

[scottladdy]

Funny, the government puts engine oil in the automatic transmission in the M35A3. I converted it to ATF for better road manners and to keep the trans cooler. I personally prefer gear oil to handle the heavy loads and temperatures in the differentials and the T-case. I run gear oil in the np205 in my pickup.

There have been many instances where a manufacturer has specified motor oils for manual transmissions.

Many many motorcycles share not only their oil sump and gear box, but their clutches are "wet bath" sharing the same lubricant as the engine.

Not sure if you have ever seen this regarding what Allison specs for the AT1545p in your truck. Pages 4 and 5 list acceptable fluid types. Dexron III is approved for on highway use. All off highway use requires a C-4 approved fluid of the proper viscosity based on expected operating temperatures.

http://www.waghornswood.net.nz/Manu...s_at_500_and_at_1500_series_transmissions.pdf

All the best!

 

[rustystud]

Sorry, I have to disagree with a number of these points.

1. No synchronized transmissions shift gears to my knowledge. Instead they engage a synchronizer (typically a cone type device that couples the gear to the appropriate shaft in the transmission made of a much softer sacrificial material). The majority of modern automotive and light truck transmissions use constantly meshed gears whether automatic or manual.

2. Some automatics don't have a single planetary gear set in them (e.g. Honda).

3. Thin vs thick is not relevant as to whether or not these are suitable for the NP205. Nor is the makeup of the fluid, sulfur or not. It is the very fact that these fluids are "different" which is causing this debate. What is important is whether or not these fluids provide the same level of protection. For example both fluids MUST pass ASTM D4172 testing at minimum which dictates the maximum amount of wear that each fluid can allow under controlled conditions. How each achieves this is irrelevant unless the additives cause some other undue harm, in which case they would NOT be certified for use.

4. If both fluids pass the ASTM D4172 then it cannot be the fluid causing any increased wear you may have observed. Did you take into consideration whether or not the gear boxes were properly maintained in your analysis? Were they ever run dry? (I think this is a highly plausible scenario since the at rest viscosity of ATF is much lower and more likely to leak out much more aggressively when a seal no longer seals). Can you show us any pictures of these failures?

Fun facts:
Did you know that 40/50 weight motor oil is essentially the SAME viscosity as 90 Gear Oil?
Did you know that there are currently 3 gear oil standards established by the API in use? Each one has a specific intent.

All the best!

Not knowing your back ground, I'm just assuming you never worked in a maintenance shop before. So to your first point. The gear is still engaging at the splines with the "help" of the synchro. So it still needs wear protection. Yes, there are now new automatics that don't use planetary gears. So what's your point here ? There still is "NO" gears coming together in these transmissions so no need for the "extra" protection. On point three your dead wrong. Sulfur additives are a proven anti-wear compound. Just because "ASTM" says something is OK doesn't mean it is the "best" thing. Just look at oils today. They no longer have "Zinc". So all the older engines with flat tappets need to add zinc additives to prevent wear. Yet the ASTM says the new oils are OK for all engines. All mechanics knew something was wrong when camshafts started failing all over the place. Saying something is OK and something is "best" are two different things.
You are correct about ATF leaking out mush easier then gear oil. In fact in cast-iron cases due to the porosity of the castings , ATF will seep out just setting there. That is another reason not to use it in our cast-iron NP205 transfer-case.
Yes I did know your little "fun" fact about the viscosity of 40/50W motor oil and 90W gear oil. I also know about the standards. Remember I actually worked in the industry for over 4 decades as a "ASE" certified Master Mechanic. I did learn a thing or two. Maybe three. In the real world things are a little different then what you read in books. Real life has a way of doing that. Just curious. Sounds like you have a back ground in chemical engineering. Are you an engineer ?
Now if you want me to start "showing" you pictures I can. I have several automatic transmissions torn down and can show you the planetaries. I also have a NP205 that had ATF used in it for years. Of course you will probably say that gear wear was caused by something else. So how could I prove it by a picture ? My years of experience rebuilding these units tells me what caused the wear. I will leave you with a little "fun" bit. Chrysler has used a none gear oil pump in there TorqueFlite transmissions for decades. Why ? Due to the wear of the gear teeth in the pumps. GM and Ford recommends that you replace the pump gears on every rebuild. Why ? Because they are worn out due to the ATF. Now most pumps are the "sliding Vane" types. They last longer in the ATF. Just a little "fun" fact.

