Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / 4x4 Cars / May 2005
synthetic oils
|
|
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 dont 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 dont 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 -
|
|
|