Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / 4x4 Cars / May 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

synthetic oils

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
d745 - 08 Apr 2005 12:05 GMT
2003 silverado, 4wd, 6.0 liter engine, 4:10 rears.  
I would appreciate your comments on using Amsoil as motor oil.  And using
synthetic oils in the transmission and differentials.  I don?t know which
oils to use in the transmission and differentials suggestions would be
appreciated.
C. E. White - 08 Apr 2005 12:30 GMT
> 2003 silverado, 4wd, 6.0 liter engine, 4:10 rears.
> I would appreciate your comments on using Amsoil as motor oil.  And using
> synthetic oils in the transmission and differentials.  I don’t know which
> oils to use in the transmission and differentials suggestions would be
> appreciated.

My usggest is that you read your owner's guide. It will tell
you what specifications the oils should meet. Be careful of
some of the Amsoil engine oils. Some are API certified and
some are not. Your owner's guide is going to specifiy that
the engine oil be API certified.

Here are recommendations for the other fluids from the GM
manual -

Automatic Transmission - DEXRON III Automatic Transmission
Fluid

Front Axle - SAE 80W-90 Lubricant (GM P/N 1052271, Canadian
P/N 10950849 or equivalent).

Front and Rear Axle (5 Spd.) - SAE 75W-90 Synthetic Axle
lubricant (GM Part No. 12378261, Canadian Part No. 10953455)
or equivalent meeting GM specification 9986115

Rear Axle (With QS4 Axle only) - SAE 75W-90 Synthetic Axle
Lubricant (GM Part No. 12378557, Canadian Part No. 88901362)
or equivalent.

Transfer Case - NVG 149-NP (One Speed Automatic) - DEXRON
III Automatic Transmission Fluid (GM P/N 12346143, Canada
P/N 10952622) or equivalent.

Transfer Case - NVG 236/246-NP8 (Two Speed Automatic) -
Auto-Trac II Fluid (GM Part No. 12378508, Canada Part No.
10953626) or equivalent.

Transfer Case - NVG 261-NP2 (Two Speed Manual) - DEXRON III
Automatic Transmission Fluid (GM P/N 12346143, Canada P/N
10952622) or equivalent.

Transfer Case - NVG 263-NP1 (Selectable) - DEXRON III
Automatic Transmission Fluid (GM P/N 12346143, Canada P/N
10952622) or equivalent.

Using synthetic fluids is fine, just make sure they reflect
the appropriate GM specifications.

Ed
tpg comcntr - 22 Apr 2005 04:20 GMT
Try the moly gear oil additive at www.theparsecgroup.com.  Run it in
my 87 Montero which now has 250k and still going strong.

Old Geezer

>> 2003 silverado, 4wd, 6.0 liter engine, 4:10 rears.
>> I would appreciate your comments on using Amsoil as motor oil.  And using
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
>Ed

 
Bror Jace - 22 Apr 2005 04:30 GMT
The Parsec Group?  That's pretty funny.

After all these years you are still selling this home made goo as space
age stuff. :rolleyes:

--- Bror Jace
Peter D. Hipson - 08 Apr 2005 14:22 GMT
If the Amsoil is API approved, go for it. If not, kiss your warranty
good-bye! Use Lucas oils instead.

>2003 silverado, 4wd, 6.0 liter engine, 4:10 rears.  
>I would appreciate your comments on using Amsoil as motor oil.  And using
>synthetic oils in the transmission and differentials.  I don’t know which
>oils to use in the transmission and differentials suggestions would be
>appreciated.
Rob Munach - 08 Apr 2005 18:42 GMT
> If the Amsoil is API approved, go for it. If not, kiss your warranty
> good-bye! Use Lucas oils instead.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>oils to use in the transmission and differentials suggestions would be
>>appreciated.