 

[The FLU farm]

Materials change, and lubricants change. Still, while I enjoy learning from this discussion I can't help but wonder if gear oil is called gear oil and automatic transmission fluid is called ATF for a reason.
It does seem to imply that those fluids are made for different purposes.

And then there are transmissions with motor oil in them, as mentioned above. I have two, and they also have attached overdrives with a planetary gear and a clutch, all running on the recommended 20W/50.

Keep the info coming, guys. Tires, batteries, and lubricants are my favorite things to learn about.

 

[The FLU farm]

Then I certainly hope you're a member of BITOG like the rest of us who have this affliction!!

I have spent my fair share of time there. Just wish my brain cell could retain more of all the good info.

 

[scottladdy]

Not knowing your back ground, I'm just assuming you never worked in a maintenance shop before. So to your first point. The gear is still engaging at the splines with the "help" of the synchro. So it still needs wear protection. Yes, there are now new automatics that don't use planetary gears. So what's your point here ? There still is "NO" gears coming together in these transmissions so no need for the "extra" protection. On point three your dead wrong. Sulfur additives are a proven anti-wear compound. Just because "ASTM" says something is OK doesn't mean it is the "best" thing. Just look at oils today. They no longer have "Zinc". So all the older engines with flat tappets need to add zinc additives to prevent wear. Yet the ASTM says the new oils are OK for all engines. All mechanics knew something was wrong when camshafts started failing all over the place. Saying something is OK and something is "best" are two different things.
You are correct about ATF leaking out mush easier then gear oil. In fact in cast-iron cases due to the porosity of the castings , ATF will seep out just setting there. That is another reason not to use it in our cast-iron NP205 transfer-case.
Yes I did know your little "fun" fact about the viscosity of 40/50W motor oil and 90W gear oil. I also know about the standards. Remember I actually worked in the industry for over 4 decades as a "ASE" certified Master Mechanic. I did learn a thing or two. Maybe three. In the real world things are a little different then what you read in books. Real life has a way of doing that. Just curious. Sounds like you have a back ground in chemical engineering. Are you an engineer ?
Now if you want me to start "showing" you pictures I can. I have several automatic transmissions torn down and can show you the planetaries. I also have a NP205 that had ATF used in it for years. Of course you will probably say that gear wear was caused by something else. So how could I prove it by a picture ? My years of experience rebuilding these units tells me what caused the wear. I will leave you with a little "fun" bit. Chrysler has used a none gear oil pump in there TorqueFlite transmissions for decades. Why ? Due to the wear of the gear teeth in the pumps. GM and Ford recommends that you replace the pump gears on every rebuild. Why ? Because they are worn out due to the ATF. Now most pumps are the "sliding Vane" types. They last longer in the ATF. Just a little "fun" fact.

So, let's start with your first "ASSUMPTION". You are flat out incorrect. 'nuff said on that point. But, ASS-U-ME away if you must .

This whole discussion is about wear protection. So please, do not insinuate that I am stating anything less than "wear protection is required".

Honda automatics have not used planetary gears since the mid 1960's. 50+ years does not count as a "new" automatic in my book.

As for gears not being in mesh, let's look at a couple of cutaways.

Yep, pretty much in mesh all the time.

Regarding Zinc, please provide the reference where the ASTM, the SAE or the API have indicated that low zinc compound formulations are appropriate for all engines. I am not aware of how or why the "American Society for Testing and Materials" would ever specify what is appropriate for an engine. The SAE specifies the viscosity and the API specifies the additive content that must be met in order to be labeled compliant with a particular grade. It is the engine manufacturers which specify what viscosity and grade of oil should be used. If a consumer "chooses" to use an oil that is not certified by the engine manufacturer then they have incurred the wear. High zinc compound oils are readily available and labeled as such. Using a grade of oil not specified by the manufacturer will void your warranty as it is not certified for use in that application. Once again this is a maintenance issue and not a lubricant issue.

