Jon_slider
Samba Member
Joined: April 11, 2007
Posts: 5091
Location: Santa Cruz, Crowdifornia
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:19 am Post subject: Re: Red Line MT90 Getting a Bad Rap? Conflicting Opinions |
 |
|
Since it is clear that some people posting have not read the thread, here are some key quotes from earlier posts.
If you read nothing else, read the posts by "gears".
| Jon_slider wrote: |
| davevickery wrote: |
| They have an extreme pressure version but it is gl-5. I wondered if that would be ok. |
YES GL-5 is Better!
you asked the same question on page 6
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3...;start=100
| davevickery wrote: |
| That castrol syntec is a GL5 oil. I thought that was one of the other no-nos. |
Please dont believe everything you think. It is an urban myth you are repeating, and I invite you to find evidence to support what you think, or let that thought go.
it was answered on page 2, and also on page 7
| Jon_slider wrote: |
| IdahoDoug wrote: |
| Not a clue what the anti-Redline angle is here. |
iDoug, the reason Redline is not appropriate is that it is not made for transaxles that contain hypoid gears..
I have quoted below posts by gears on page 1, 5 and 7 of this thread, to help you focus on his feedback.
page 1
| gears wrote: |
Swepco was specifically formulated for racing transaxles (transmission + R&P), where high EP protection is required, while RedLine was formulated for transmissions that do not contain an R&P.
| a914622 wrote: |
| I didn't like the shifter feel with the swepco, switched back to Dino oil and eventually burned out the tranny. |
Swepco IS dino oil, while RedLine is just another commercial grade, cheaper to produce, synthetic gear lube ... one of a number specifically named by our gear manufacturer to avoid.
If you live in a cold climate and don't like the way dino oils shift during the few minutes required for warm-up, then use a HIGH QUALITY synthetic gear lube like Lubrication Engineers #9919. The feedback that we've received from numerous race teams switching to this oil has all been positive (and well documented). Note: It is difficult to find a synthetic gear lube that provides the same EP protection of a good dino oil. LE9919 provides excellent EP protection that does not rapidly diminish, as with other synthetics.
My opinion is that while Swepco may be an expensive oil, RedLine is an overpriced oil with great marketing. |
page 5
| gears wrote: |
| That referenced article may sound great to a layman, but won't hold water with builders of performance VW transaxles. There's no question that MT90 provides smooth shifting, but it's a transmission lubricant that lacks the EP protection required in a transaxle. |
Page 7
| proelands wrote: |
I asked Go Westy, who asked Redline and here is the reply from the Redline technical advisor:
Redline DOES recommend MT-90 for the Vanagon because:
*it is a GL-4 oil without reactive sulfurs.
*VW specifies GL-4 because of the brass syncro ring.
The Vanagon transaxle has a hypoid ring and pinion design but the off-set is very minor compared with most differential applications. That is why GL-4 will work good.
Redline's website states that MT-90 should not be used for hypoid gears because they refer to the typical large off-set hypoid gears where GL-5 oil is needed for proper lubrication. |
| gears wrote: |
VW has always specified hypoid gear lubes on all their bug and bus transmissions, years before they introduced the '68 Type II (with hypoid R&P).
The EP (extreme pressure) additives in hypoid lubes at that time were yellow metal friendly. Big oil companies had not yet begun promotion of synthetic gear lubes (which are generally less expensive to produce).
Early synthetics had reactive sulfer, which is why VW sent out a bulletin steering their service departments toward oils with lower sulfer content. It's interesting to note that in the same bulletin (I have it somewhere), VW recommended that Type 4 owners continue using gear lubes with the highest EP rating (disregarding sulfer content).
All of this was BEFORE VW began moly-coating their synchro rings.
VW then began moly-coating their rings. (When the ring is coated, reactive sulfer can't harm the ring.)
I don't know that VW's earlier bare brass rings were ever compromised by high amounts of reactive sulfer. Discolored, yes. Type IV during that period was the test group .. bare brass rings subjected to the higher levels of reactive sulfer in the GL5 synthetics of 40 years ago.