Regardless if the Amsoil is API rated or not, it will NOT cause any oil
related engine failures and will likely prevent failures from occuring
do to overheating etc. It is probably the finest oil you can get. Amsoil
*claims* they will warranty against oil related failures as well. I have
been using it in my vehicles for 20 years.

Signature

Rob Munach, PE
Excel Engineering
PO Box 1264
Carrboro, NC 27510

Peter D. Hipson - 09 Apr 2005 00:08 GMT
>Regardless if the Amsoil is API rated or not, it will NOT cause any oil
>related engine failures and will likely prevent failures from occuring
>do to overheating etc. It is probably the finest oil you can get. Amsoil
>*claims* they will warranty against oil related failures as well. I have
>been using it in my vehicles for 20 years.

There are two camps, absolutely opposed. ONe group swears at Amsoil,
the other swears by it. I'd be very reluctant to call it the finest
oil you can get. That is a big claim for a company who can't get their
oil API certified.

As to their claim of warranty coverage, I'd not want to bank on that.
I think in reading your message, you agree, too.

More important than name (within reason!) is frequency of changes.
People who stretch out their oil and filter changes are the people who
are more likely to have a 90K mile car that puffs blue smoke at every
light and stop sign.

I won't debate Amsoil, however. As I say, if you are happy with it, or
want to try it, great. I think it is of sufficient quality that it
will match virtually all other oils. The lack of API certification is
difficult to understand (I know their story: expensive and would make
their product cost more.) Lucas oil (which I use, and am very happy
with) is API certified and is similar price.

For what it is worth, the issue of oil quality is not just in how well
it lubricates. Instead it is more complex, and includes issues in
detergent action, multi-viscosity additives, and such.

Anyway, Rob, you use Amsoil. I'll use Lucas. When one of us has a
failure we'll email the other! (and neither will have to do that...
<bg>)
Rob Munach - 09 Apr 2005 12:37 GMT
>>Regardless if the Amsoil is API rated or not, it will NOT cause any oil
>>related engine failures and will likely prevent failures from occuring
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> failure we'll email the other! (and neither will have to do that...
> <bg>)

Wow, that was the most civil Amsoil discussion I have ever seen in a
newgroup.
FWIW, I change my oil and filter once a year and have been doing it that
way for 20 years. I have never had a vehicle that used any oil. It is
much easier for me to pay more for an oil and have to mess with the car
less. I have too much equipment to maintain!

BTW, Amsoil does have an API rated blend - it is just not their best stuff.

Signature

Rob Munach, PE
Excel Engineering
PO Box 1264
Carrboro, NC 27510

Peter D. Hipson - 09 Apr 2005 14:07 GMT
>Wow, that was the most civil Amsoil discussion I have ever seen in a
>newgroup.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>BTW, Amsoil does have an API rated blend - it is just not their best stuff.

Ah, I aim to please. On my trucks I change at least every six months
(when you are talking a 35K to 130K investment, it is reasonable!) The
boss' car is once a year, like yours.

I personally feel if Amsoil were to get their products that are not
API rated through the test, they could possibly double or better their
business. I know many who won't buy it for that very reason.
Rob Munach - 10 Apr 2005 12:14 GMT
>>Wow, that was the most civil Amsoil discussion I have ever seen in a
>>newgroup.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> API rated through the test, they could possibly double or better their
> business. I know many who won't buy it for that very reason.
It must not make sense economically to do it. I guess they have
estimated that the amount of sales lost would not exceed the cost of the
certification. I had been using the oil for 16 years before I even new
about the certification issue and they didn't lose me as a customer.

Signature

Rob Munach, PE
Excel Engineering
PO Box 1264
Carrboro, NC 27510

Peter D. Hipson - 10 Apr 2005 15:56 GMT
>It must not make sense economically to do it. I guess they have
>estimated that the amount of sales lost would not exceed the cost of the
>certification. I had been using the oil for 16 years before I even new
>about the certification issue and they didn't lose me as a customer.