I did not say sulfur additives don't work. What I said is that both fluids have to pass the same very strenuous test and do so with a different technology. As for your claim of sulfur additives being best, can you please provide one form of empirical independent testing that proves that statement? Just one will suffice. I have littered my replies with facts to back up my statements and have not once stated opinion in this thread. Would you have the decency to do the same to back up your claims sir? I will take a single certified test result of the four ball wear test wherein gear oil protected better than ATF. Apologies, but without corroborated results you are just providing opinion again.

Porosity - since 90 gear oil has the same viscosity as 40 motor oil, how does that prevent porosity (casting defects) in a case from allowing these fluids to leak out? 80 is close to 30 motor oil which is close to the static viscosity of most ATF. 75W starts out at an equivalent to 10W motor oil. http://www.afsinc.org/content.cfm?ItemNumber=6933

Regarding pump wear, last I knew when rebuilding engines, power steering pumps, and transmissions all manufacturers recommend checking the oil pump for wear and replacing as appropriate. Oil pumps are wear prone components in all applications. This includes vane pumps as well as gear displacement pumps. Can you please show us where the Chrysler service or repair manuals state that the oil pump in their transmissions does not need to be checked for wear because their design is just that much more special than anyone else's?

The choice of the "correct" style of pump to use has a lot of factors associated with it. http://www.designworldonline.com/the-right-pump-for-the-job/#_

One last point. You keep insinuating that I have no experience in the "industry" as you call it, and continue to deign my credentials without knowing one thing about me. If you read through this thread, I have never once called into question anything about you personally. I have only refuted the opinions you have provided with fact based on my years of experience not only in the repair industry but also as an engineer. Please stick to facts and do not resort to personal attacks. I enjoy the debate and hope you do as well, but stick to the facts man and back up your claims.

 

[scottladdy]

Materials change, and lubricants change. Still, while I enjoy learning from this discussion I can't help but wonder if gear oil is called gear oil and automatic transmission fluid is called ATF for a reason.
It does seem to imply that those fluids are made for different purposes.

You are absolutely correct that things change. What we call gear oil today and what it was 75 years ago are not at all the same. The API has three current and three discontinued (as of 1995) grades of gear lubricant as it is more appropriately called. If you use a GL-5 rated oil in an application that calls for GL-4 for example, you run the risk of very quickly destroying your synchros as the EP additives in the GL-5 aggressively attack the materials the synchros are made out of. And while you can still buy a GL-6 lubricant, it is NOT an active standard endorsed by the API.

You have to look at the history of the terms. Gear oil predates the automatic transmission by several decades although I have not been able to find a precise time in which it's use began. As we have already pointed out in this thread, ATF's are radically different than they were even 12 years ago. Dexron VI is NOT Dexron III by a long stretch.

These are generic and somewhat dated terms. They more accurately convey the intended use at the time people started using them. They by no means indicate in and of themselves whether or not a particular fluid is appropriate for use in an application. It is much more appropriate to say "GL-4 rated gear lubricant" than "gear oil". It is very important to say "Dexron III" vs "Honda ATF" when specifying.

Another really important consideration is that the API defines the standards for what we call gear oil. However, the standards for ATF are defined by and owned by the respective manufacturers. Dexron specifications are licensed by GM. This does not mean that gear oils are not enhanced by manufacturers to meet a particular intended use. Anyone with a posi style differential knows well about the friction modifier package that needs to be added to their oil. In this example, "gear oil" is NOT a suitable lubricant for a differential. Gear oil of the correct grade with the appropriate additive package IS appropriate. Does anyone question the use of the additive when specified by the manufacturer in this case?

The reality is, people often go back to generic terms and paint broad swipes about what is or is not suitable or the cause of issues based on their personal experience. This is human nature. Science and engineering informs us that this is not often an accurate way of understanding. We need empirical irrefutable and controlled means of determining what really goes on.

All the best!

 

[Awol]

I only run gear oil in my NP205's, never ATF.

