valvoline tranny fluid
10-19-2010, 01:25 PM
#12
Amsoil MTF is the best I've used to date.
FTR - I wouldn't put Royal Purple in any car I cared about. RP is all marketing. They make terrible products for street vehicles.
Read through this article if you ever find yourself considering any RP products: http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g2457.pdf
It's a study and thorough analysis of gear oils - which doesn't apply directly to MTF in that you're not going to use the Amsoil gear oil listed (a GL5) in your transmission (you could Amsoil GL5 meets all the requirements to protect "yellow metals" as a GL4 fluid - but MTF is much better suited for the transmission) - but speaks directly to the quality of the products the manufacturers produce. The analysis was commissioned by Amsoil and conducted by an industry certified independent lab.
The worst gear oils in the test are Lucas, Royal Purple -- both HUGE advertisers in NASCAR, and Mopar. Like I said - RP is all hype - not nearly enough product.
On a personal note - I wish this analysis had been available when I had a previous vehicle (Jeep GC) serviced by a local dealership (a courtesy inspection of my rear axle - during which they gave me the option of putting the old gear oil back in or replacing it with Royal Purple). Within a few hundred miles of installing the RP the axle, the bearings began failing (making a nasty noise). The mechanics did everything by the book (I always watch when someone else touches my vehicles). I then took the Jeep to the regional Dana distributer who stated the failure was due to an oil related failure. They asked me what fluid was in the axle - and then stated they expected as much when I told them Royal Purple - they stated RP "was absolute garbage". RP refused to take any responsibility for the oil related failure - even with hard proof it was their oil that ultimately caused the failure. RP stated I used the wrong viscosity - even though the dealership confirmed the correct viscosity was installed. RP wouldn't budge.
I used to have the old bearings to show friends why you should never use RP. BTW - The dealership that installed the RP stopped carrying then entire RP line following the destruction of my rear axle. The dealer principle wouldn't pay to repair the axle - but offered to sell me a new GC at $50 over dealer cost (not invoice - but cost) - I decided to fix the Jeep and then traded it for my S2000.
What oil did the Dana regional rep (who rebuilt the axle) recommend? Amsoil... after about 500-1000 miles of break-in.
FTR - I wouldn't put Royal Purple in any car I cared about. RP is all marketing. They make terrible products for street vehicles.
Read through this article if you ever find yourself considering any RP products: http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g2457.pdf
It's a study and thorough analysis of gear oils - which doesn't apply directly to MTF in that you're not going to use the Amsoil gear oil listed (a GL5) in your transmission (you could Amsoil GL5 meets all the requirements to protect "yellow metals" as a GL4 fluid - but MTF is much better suited for the transmission) - but speaks directly to the quality of the products the manufacturers produce. The analysis was commissioned by Amsoil and conducted by an industry certified independent lab.
The worst gear oils in the test are Lucas, Royal Purple -- both HUGE advertisers in NASCAR, and Mopar. Like I said - RP is all hype - not nearly enough product.
On a personal note - I wish this analysis had been available when I had a previous vehicle (Jeep GC) serviced by a local dealership (a courtesy inspection of my rear axle - during which they gave me the option of putting the old gear oil back in or replacing it with Royal Purple). Within a few hundred miles of installing the RP the axle, the bearings began failing (making a nasty noise). The mechanics did everything by the book (I always watch when someone else touches my vehicles). I then took the Jeep to the regional Dana distributer who stated the failure was due to an oil related failure. They asked me what fluid was in the axle - and then stated they expected as much when I told them Royal Purple - they stated RP "was absolute garbage". RP refused to take any responsibility for the oil related failure - even with hard proof it was their oil that ultimately caused the failure. RP stated I used the wrong viscosity - even though the dealership confirmed the correct viscosity was installed. RP wouldn't budge.
I used to have the old bearings to show friends why you should never use RP. BTW - The dealership that installed the RP stopped carrying then entire RP line following the destruction of my rear axle. The dealer principle wouldn't pay to repair the axle - but offered to sell me a new GC at $50 over dealer cost (not invoice - but cost) - I decided to fix the Jeep and then traded it for my S2000.
What oil did the Dana regional rep (who rebuilt the axle) recommend? Amsoil... after about 500-1000 miles of break-in.
10-19-2010, 02:46 PM
#13
Registered User
Originally Posted by chef-j,Oct 19 2010, 01:57 PM
OEM MTF didn't give me suprise, i tried and was ok. i put pennzoil SM few months back and it feels like already shot out. I prob go with GMSMFM at this time.
