TheSamba.com :: View topic

Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:25 am

Looking back on this subject over the years, I thought the conclusion was that GL-4 is to be used where specified, and even Glenn admitted this back in 2005, with the exception of 'some' GL-5's which were/maybe safe. I'm sticking with what is known to be safe, has proven itself over time, and is original manufacturer recommended - GL-4. I don't want to read in 5 or 10 years time that listening to what oil company tekkies say today has taken years off my trans. It might be fine for the 10 years you have run it on GL-5, but my box has been together almost 40 years with GL4 and works fine. Only time will tell.

On the subject of listening to and believing oil company BS, some years back Shell got in trouble in the UK for some crappy gas additive that was supposed to clean your motor. Unfortunately it caused nasty build-up on the back of valves over time. Point is, they are not the all seeing oracle/fountain of truth where new technologies are concerned, and sometimes get it wrong.

Sat Aug 09, 2008 11:16 am

I've not found a GL5 that was unsafe.

Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:52 pm

alikatcraig wrote: Looking back on this subject over the years, I thought the conclusion was that GL-4 is to be used where specified, and even Glenn admitted this back in 2005, with the exception of 'some' GL-5's which were/maybe safe. I'm sticking with what is known to be safe, has proven itself over time, and is original manufacturer recommended - GL-4. I don't want to read in 5 or 10 years time that listening to what oil company tekkies say today has taken years off my trans. It might be fine for the 10 years you have run it on GL-5, but my box has been together almost 40 years with GL4 and works fine. Only time will tell.

On the subject of listening to and believing oil company BS, some years back Shell got in trouble in the UK for some crappy gas additive that was supposed to clean your motor. Unfortunately it caused nasty build-up on the back of valves over time. Point is, they are not the all seeing oracle/fountain of truth where new technologies are concerned, and sometimes get it wrong.

Thank god everybody does not think like this... we would would have no progress in the world. Welcome to the 2000's... you accepted your computer and other advanced technologies now accept the better lubricants...

Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:23 pm

alikatcraig wrote: I don't want to read in 5 or 10 years time that listening to what oil company tekkies say today has taken years off my trans.
The silly thing about your fear is that NOBODY has ever seen any damage due to GL-5 gear oil.

On the flip side is GL-4's inferior extreme pressure rating. EVERY gearbox I open up has damage due to this inferior gear oil.

Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:23 am

mango.split wrote: alikatcraig wrote: Looking back on this subject over the years, I thought the conclusion was that GL-4 is to be used where specified, and even Glenn admitted this back in 2005, with the exception of 'some' GL-5's which were/maybe safe. I'm sticking with what is known to be safe, has proven itself over time, and is original manufacturer recommended - GL-4. I don't want to read in 5 or 10 years time that listening to what oil company tekkies say today has taken years off my trans. It might be fine for the 10 years you have run it on GL-5, but my box has been together almost 40 years with GL4 and works fine. Only time will tell.

On the subject of listening to and believing oil company BS, some years back Shell got in trouble in the UK for some crappy gas additive that was supposed to clean your motor. Unfortunately it caused nasty build-up on the back of valves over time. Point is, they are not the all seeing oracle/fountain of truth where new technologies are concerned, and sometimes get it wrong.

Thank god everybody does not think like this... we would would have no progress in the world. Welcome to the 2000's... you accepted your computer and other advanced technologies now accept the better lubricants...

The next higher API number GL-X does not automatically = "better". If that was the case, what happened to GL-6? That myth is the same as saying that API SM motor oil is "better" than SL or SJ for all engines just because it is the latest spec. Flat tappet cams do suffer, not in every case, but enough to be concerned.

The fact is that GL-4 is still an active API spec, not obsolete. Yellow metal syncros have been degraded by too much active sulfur in gear oil. What do you suppose causes that very common 3-2 downshift grinding in VW transaxles?

ACVW's are not 21st century computers, but mid-20th century mechanical devices. Current GL-4 lubes take advantage of the latest base oil refining technology, while using appropriate additives for that specification.

Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:04 pm

Thanks for the support Nikita. Just because it's the new kid on the block, and 'everybody' swears by it doesn't mean it is any better than GL-4 in our buses.

I attach a link to Conocophillips and their Philsyn MT-1 gear oil. You might want to read the application section "it may be used in NON SYNCHRONIZED manual trans in trucks, buses and heavy equipment (note, the MT is Manual Truck), where the manufacturer specifies API GL-5 or MT-1". NO mention of GL-4 compatibility that I can see.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:SZIZKCegFS8J:...&gl=us

If you check the patent for the MT-1 additive package, the variances on %/volume of each part are quite large. Remember, this was not put together with our trans in mind, but modern trans. Same thing with the engine oils we now see. Now, if I pulled the synchros, or raced the bus I might risk it, but otherwise, I'll endure your scorn and stick with what VW recommended, and is still available.

Al

Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:14 pm

Might also check out this from the API (the guys who gave you the specs in the first place):
http://www.api.org/certifications/engineoil/pubs/upload/1560.pdf

Pages 9 & 10 refer to the GL-4/GL-5/MT-1 specs, and state under GL-4 "The manufacturers specific quality recommendations should be followed". Also check out the MT-1 section.

There is plenty to read out there, and most of it points to the synthetic GL-5/MT-1 formula being intended initially for modern truck axles/trans where upto 1 million mile service intervals mean large cost savings. In cars it is primarily intended to increase manufacturers service intervals and combat extremes in temp and performance in modern set ups.

Al

Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:16 am

nikita wrote: .....The fact is that GL-4 is still an active API spec, not obsolete. Yellow metal syncros have been degraded by too much active sulfur in gear oil. What do you suppose causes that very common 3-2 downshift grinding in VW transaxles?

Post your pictures of synchros that have been degraded by GL-5.
Grinding gears is due to WEAR on the synchros, not corrosion.

Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:30 am

alikatcraig wrote: Thanks for the support Nikita. Just because it's the new kid on the block, and 'everybody' swears by it doesn't mean it is any better than GL-4 in our buses.

I attach a link to Conocophillips and their Philsyn MT-1 gear oil. You might want to read the application section "it may be used in NON SYNCHRONIZED manual trans in trucks, buses and heavy equipment (note, the MT is Manual Truck), where the manufacturer specifies API GL-5 or MT-1". NO mention of GL-4 compatibility that I can see.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:SZIZKCegFS8J:...&gl=us

If you check the patent for the MT-1 additive package, the variances on %/volume of each part are quite large. Remember, this was not put together with our trans in mind, but modern trans. Same thing with the engine oils we now see. Now, if I pulled the synchros, or raced the bus I might risk it, but otherwise, I'll endure your scorn and stick with what VW recommended, and is still available.

Al

The bottle of sta-lube GL5 I just bought says use anywhere GL4 is called for. All the auto parts stores I went to had GL5 and not GL4.

I guess all you people are using leaded gas too... :lol:

I have been using GL5 and many others here have. It works fine so anybody telling others not to use it are silly. If GL5 exceeds all the tolerances of GL4 why would you not use it.... unbelievable. :roll:

Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:31 am

Did you read the attachments? Obviously not! Sta Lube may well say that, and may be correct, but that is not what the American Petroleum Institute or Cococco Phillips say, and I can't be bothered to trawl any further for more cases. Guess you know more than them then!

Al

Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:37 pm

alikatcraig wrote: Did you read the attachments? Obviously not! Sta Lube may well say that, and may be correct, but that is not what the American Petroleum Institute or Cococco Phillips say, and I can't be bothered to trawl any further for more cases. Guess you know more than them then!

Al

Can you post a link were the API says NOT to use GL5 were GL4 is called for?

I would think the tolerance tests would be the deciding factor... :?

Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:34 am

I would guess that of the millions of air cooled VWs still on the road, 90% use whatever gear lube their mechanic uses. And i would bet that 90% of the mechanics use GL5.