They would not be the first company that guessed that type of decision
wrong. <g> The real issue is that it will void the warranty on the
engine if it is not API certified. That Amsoil says they will cover
any damage their oil causes, it would be practically impossible in
many cases to show what caused the failure. Aside, I've not heard any
horror stories either way about Amsoil. (And I've not heard any such
horror stories about any other brand...) Years ago (and we are
probably talking well before you existed (if you are lucky!) the
issues of sludge buildup was a major point. Oil makers were getting
into 'detergent' motor oil technology, and each had their own ideas
and formulas. Some did well, others did not do as well. There are some
who don't like QS or Pennzoil, because at first there was excessive
sludge buildup in those brands. But that was a *long* time ago. Now,
if you remember cars that didn't even have an oil filter (it's a
relatively new addition to the engine!) or cars that had the cannister
filter (dear god was that a PITA to deal with--messy to no end, and
half of them were mounted upside down so dirty oil and crap went
everywhere when you removed the. Ah, the good old days!

I've got to wonder, why do people really like, or really not like a
certain brand of oil? RBG!
Peter Beerson - 12 Apr 2005 03:05 GMT
>> I personally feel if Amsoil were to get their products that are not
>> API rated through the test, they could possibly double or better their
>> business. I know many who won't buy it for that very reason.

>It must not make sense economically to do it. I guess they have
>estimated that the amount of sales lost would not exceed the cost of the
>certification.

According to the API web site, the API rating costs $850 for API
members and $1050 for non-members.  At $6/quart, less than 200 quarts
would exceed the cost of the API rating.

It's definitely not the cost of the API rating.

>I had been using the oil for 16 years before I even new
>about the certification issue and they didn't lose me as a customer.

When you've spent years paying exhorbitant prices for mediocre
products and pushing them on your family and friends, you'll bend over
backward to convince yourself you're not wasting your money.

If Amsoil's products were able to pass the tests, you can bet your a.s
they'd get them API rated.
Rob Munach - 12 Apr 2005 12:02 GMT
>>>I personally feel if Amsoil were to get their products that are not
>>>API rated through the test, they could possibly double or better their
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> It's definitely not the cost of the API rating.

Clearly it is more complicated than that.

>>I had been using the oil for 16 years before I even new
>>about the certification issue and they didn't lose me as a customer.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> If Amsoil's products were able to pass the tests, you can bet your a.s
> they'd get them API rated.

Uh, I don't push it at all. In 16 years of beaing a dealer, I have sold
0 products to anyone. I use it because it is the best oil you can buy.

Signature

Rob Munach, PE
Excel Engineering
PO Box 1264
Carrboro, NC 27510

Peter Beerson - 13 Apr 2005 00:28 GMT
>>  
>>>>I personally feel if Amsoil were to get their products that are not
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>Clearly it is more complicated than that.

Please explain.

To me, it would appear that it could be one (or more) of the
following:

1) The company doesn't want to spend the money on testing.  (Testing
is where the big money is.)

2) The uncertified formulations won't pass the tests.

3) They screw around with the uncertified formulations so often
(depending on component costs, availability, etc.) that they can't
justify certifying a formulation that will probably change in a few
months anyway.  (See also #1.  Imagine the cost of testing
constantly-changing formulations.)

4) They already have a customer base that really doesn't care about
certification and has fallen hook, line, and sinker for all the hype.

If you have any others, I'm all ears.

Sorry if I sound confrontational.  I don't mean to.  I'm just curious
why a company would eschew such a widely accepted performance
certification (one that many warranties *require*) -- especially when
they claim such superior performance.
Rob Munach - 13 Apr 2005 02:41 GMT
>>>>>I personally feel if Amsoil were to get their products that are not
>>>>>API rated through the test, they could possibly double or better their
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> 2) The uncertified formulations won't pass the tests.
Unlikley.