10-19-2010, 03:26 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Capital Region, NY
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chef-j,
The Valvoline stuff is for heavy duty truck (18 wheeler) transmissions:
http://www.valvoline.com/pdf/hdsyn50.pdf
Note the cSt at 100C: 18.2 ... it's about twice as thick as you'd want in an S2K.
"I wouldn't put Royal Purple in any car I cared about. RP is all marketing."
I'm glad you said it, slipstream444. I get reamed each time I say this. It's a medium/decent-quality synthetic blend ... that's about it. It has a kewl purple color to justify its higher-than-premium price. I won't go so far as to say it's "garbage" but the way people swoon over this bling-heavy stuff makes me sick.
Still, I'd like someone here to try their Syncromax to see how well it works. It can't be that bad. It has a viscosity similar to Honda MTF II.
The Valvoline stuff is for heavy duty truck (18 wheeler) transmissions:
http://www.valvoline.com/pdf/hdsyn50.pdf
Note the cSt at 100C: 18.2 ... it's about twice as thick as you'd want in an S2K.
"I wouldn't put Royal Purple in any car I cared about. RP is all marketing."
I'm glad you said it, slipstream444. I get reamed each time I say this. It's a medium/decent-quality synthetic blend ... that's about it. It has a kewl purple color to justify its higher-than-premium price. I won't go so far as to say it's "garbage" but the way people swoon over this bling-heavy stuff makes me sick.
Still, I'd like someone here to try their Syncromax to see how well it works. It can't be that bad. It has a viscosity similar to Honda MTF II.
10-19-2010, 03:54 PM
#15
Moderator
Originally Posted by vtec9,Oct 19 2010, 06:46 PM
In my experience, GMSMFM wears out in no time and you're back to a clunky shifter. OEM Honda MTF is superior.
10-19-2010, 04:27 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slipstream, thats a cool pdf file, thanks for the link. I do question the point system though... I was following the redline, and for some reason though they failed only one test (it was actually thicker than the rated 75W) it somehow ended up with a 2x worse score than the amsoil?
Really informative up until the rating, imo. I think I'll stick with my RL, its easy to buy and it scores well in all categories and for the two items I was really worried about, (wear/extreme load) RL does the best out of the tests. I wonder if this protects against the drivetrain shocks?
Really informative up until the rating, imo. I think I'll stick with my RL, its easy to buy and it scores well in all categories and for the two items I was really worried about, (wear/extreme load) RL does the best out of the tests. I wonder if this protects against the drivetrain shocks?
10-19-2010, 05:22 PM
#17
Originally Posted by ikeyballz,Oct 19 2010, 06:27 PM
slipstream, thats a cool pdf file, thanks for the link. I do question the point system though... I was following the redline, and for some reason though they failed only one test (it was actually thicker than the rated 75W) it somehow ended up with a 2x worse score than the amsoil?
Really informative up until the rating, imo. I think I'll stick with my RL, its easy to buy and it scores well in all categories and for the two items I was really worried about, (wear/extreme load) RL does the best out of the tests. I wonder if this protects against the drivetrain shocks?
Really informative up until the rating, imo. I think I'll stick with my RL, its easy to buy and it scores well in all categories and for the two items I was really worried about, (wear/extreme load) RL does the best out of the tests. I wonder if this protects against the drivetrain shocks?
The confusion comes down to the conditions where you may have 6 oils tied for first place (equivalent top performance on the test) and then the scale goes not to 2 for the next lowest, but to 7, 8, 9 etc. In other words they counted the number of oils tied at 1 and then went to the next numerical value (6 tied for 1st, and then the next worst gets 7th place)
That practice may look a little odd at first glance (I questioned it myself initially), but after a little research - it's actually a statistically sound practice for ranking (this would turn out to be a very long post if I explained why).
Your observation that the end numerical value does not represent how much better one oil is to another is correct. Amsoil is not necessarily twice as 'good' as the number two oil (Mobil 1) based on the numerical value - it's a visual indicator of how well it performed overall on all test areas.
The important take away from this test is not the end numerical score value per se - it's an indicator to demonstrate how well an oil does in several dimensions.
Another function of the scoring (to include highlighting test failures) is to show there are several oils that are essentially one dimensional - in that they performed well on one or two test areas, but failed terribly in other critical areas. What good is low wear if the oil causes corrosion of the components - or low wear, but high foam (which causes problems with lubrication and heat transfer)? I think you get the point.