Anyhow, today we have:
1) Moly-coated synchros in our vans (which even the worst cheap-ass sulfer-containing lube can't harm)
2) Numerous choices of GL5s without reactive sulfer (any good quality lube)
3) R&Ps with "normal" hypoid offset (I can assure you of this)
.. again, why is it we'd want to use a gear lube with the lower EP rating? .. especially when a number of us have seen the consequences of this action? |
|
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3...p;start=20
| Jon_slider wrote: |
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Syncro/message/41463
"I was recently speaking with Tom Lengyel about what oil to use in the rebuilt
tranny he recently did for me.
He told me about a conversation he had just had with an engineer at Redline that
seemed like big news to me.....
The engineer told Tom that VW transaxles SHOULD NOT HAVE OIL IN THEM DESIGNED FOR LIMITED SLIP DIFFERENTIALS...... which includes their own MT-90.
Redline makes a special oil for VW and other non-slip differential trannys.
It's termed "75-90NS"....the "NS", of course for "non-slip". It is a GL-5 oil.
I asked Tom about the past opinions held that GL-5 oils have additives that
damage brass syncronizers....his response was, "Old wives tale!?
So, per Redline engineers, if we choose to use a Redline oil....it should be
the 75-90NS....NOT MT-90."
===
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/subaruvanagon/message/20202
Our primary gear manufacturer has warned us about the use of synthetic oils
in racing transmissions for a couple years now. Their own tests have
thoroughly convinced them that there is no synthetic available that protects
stressed gears nearly as well as a high quality organic oil. Having heard
the specifics, I am quite convinced, and have passed this information along
freely to our customers whenever asked (taking a bit of flak from synthetic
reps). Jeff Field's advice is solid, and his credentials are as good as
they come.
Despite Redline's salesmanship, their oil has failed to prove equal to Mobil
1 synthetic in professional Porsche racing. There are other "hot shot"
European synthetic oils that fare far worse, despite boasts of their use in
F1 racing. And now that Porsche has eliminated synchronizers in their
latest racing transmissions, there is discussion of moving away from Mobil
1, back toward organics --- at least in the ALMS.
The hypoid design of the Vanagon R&P (all '68 & later VW vans) craves a high
quality organic like Swepco 201. Yes, it's a hassle having to deal with
poor shifting until the oil has warmed up (in cooler climates), but I'd
rather be replacing my 2nd gear idler and operating sleeve than my ring and
pinion set.
Paul Guard
Guard Transmission |
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=276529
| type3dude wrote: |
Moderator summary
GL4 or GL5-MT1 is fine for all VW transmissions.
Details of GL5 "controversy" in this post below: |
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2789226#2789226
| glandnut wrote: |
Here's an explanation Bruce sent me almost 2 years ago when I had the same question. Figured I'd help you not to repeat yourself again, great info!
Jeff, All cars made today have brass syncros that look the same as Beetle syncros. To think that the oil companies would make a product that would destroy every gearbox it went into is rediculous. When I first heard this GL-4/GL-5 corrosion thing, I did some research on the oil co web sites. I couldn't find anywhere that said it was harmful, so I sent a tech message to the Amsoil tech guy. His response stated the history of how that myth got started by the ignorant VW people. When GL-5 first came out it was indeed corrosive to brass syncros. But only at temps above 250ºF. Now since it is impossible to get any street driven gear oil to that temp (It is hard to get engine oil that hot!), there will be no problems using regular GL-5. However, just to satisfy the ignorant masses, the API came up with another added rating, called MT-1 which is tacked onto the end of all GL-5 oils you can buy today. With this MT-1, GL-5 oil is not corrosive at any temp.
The difference between GL-4 and GL-5 is the extreme pressure capability. On surfaces that have high pressure where metal to metal contact will happen, the GL-5 is way better at protecting. Spider gear teeth and side gear teeth are one place where GL-5's better EP rating is desperatly needed. I've got 5-6 Bus 091 ZFs in my garage right now that have suffered significant wear on the gear teeth from probably using GL-4.
The nay-sayers like to point out their Bentley recommends GL-4. Of course it does, that's all there was 30 years ago. It also recommends using only mono-grade engine oil, bias ply tires........
|
|
| gears wrote: |
Concept #1 .. There is no “perfect” oil.