> 3) They screw around with the uncertified formulations so often
> (depending on component costs, availability, etc.) that they can't
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> 4) They already have a customer base that really doesn't care about
> certification and has fallen hook, line, and sinker for all the hype.

It ain't hype. *Most* of their products are excellent. I gurantee you if
you tested them side by side with Lucas, they would come out on top.

> If you have any others, I'm all ears.
>
> Sorry if I sound confrontational.  I don't mean to.  I'm just curious
> why a company would eschew such a widely accepted performance
> certification (one that many warranties *require*) -- especially when
> they claim such superior performance.

I believe it is a cost issue. The costs that a previous poster listed
are  signifcantly less than what I had previously heard. Amsoil has been
making synthetic oil longer than anyone (I think). I have never heard of
anyone having a problem with the oil (except maybe the Avoil of the 1980's)

Regards,

Signature

Rob Munach, PE
Excel Engineering
PO Box 1264
Carrboro, NC 27510

Peter Beerson - 14 Apr 2005 01:25 GMT
>>>>It's definitely not the cost of the API rating.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>> 2) The uncertified formulations won't pass the tests.
>Unlikley.

If they haven't been tested, how would you know?

>> 3) They screw around with the uncertified formulations so often
>> (depending on component costs, availability, etc.) that they can't
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>It ain't hype. *Most* of their products are excellent. I gurantee you if
>you tested them side by side with Lucas, they would come out on top.

I prefer the products I buy (*especially* my motor oil) to be
thoroughly tested *before* I buy them.

>I believe it is a cost issue. The costs that a previous poster listed
>are  signifcantly less than what I had previously heard.

And they ($850 for API members, $1050 for non-members) *are* the
correct costs for certification.

>Amsoil has been
>making synthetic oil longer than anyone (I think).

Longevity has nothing to do with quality.

Longevity has *everything* to do with marketing.
Bror Jace - 15 Apr 2005 04:11 GMT
I use to hate Amsoil, mostly because of the dealers who act like
zealots.  I have since come to realize that it is a very good, stable
'genuine' synthetic oil ... and have met some good people who sell it.
I still don't use it though.

Anyone know why Lucas is supposed to be good?  I hear their 'synthetic'
is actually a Group III and that just kills the brand, as far as I'm
concerned.  I also wouldn't use their "HD stabilizer" if someone gave
me a case of the stuff.

Most gear oils will say right on the bottle if they are compatible with
limited slip differentials.  Still, diffys can be a little picky and
you might need to add some limited slip additive to get the most out of
your rear end.

As for brands of gear oil, I prefer Red Line and Specialty
Formulations:

http://www.specialtyformulations.com/

http://www.redlineoil.com/

For motor oil, I use Schaeffer, a private blender in St. Louis:

http://www.schaefferoil.com/

--- Bror Jace
C. E. White - 13 Apr 2005 11:31 GMT
> >>>>I personally feel if Amsoil were to get their products that are not
> >>>>API rated through the test, they could possibly double or better their
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> certification (one that many warranties *require*) -- especially when
> they claim such superior performance.

I believe the non-API certified Amsoil motor oils have too
much phosphorus in the oil to meet the API requirements. The
API requirements are driven by the vehicle manufacturers. To
much phosphorous can degrade catalytic convertors. However,
the compound that contains the phosphorous is a good and
relatively inexpensive anti-wear agent. So, you leave out
the stuff to protect the catalytic convertor, but reduce the
cheap wear fighting additives. There are other additives to
fight wear that don't damage catalytic convertors, but they
cost more.

Good discussion at
http://forums.noria.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/616604995/m/645103923

If you trust Amsoil, then go for it. I don't, so I won't. I
suppose using non-API certified Amsoil for 15,000 miles (1
change) probably won't contaminate your catalytic convertor
with any more Phosphorous that changing API certified oil at
5000 mile intervals. At first the Amsoil will introduce more
phosphorous into the system, but as the additives are
depleted the amount will decrease. With three changes of API
certified oil, you'll have three lower level spikes of
phosphorous contamination, probably for a similar long term
result.