It's also interesting to point out Amsoil was not the #1 in all critical sub-areas - it had several #1, #2 and one 4th place finish. However, it did not fail a single test and had the best overall performance when all areas were considered - which is what you want in an oil. It wasn't the most expensive oil in the bunch, in fact Redline is more expensive - however, it was the 5th most expensive. A bargain considering the performance.
10-19-2010, 06:19 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by slipstream444,Oct 19 2010, 03:22 PM
I agree the scoring was a little hard to resolve initially. They based it on a scale of 1 (best) to 14 (worst) based on the 14 oils involved in the test - with the lowest overall numerical score being the best.
The confusion comes down to the conditions where you may have 6 oils tied for first place (equivalent top performance on the test) and then the scale goes not to 2 for the next lowest, but to 7, 8, 9 etc. In other words they counted the number of oils tied at 1 and then went to the next numerical value (6 tied for 1st, and then the next worst gets 7th place)
That practice may look a little odd at first glance (I questioned it myself initially), but after a little research - it's actually a statistically sound practice for ranking (this would turn out to be a very long post if I explained why).
Your observation that the end numerical value does not represent how much better one oil is to another is correct. Amsoil is not necessarily twice as 'good' as the number two oil (Mobil 1) based on the numerical value - it's a visual indicator of how well it performed overall on all test areas.
The important take away from this test is not the end numerical score value per se - it's an indicator to demonstrate how well an oil does in several dimensions.
Another function of the scoring (to include highlighting test failures) is to show there are several oils that are essentially one dimensional - in that they performed well on one or two test areas, but failed terribly in other critical areas. What good is low wear if the oil causes corrosion of the components - or low wear, but high foam (which causes problems with lubrication and heat transfer)? I think you get the point.
It's also interesting to point out Amsoil was not the #1 in all critical sub-areas - it had several #1, #2 and one 4th place finish. However, it did not fail a single test and had the best overall performance when all areas were considered - which is what you want in an oil. It wasn't the most expensive oil in the bunch, in fact Redline is more expensive - however, it was the 5th most expensive. A bargain considering the performance.
The confusion comes down to the conditions where you may have 6 oils tied for first place (equivalent top performance on the test) and then the scale goes not to 2 for the next lowest, but to 7, 8, 9 etc. In other words they counted the number of oils tied at 1 and then went to the next numerical value (6 tied for 1st, and then the next worst gets 7th place)
That practice may look a little odd at first glance (I questioned it myself initially), but after a little research - it's actually a statistically sound practice for ranking (this would turn out to be a very long post if I explained why).
Your observation that the end numerical value does not represent how much better one oil is to another is correct. Amsoil is not necessarily twice as 'good' as the number two oil (Mobil 1) based on the numerical value - it's a visual indicator of how well it performed overall on all test areas.
The important take away from this test is not the end numerical score value per se - it's an indicator to demonstrate how well an oil does in several dimensions.
Another function of the scoring (to include highlighting test failures) is to show there are several oils that are essentially one dimensional - in that they performed well on one or two test areas, but failed terribly in other critical areas. What good is low wear if the oil causes corrosion of the components - or low wear, but high foam (which causes problems with lubrication and heat transfer)? I think you get the point.
It's also interesting to point out Amsoil was not the #1 in all critical sub-areas - it had several #1, #2 and one 4th place finish. However, it did not fail a single test and had the best overall performance when all areas were considered - which is what you want in an oil. It wasn't the most expensive oil in the bunch, in fact Redline is more expensive - however, it was the 5th most expensive. A bargain considering the performance.
It really was interesting how some "good" oils performed. I have never trusted RP after hearing they don't stand behind their product, and I guess they don't stand behind it for good reasons. They were one of the worst performers of the important test, along with the lucas brand, which also is heavily advertised.
The results did convince me that RL, although not the "2nd highest" brand rated, was decent since the tests they did terrible on dont affect the performance in my climate much, except for the "foaming" test. That is kind of scary since I do tend to overfill my transmission.
I'll definitely look into trying amsoil. Now if I could just find a dealer near me...
10-20-2010, 04:09 AM
#20
Buy straight from their website (or call their order line) - it'll be delivered in 3-5 days. I recommend getting a 6-month Preferred Customer Program subscription if you plan on buying anything approaching $100. It'll save you the cost of the subscription - and then some. I believe they still have the 6-month subscription ($10) - and you can buy pretty as much as you want at dealer cost. I believe their products have a 3-year shelf life, so buy 1.5-2 years worth of fluids and call it good. Obviously, the more product you buy the better; which is why I find other folks that want in on an order (to help save on shipping costs too) and split the cost of the subscription. Their tech line is pretty helpful as well.