VW technical bulletin from 1973:
“The composition of a transmission oil has a varying effect on the service life of different parts of the transmission. For example, oils which increase the life of synchromesh units have the opposite effect on the ring and pinion. The selection of the correct transmission oil is, therefore, always a compromise between requirements which are often in complete opposition.”
Concept #2 .. Porsche transaxles (1st cousin to VW transaxles) have always recommended GL-5 lubricants, even though their parts are FAR larger (more robust, thus less “in need” of EP protection) than VW parts.
From Rennsport Systems (one of many transaxle shops with similar literature):
"In order to fit a compact transmission with the requisite features in the 911, Porsche uses very steep hypoid angles on the ring & pinion gears. This makes these parts the most highly stressed part of Porsche transmissions. This requires a GL-5 rated lubricant to protect these components against premature failure. Ring and pinions are problematic areas of these transmissions and require careful setup for any 901, 915, 930, or G50 used for competition or high-horsepower applications." http://rennsportsystems.com/letstalk-2/4-how-to-ma...essscluct/
Beginning with the G50 series transaxle, both Porsche & VW synchro rings were IDENTICAL in materials and came from the same manufacturer. And as with VWs, some Porsche synchros were bare brass, but most were moly coated brass. (901, 915, 930, etc all use the Porsche patented moly coated steel balk ring style synchronizer.)
The hypoid offset in a VW Vanagon R&P is EXACTLY THE SAME as that of the GT3 Porsche .. despite the fact that the VW pinion is tiny compared to the GT3 ( https://www.thesamba.com/vw/gallery/pix/1213609.jpg ). Porsche parts are larger (far more robust, thus “less in need” of EP protection) than VW parts, while conversely VW's hypoid offset is PROPORTIONALLY GREATER, and thus “more in need” of added EP protection.
Concept #3 .. The transaxle in a heavy VW van with factory 2.1 engine receives the minimum “required” protection with a GL-4 rated gear lube. Moderate to extreme increases in engine horsepower (or any other factor that may tax the EP protection of a GL-4 gear lube, such as vehicle weight, mountain or long distance driving) suggest that GL-5 is an intelligent upgrade .. especially in light of many transaxle failures in Vanagons pushed beyond “normal performance limits”.
Concept #4 .. Just because two oils have the same API rating does not make the two oils “identical” in quality, longevity, or function. There are MANY GL-5 oils that Porsche racers will not “try out” a second time. Recommendations for a specific GL-5 are exactly that. This shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp.
There are many dozens if not hundreds of upgrades (over “Official Factory” methodology) that U.S. VW shops have arrived at over the decades, and oil upgrades are just one. |
_________________
My Soapboxes: Inflation; Handling; Gearing; Decoupling; Swepco |
|
E1
Samba Member
Joined: January 21, 2013
Posts: 6543
Location: Westfalia, Earth
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:28 am Post subject: Re: Red Line MT90 Getting a Bad Rap? Conflicting Opinions |
|
|
Just read this entire thread... after starting my own named "Gear Oil Recommendations."
I started a new one hoping to get the latest opinions about the latest learnings and products -- and to get fresh opinions untainted by flame wars. Reading this thread has me leaning towards some products, but it's quite confusing and perhaps more than a bit inconclusive to any reader...
I'm always of the mindset that products designed for extreme uses -- like racing -- are best for the street in terms of handling any worse-case scenario thrown at them. Hence, my running Castrol GTD 20W/50 for 35 years and never burning oil in over a million combined miles in my cars. And now, I run Mobil 1 15W/50 in my Westy, and barely eat a quart per 3K after 36,000 miles running it since I bought the bus. The idea for me is, "If it's safe at 19,000 rpm in a Grand Prix engine, it'll probably cover anything I can muster in a Westy."
We're full-time in an '84 Westy and are running a bit heavy... and running in plenty of extreme conditions in terms of weight, rough back roads, et al. I'm good at getting the most from any vehicle under strain though, so when I read about "downshift clunking," for one, I know that mismatched revs are as much to blame as whatever lube is in the box. Operator error can't be helped by slickness.
I think I'm leaning towards Swepco 201 or 210. Can anyone briefly state the differences between those two?
Thanks! |
|