Amsoil position on API licensing is at
http://www.performanceoiltechnology.com/apilicensing.htm .

Ed
Rob Munach - 13 Apr 2005 15:55 GMT
>>>>>>I personally feel if Amsoil were to get their products that are not
>>>>>>API rated through the test, they could possibly double or better their
[quoted text clipped - 67 lines]
>
> Ed
That is a good article and should answer anyone's questions. As it says,
the Amsoil is much less volitile so it won't be putting as much
phosphorus in to the system. Another issue is that Amsoil would have to
reveal their formulation to get liscensed and they are not interested in
doing that.

To each his own.

Signature

Rob Munach, PE
Excel Engineering
PO Box 1264
Carrboro, NC 27510

Peter Beerson - 14 Apr 2005 01:17 GMT
>Another issue is that Amsoil would have to
>reveal their formulation to get liscensed and they are not interested in
>doing that.

An oil company does NOT have to reveal a formulation to get it
licensed.

As can be seen at http://api-ep.api.org/filelibrary/FormBGF4SM.pdf
the only formulation information required for certification is various
levels (zinc, phosphorous, etc.) that Amsoil and many other oil makers
often put in their advertising.
Joseph P. - 17 Apr 2005 10:29 GMT
>>>>>>> I personally feel if Amsoil were to get their products that are not
>>>>>>> API rated through the test, they could possibly double or better
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
>
> To each his own.

I've worked in the lubrication business and know that the research for
Phosphorous and ZDDP and their effects on catalytic convertors is not
correlated well enough to convince all oil manufactures of their
detrimental effects. As I understand it, the decision to reduce ZDDP
levels to the number it currently is at (API SM-levels) was a bit arbitrary.

Anyway, as far as Amsoil is concerned, I've had nothing but great
performance from their non-API oils for over 90,000 miles. Also, I
recently purchased this new motor oil software, Engine Oil Selector 2005
(EOS) (http://engineoilselector.com/index.html) and it calculates Amsoil
as being the top-ranked oil for every SAE viscosity Amsoil makes. The
next highest oil the software ranks is the Valvoline Maxlife Synthetic,
which is not ILSAC-certified (due to lower fuel economy), but meets API
SM and has a better EOS score than Mobil 1 and Mobil 1 Extended Performance.

By the way, I found this comment in the March 2003 issue of
LubesNGreases magazine:

"Most of Shell’s engine oil
products are API licensed,
but in 2000 its Pennzoil division
stepped out of the
bounds and began marketing
unlicensed oils specifically
formulated for cars with higher
mileage, in excess of
75,000 miles. Branded as
Pennzoil High Mileage..."

These high mileage oils generally add more ZDDP to reduce wear in older
cars. So, apparently, Amsoil isn't the only company marketing non-API oil.
Peter Beerson - 17 Apr 2005 13:00 GMT
In rec.autos.4x4,

>Anyway, as far as Amsoil is concerned, I've had nothing but great
>performance from their non-API oils for over 90,000 miles. Also, I
>recently purchased this new motor oil software, Engine Oil Selector 2005
>(EOS) (http://engineoilselector.com/index.html) and it calculates Amsoil
>as being the top-ranked oil for every SAE viscosity Amsoil makes.

In alt.sailing.asa:

>Also, I recently purchased this new motor oil
>software, Engine Oil Selector 2005 (EOS)
>(http://engineoilselector.com/index.html) and it calculates Amsoil as
>being the top-ranked oil for every SAE viscosity Amsoil makes. Pretty cool.

So, one day after this software ("Engine Oil Selector 2005") is
announced in alt.comp.shareware, two people in two very different
groups post *exactly* the same sentence saying that Amsoil comes out
number one in every grade Amsoil makes.