That said, a 205 will basically survive with anything in there. I've had some that were full of water and mud, and have been driven for a long period of time like that (not willingly), and after a fluid change they're still going strong today.

 

[firefox]

Scotladdy, Maybe you or someone else could post up a sticky in the CUCV tips as to
what specific fluids are recomended for each of the CUCV equipment types. This would help
the newbes as well as some of us old timers to make the right decission when replenishing our
fluids. It is very easy to get caught up in the debate and then end up putting the wrong stuff in our vehicles.

Thank you very much for your help in this as well as the others who have contributed to this discussion.

 

[scottladdy]

Scotladdy, Maybe you or someone else could post up a sticky in the CUCV tips as to
what specific fluids are recomended for each of the CUCV equipment types. This would help
the newbes as well as some of us old timers to make the right decission when replenishing our
fluids. It is very easy to get caught up in the debate and then end up putting the wrong stuff in our vehicles.

Thank you very much for your help in this as well as the others who have contributed to this discussion.

Glad this is helpful. There is a ton of misinformation in the world. Happy that I am doing my small part to dispel it where possible. This exact same debate runs high in the Dodge world as well for what that is worth.

As for fluids, I would always go with what the latest recommendation is for the specific application. As Rustystud has correctly implied, designers and engineers are human and do sometimes make mistakes. Product updates and Technical Service Bulletins (TSB's) are published fairly constantly to address issues, concerns and updates to products.

Luckily, the military has maintained these vehicles and kept them in service for a fairly long service life. The TM's available on this site to my knowledge are the latest available. I would stick with what they recommend.

As for the NP205. Older manuals specify a gear oil. I don't believe any of the references provided in this thread indicate what API spec it should be, GL-4 or GL-5. Just 80W-90. Newer manuals specify an appropriate ATF (e.g. Dexron II).

If it was my t-case, I would run a Dexron II equivalent. This would be a suitable and certified lubricant and would eliminate the potential for cross contamination of transfer case fluid getting into the transmission and wreaking havoc.

But, like Rick (aka CUCVRUS) I run my t-cases hard when I am having fun, and have yet to break a properly maintained NP208 despite all my best efforts to do so.

 

[Skinny]

I think Dodge guys have fluid issues (and Jeep) because the NV3500/3550 and NV4500 both require a special New Venture fluid that you get at the dealer. I believe there are only a handful of other fluids that will work, Royal Purple and Pennzoil Synchro something are known compatible. Any other lube causes a bunch of issues like harsh shifts, synchro wear, and they sound like rocks are in the case in neutral.

I'm not sure how this is even sticky material. You need 15W-40, Dexron III, and 75W-90. If you bought it in the last two decades its guaranteed to work with a CUCV by a long shot. There is absolutely zero science behind any of it in this scenario. Both Gov-Lock and Detroit require no additive. The only guys that need to worry about is are the M1031 or other variants with an LSD front diff. Go down to your Ford dealer, buy a shot of the uber expensive little toothpaste tube of goo, squirt it in your front diff, and be done. 5 pages in and you guys are still stroking each other.

 

[The FLU farm]

The only guys that need to worry about is are the M1031 or other variants with an LSD front diff.

I'm not going to worry about the additive. That's after having run without it in all the clutch type diffs over the years with no problems, front and rear, and no ill effects that I know of.

 

[rustystud]

View attachment Scan0211.pdfView attachment Scan0212.pdfView attachment Scan0213.pdfView attachment Scan0214.pdf

So, let's start with your first "ASSUMPTION". You are flat out incorrect. 'nuff said on that point. But, ASS-U-ME away if you must .

This whole discussion is about wear protection. So please, do not insinuate that I am stating anything less than "wear protection is required".

Honda automatics have not used planetary gears since the mid 1960's. 50+ years does not count as a "new" automatic in my book.

As for gears not being in mesh, let's look at a couple of cutaways.
View attachment 687493View attachment 687492View attachment 687494
Yep, pretty much in mesh all the time.