So if GL5 WILL damage your tranny there would be tens of thousands of bad transmissions out there.

So... where are all of them?

Also my Berg 5 has had GL5 in it since 1999. Can someone tell me when the GL5 will damage it so I can be ready to fix it?

Reality speaks for itself.

Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Know what I think? I think people put waaaaay too much thought into this whole oil debate. Do I know what kind of lube is in my trans? 90w gear oil. Do I know what grade? No. Do I care? No. It's not making any noises, and 90% of the world is using whatever's on the shelf, which is probably the same cheap 90w I'm using (Coastal). I mean really, it's just gear oil. :roll: Engines get a little more attention; I wouldn't throw Coastal in my engine (I use Valvoline), but a gearbox is just a gearbox. As long as it has something in it, it's not likely to fail.

Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:23 am

Quote Miniman82:

"As long as it has something in it, it's not likely to fail."

:-s wait...never mind. ](*,)

With regards to 90% of mechanics:

Since 90% of mechanics work on modern cars of today, I'll agree they use GL-5. But of all the strictly air-cooled shops I know they carry and use only GL-4 spec gear oil whether it be dino or synthetic. Most I know of use dino.

There used to be a time when there quite literally millions of ACVW's on the roads. Those days have come and gone.

Sun Aug 17, 2008 4:42 am

Can someone please show me a transmission that was damaged by using GL5.

Come on there must be at least one out there?

And don''t ask me to prove it doesn't... you can't prove a negative.

Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:12 am

Glenn wrote:

"And don''t ask me to prove it doesn't... you can't prove a negative."

Well...that's not entirely true. If GL-5 is bad it probably would take decades to rear it's ugly self. Which is why it probably hasn't/won't be proven anytime soon.

Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:56 am

I've been using GL5 for 15 years and so have millions of other VW owners.

So decades meaning 10-15 years were some people put 100,000 miles on when it fails.

Proof... we need proof.

Sun Aug 17, 2008 2:27 pm

udidwht wrote: If GL-5 is bad it probably would take decades to rear it's ugly self. Which is why it probably hasn't/won't be proven anytime soon.

Let me get this straight- you would drive a transmission for 15 years, and then blame the lubricant when it fails? :roll: I would call any transmission that makes it 15 years a good trans, regardless of lubricant. Like I said, as long as there's something resembling oil in there, you won't see issues. Here's an example. My fiancée's Ranger had about 160K miles on it (trans fluid never changed, it was a '97), when it started grinding into 2nd, and just generally being stiff to get into gear. I went to the local lube express, where the diagnosis was that the fluid was way past gone. I watched them drain it, and I'm here to tell you that I didn't think tranny lube could be such an ugly color. It was a blackish brown, and looked like it had water in it as well. After the fulid flush and fill, the trans was back to working like normal- butter smooth shifts, and not stiff at all anymore.

If a trans can live with crap like that in it and still work like it's supposed to after having the fluid replaced, I have faith that no matter what you put in your gearbox (as long as it's gear oil), you won't have problems. This whole debate over types and grades is nothing but speculation until someone does a study. So use what you like; failures are not likely to be caused by lubricant type, just lack of lubricant.

Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:44 pm

Miniman wrote:

"Let me get this straight- you would drive a transmission for 15 years, and then blame the lubricant when it fails?"

That wasn't remotely close to what was said/suggested. But there must be a reason as to why VW called for the gear oil spec (as far as grade is concerned). But for GL-5 issues...who knows. Hell, all vehicles call for specific gear/trans oil spec. Who'd be willing to bet if you put something in your gear/trans box other (Newer vehicle) than the spec oil and then it fails you'd be covered under your warranty??? Dealer MUST not be misled as to what was put in trans/gear box. See what they tell you.

"The truth is out there."

Sun Aug 17, 2008 7:15 pm

So they you're suggesting taking a new transmission, filling it with GL5 and then letting it sit for 15 years?

VW listed GL4 because in 1972 GL5 wasn't available yet.

So... where do you get 91RON leaded gas these days?