Mighty suspicious.  (Especially since both posts came from the same IP
address 10 minutes apart.)

The only technical person I can find associated with this software is
"M.F. Nigohosian, B.S.M.E", who is identified as the Engine Oil
Selector Software Project Manager at the company that's publishing
this software.  Are there any oil company people involved at any
level?

Does anybody know who is actually behind this software?  Is it a new
twist in product advertising?
Captain Lon - 17 Apr 2005 13:53 GMT
Peter Beerson wrote:  > So, one day after this software ("Engine Oil
Selector 2005") is
> announced in alt.comp.shareware, two people in two very different
> groups post *exactly* the same sentence saying that Amsoil comes out
> number one in every grade Amsoil makes.
>
> Mighty suspicious.  (Especially since both posts came from the same IP
> address 10 minutes apart.)

And don't miss Gaynzy's post from Saturday the 16th of March, 2005:

~~~~~~~~~~~

I've been using the Amsoil products for a while... quite happy with them.
~~~~~~~~~~~

What do you make of that????

Signature

Captain Lon

"Rock stars!  Is there anything they don't know?"  Homer Simpson

> In rec.autos.4x4,
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> Does anybody know who is actually behind this software?  Is it a new
> twist in product advertising?
Rudy Hiebert - 19 Apr 2005 20:32 GMT
Your concerns that will address this issue should be directed to the
corporate office. My opinion is that the source of the page you refer
to does not originate from the corporation unless my eyes are slower
than my fingers. Its validity shoud be measured by its source. If I am
wrong about assuming that its source other than what it looks like,
then I would also assume that the web site may be under construction.
Mark D - 11 Apr 2005 01:18 GMT
2003 silverado, 4wd, 6.0 liter engine, 4:10 rears. I would appreciate
your comments on using Amsoil as motor oil. And using synthetic oils in
the transmission and differentials. I don't know which oils to use in
the transmission and differentials suggestions would be appreciated.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howdy Dave, there's nothing wrong with any of the Amsoil Engine Oils,
other than thier high price. If you are still considering changing Oil
at the Manufacturer recommended intervals, perhaps just go with Mobil 1
instead, and save yourself a few bucks along the way?  I've been using
Mobil 1 on my '97 Tahoe since new.

Wally World sells Mobil 1 in 5qt Jugs, and usually sells for $20 a jug.
(not sure how many quarts your engine takes?)

As far as transmission fluids go, I assume your truck has a tranny
cooler from the factory, so this is good.  

Amsoil does make a full synthetic Transmission fluid, again not cheap,
and I have this in my Tahoe, and it works fine.

If you are going to do the Transmission Service yourself, I'd make sure
you go to the Chevy Dealer to get the new Pan Gasket, and Filter.
I once bought these parts from an Auto parts store, and although they
were labeled Delco parts, the kit came with a wimpy Cork Gasket, which
was junk, and was not what the Tranny originally used, which was a much
more heavy duty vulcanized/rubberized Fiber/paper gasket.

Definitely use the proper Torque Wrench, proper torque values, and
torque sequence on the pan to eliminate the chances of buckling the
gasket which will cause leaks. (Usually these pan bolts torque at about
18 ft lbs or so)

As far as Differential Fluids go, Mobil 1 full Synthetic gear Lube
should work fine in both front, and rear Differentials, even with the
limited Slip Axle, which you probably have in the rear.

An easy way to do the fluid swap on the Differentials without resorting
to ripping off the covers, is to buy a fluid suction gun,  use a length
of rubber hose insert into the fill ports, and remove the old fluids
this way.  Mark
d745 - 11 Apr 2005 15:58 GMT
Thanks all for the info  especially Mark D as I wanted to know about
synthetic differential and transmission fluids also.
Mark D - 12 Apr 2005 05:37 GMT
Thanks all for the info especially Mark D as I wanted to know about
synthetic differential and transmission fluids also.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,  Glad I could be of some help with your questions.