Regarding Zinc, please provide the reference where the ASTM, the SAE or the API have indicated that low zinc compound formulations are appropriate for all engines. I am not aware of how or why the "American Society for Testing and Materials" would ever specify what is appropriate for an engine. The SAE specifies the viscosity and the API specifies the additive content that must be met in order to be labeled compliant with a particular grade. It is the engine manufacturers which specify what viscosity and grade of oil should be used. If a consumer "chooses" to use an oil that is not certified by the engine manufacturer then they have incurred the wear. High zinc compound oils are readily available and labeled as such. Using a grade of oil not specified by the manufacturer will void your warranty as it is not certified for use in that application. Once again this is a maintenance issue and not a lubricant issue.

I did not say sulfur additives don't work. What I said is that both fluids have to pass the same very strenuous test and do so with a different technology. As for your claim of sulfur additives being best, can you please provide one form of empirical independent testing that proves that statement? Just one will suffice. I have littered my replies with facts to back up my statements and have not once stated opinion in this thread. Would you have the decency to do the same to back up your claims sir? I will take a single certified test result of the four ball wear test wherein gear oil protected better than ATF. Apologies, but without corroborated results you are just providing opinion again.

Porosity - since 90 gear oil has the same viscosity as 40 motor oil, how does that prevent porosity (casting defects) in a case from allowing these fluids to leak out? 80 is close to 30 motor oil which is close to the static viscosity of most ATF. 75W starts out at an equivalent to 10W motor oil. http://www.afsinc.org/content.cfm?ItemNumber=6933

Regarding pump wear, last I knew when rebuilding engines, power steering pumps, and transmissions all manufacturers recommend checking the oil pump for wear and replacing as appropriate. Oil pumps are wear prone components in all applications. This includes vane pumps as well as gear displacement pumps. Can you please show us where the Chrysler service or repair manuals state that the oil pump in their transmissions does not need to be checked for wear because their design is just that much more special than anyone else's?

The choice of the "correct" style of pump to use has a lot of factors associated with it. http://www.designworldonline.com/the-right-pump-for-the-job/#_

One last point. You keep insinuating that I have no experience in the "industry" as you call it, and continue to deign my credentials without knowing one thing about me. If you read through this thread, I have never once called into question anything about you personally. I have only refuted the opinions you have provided with fact based on my years of experience not only in the repair industry but also as an engineer. Please stick to facts and do not resort to personal attacks. I enjoy the debate and hope you do as well, but stick to the facts man and back up your claims.

OK, it is obvious you do not understand manual transmissions. The synchro cone does not drive the gear like you suggested. The cone, if you will only speeds up or slows down the gear. The actual shifting is from the collar of the synchro which actually engages the gear. Metal on metal ! Next, read what "Crane" cams recommends for their camshafts. Zinc rich ! This point has been made years ago, enough said. As for your Honda. I'm not, nor have I ever been a foreign vehicle mechanic, but I'm aware of the "Hondamatics" extremely high failure rates. So what's your point here ? How does this relate to the subject at hand ?
Getting to the 4 ball test. That has not been used for almost two decades since it has been confirmed to be inaccurate in testing most all oils. Read the "Noria" paper. They only use it now for testing grease. The only people using this "test" are "Amsoil" and "Royal Purple" .
Most shops now call this test the "Snake Oil Test" ! Due to "Slick 50" coming to all the shops with their mobile testers.
About Chrysler pumps. I never stated they do not need to be checked. Reread my post.
I cannot find the article about cast-iron case leaking ATF right now, but I will find it again. I just read it two days ago.
As far as my statement about you not working in the automotive industry. It is obvious you never had by your own statements. No mechanic would be so unfamiliar about the basic functions of a manual transmission. I also never slandered your credentials about what you do. In fact I asked if you where an engineer. It sure sounded like you where one. Now after looking up your research I found you have basically copied Wikipedia word for word on most of your statements. So what do you do for a living ? Or are you going to deflect again ? There is a very valid reason for asking. It goes to the validity of your statements. If you are in fact an engineer, then your statements carry much more weight. As for me never giving any actual "empirical data" , are you kidding me ?!?!? You are the one who has not provided one single bit of evidence supporting your claim. Just reports full of data with no conclusion. There has been a standing rule in the automotive world for decades now. If it is cast-iron use gear oil. If it's aluminum use ATF. If it's half and half use 40/50W engine oil. GM started using the NP208 (aluminum case, chain drive with planetaries) in 1980. So they had all the new shop manuals use ATF as the recommended oil from then on. Again prior to that the NP205 used 80/90W gear oil. Honestly, go to any automotive site, especially a GM one and find out what they all use in their NP205 transfer-cases and why. Real world data.