I understand some of the newer Chevy/GMC vehicles are supposedly coming
with full synth lubes in the differential.  By no means would it ever
hurt to swap fluids provided you use a good high quality Lube that
meets, or exceeds manuacturer's recommendations.  I myself run Mobil 1
gear lubes in both front, and rear differentials. I originally did the
swap at 2,000mi, and then again at 15,000mi.  I'm at 38K with my 97
Tahoe, and running like new.

As far as the transmission goes, this is another area where I believe
one should not take too much time deciding on when to change. I believe
one should'nt wait till a high mileage like 60K before they decided to
service thier tranny.
Good clean fluid (and clean filter) is a Tranny's lifeblood.

My opinion of oils is this: Regardless of the highest quality oils made
in the world, if you're using a factory stock filter, no matter how
good, these little soda can filters which are on most gas engines can
only take so much dirt, and debris, and they do pass quite a bit back
into the engine even when new.  By 3K, any oil is filthy. Sure, good oil
like Mobil 1 hasn't broken down by 3K, but the oil is contaminated with
dirt, blow-by contaminants, acids, etc, etc.  Larger remote filters, or
an additional by-pass filters are an option one could persue if they
felt they needed it.  Mark D.
Peter D. Hipson - 12 Apr 2005 14:34 GMT
>Thanks all for the info especially Mark D as I wanted to know about
>synthetic differential and transmission fluids also.

I just realized that if you have a limited slip differential, you
should talk to the maker/dealer before using synthetic. There may need
to be an additive (specifically for synthetic oil) you will have to
add.

Chrysler is using (IIRC, someone correct me if I'm wrong!) torsen
differentials in the rear of their bigger (2500/3500) trucks. No
additivie is needed for these. The 1500 does use a standard clutch
type limited slip.
Rob Munach - 12 Apr 2005 16:05 GMT
>>Thanks all for the info especially Mark D as I wanted to know about
>>synthetic differential and transmission fluids also.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Chrysler is using (IIRC, someone correct me if I'm wrong!) torsen
> differentials in the rear of their bigger (2500/3500) trucks.
I would be suprised if this was true as a torsen is fairly expensive.

> additivie is needed for these. The 1500 does use a standard clutch
> type limited slip.

Signature

Rob Munach, PE
Excel Engineering
PO Box 1264
Carrboro, NC 27510

Mark D - 12 Apr 2005 18:08 GMT
I just realized that if you have a limited slip differential, you should
talk to the maker/dealer before using synthetic. There may need to be an
additive (specifically for synthetic oil) you will have to add.
Chrysler is using (IIRC, someone correct me if I'm wrong!) torsen
differentials in the rear of their bigger (2500/3500) trucks. No
additivie is needed for these. The 1500 does use a standard clutch type
limited slip
---------------------------------------------------------------
If I recall correctly, Mobil 1 Gear Lubes are approved for use in both
open, and limited slip differentials.  My Tahoe has a limited slip axle.
Make sure you read the bottle first.  Mark
Robert - 02 May 2005 03:14 GMT
I have an eaton clutch-type lsd and use mobile1. eaton does suggest that a
friction additive be used. I use equatorque - found atsmost auto parts
stores - it's inia tube like toothepaste.

m> I just realized that if you have a limited slip differential, you
m> should talk to the maker/ dealer before using synthetic. There may need
m> to be an additive (specifically for synthetic oil) you will have to
m> add. Chrysler is using (IIRC, someone correct me if I'm wrong!) torsen
m> differentials in the rear of their bigger (2500/
m> 3500) trucks. No additivie is needed for these. The 1500 does use a
m> standard clutch type limited slip
m> ---------------------------------------------------------------
m> If I recall correctly, Mobil 1 Gear Lubes are approved for use in both
m> open, and limited slip differentials. My Tahoe has a limited slip axle.
m> Make sure you read the bottle first. Mark

- robert -
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.