 

[rustystud]

Sorry, I have to disagree with a number of these points.

1. No synchronized transmissions shift gears to my knowledge. Instead they engage a synchronizer (typically a cone type device that couples the gear to the appropriate shaft in the transmission made of a much softer sacrificial material). The majority of modern automotive and light truck transmissions use constantly meshed gears whether automatic or manual.

Just posting your statement about synchro's.

 

[Recovry4x4]

Time to move along, nothing to see here. ATF, gear oil? Pick one, they were both used by GM.

 

[cucvrus]

Rolling the credits. THE END

https://youtu.be/57ALmH6Zs1Q

 

[scottladdy]

The Sequential Four Ball Test

Drew Troyer
Tags: oil analysisUse it to Evaluate AW / EP Performance

The plant oil analyst is responsible for ensuring the continued effectiveness of lubricants in service and is often involved in the lubricant selection process. In the case of antiwear (AW) or extreme pressure (EP) lubricants the ability to resist scuffing is the primary concern. In oil analysis, the ability to test the depleting performance of AW/EP additives in used and reconditioned lubricants has traditionally been a daunting task. Researchers at Pennsylvania State University have developed a promising new test procedure called the Sequential Four-Ball Test (SQFBT) that could prove useful to the plant oil analyst and commercial laboratory.
The SQFBT procedure is a variation on the conventional Four-Ball Tests described in current ASTM standards. Four-Ball tests, as the name implies, employ four half-inch diameter steel balls, one ball rotating in one direction within a cradle of three stationary balls. The scar on the rotating ball is measured to determine the lubricant’s anti-scuffing capabilities. A small scar signifies good performance. The test is conducted under controlled conditions of temperature and load.
The SQFBT procedure is a three-step sequence that begins with an initial 30-minute test using the fluid of interest and the initial scar is measured and recorded. Then, the fluid is tested for an additional 30-minutes and the change in scar size is measured. This change signifies the lubricant’s anti-scuffing performance unfettered by “run-in” scarring that normally occurs. The last step replaces the test lubricant with additive-free white oil for a final 30-minute run. An AW or EP lubricant should provide lasting protection by depositing additive onto the component’s surface. This third step of the SQFBT evaluates the additive’s lasting effect. This is significant to ensure protection during start-up, lubricant starvation or when shock loading leaves the machine short of bulk lubricant supply.
To the oil analyst and lubrication engineer, this test could possibly help evaluate the anti-scuffing capacity and lasting performance of different lubricants under consideration for selection. It could also be added to the test
arsenal when comparing the residual AW or EP performance of a used lubricant to the new lubricant performance. By setting minimum performance limits, the procedure could suggest when an oil needs to be changed or enhanced. A possible application for the procedure would be when AW hydraulic fluids are reconditioned after many months of service. Before returning the fluid to service, this test could help confirm the “like new” condition as it relates to anti-scuff capabilities has been achieved.
Reference: Perez J. D. Weller, Jr. and J. Duda (1999) “Sequential Four-Ball Study of Some Lubricating Oils,” Lubrication Engineering, September, pp 28-3


Hmm, looks pretty current to me.

http://machinerylubrication.com/Read/35/sequential-four-ball-test

From a direct search of "4 ball test" on Noria's website.

http://www.noria.com/

If anyone is still looking for expert vs hearsay advice, feel free to PM me.

All the best!

 

[doghead]

Enough chest puffing, what's your credentials,here's my proof, you don't know crap, you can't win, bla bla bla...

The next rant (like this) anywhere on the site will get you at least, a week long ban from the site.

This is not welcome on the site. Don't like it, you can leave on your own, or I'll help you exit.