SOME GL-5s today are non corrosive

redline says use GL-4 http://www.redlineoil.com/Products.aspx?pcid=7 even though the Gl-5 NS is non corrosive

M0bile 1 LS shouldnt be used in our transmission. In Fact MOBIL says not to use it in a GL-4 tranny

but it can be used in rear axles http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lub..._LS_75W-90.asp

Valvoline Synpower cannot be used in GL-4 spec trannys but Valvoline Durablend can

Pennzoil says not to use their GL-5 in GL-4 specd trannys

https://www.rx8club.com/attachment.p...1&d=1261019319

Amsoil has a GL-4 that it recommends for Mazda's http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/mtg.aspx and don't recommend their GL-5 for tranny's that call for GL-4

It all depends on the additives and sulfur content. Some companies have switched to a buffered sulfur or low sulfur formula which can be used in GL-4 transmissions. Others have not and cant be.

I have written to Eneos to ask about theirs.

In summary:

GL-5 is not a"better" or "higher" spec than GL-4 its just a LATER spec. Originally ALL GL-5s were too corrosive to use in transmissions and rear ends that called for GL-4 . Recently SOME companies have changed their formulas to ones that aren't as damaging as older formulas of GL-5.

Not all companies have done so and SOME which claim to be GL-4/GL-5 still have a sulphur content that is TOO HIGH for SOME GL-4 rated transmissions. Bottom Line is if its safe to use in GL-4 spec'd transmissions it will say so in the product info and on the label. If it doesn't ASK the COMPANY WHO MAKES IT whether they believe its safe.

The reason why Mazda specs GL-4 is because there are brass synchros in their transmissions and the sulphur content of SOME GL-5 gear oils CAN destroy them and other parts. GL-4 gear oil wont.

GL-5 lubes that also have the MT-1 designation are the ones that are supposed to be "yellow metal safe" but they should say yellow metal safe- if they don't avoid them.

 

^^
This all is what had my head spinning a few years ago. I'm just a cave-man. All of these exceptions and special cases confuse, and frighten me! I avoided the madness by using a GL4. Easy.

I can't even tell who screwed up. The API? Manufacturers? Mazda? When is a spec not a spec? When does "Use GL4 or GL5" mean "If you're savvy"?

What a mess.

 

Well OkeY... i've red the topic and the test on Your site, mainly thats wht i've decided to use Motul Gear 300 - it's also a GL-5.

But U can't say that ALL the GL-5 don't cause any effetcs if the Eneos doesn't ?
Or can You ?

Anyway... what do You think about Motul ?
Im not from the US so I can't use Eneos, I would have to order it form states.

 

Nessayah that is correct. Today SOME GL-5s are formulated to have little of no corrosive effects on yellow metals BUT NOT ALL. You have to carefully read the product information or the label of the jug to make sure. If the info/labeling isn't clear emailing or calling the manufacturer is the only way to know for sure bar taking the chance of ruining your transmission.

Eneos has European distribution check their European site http://www.eneos.eu/

 

Zoom44 - you said it perfectly.

Why risk using a GL-5 when there are two great GL-4s available: AMSOIL and Redline 75W-90s?

 

actually Redline 75w90 is GL-5, MT90 is GL-4
and yeah, using your own tranny as a testbed for different brands of GL-5 oils doesn't seem to be a good idea :p

 

Because if everyone around here played it safe then we'd still all be driving around stock RX8's.

I would say that you should exercise common sense and educate yourself about the product. I don't think you should use any product, lubricant or otherwise, without educating yourself about it. My whole pursuit of understanding lubricants was to be able to make an educated decision and clearly articulate my reasons for my choice.

I am familiar with the GL-5 formulation and the differences between that and GL-4. The Eneos is advertised as a manual transmisson fluid and BHR has had really great experiences with it in the RX8. We were well aware that people would shy away from the product because of the notion that ALL GL-5 fluids are bad for the manual transmission. The point of testing was to either prove or disprove that theory with the Eneos.

I can't make the claim that all GL-5 fluids are good for your transmission but so far I seem to be the only person providing any evidence other than hearsay or rumor.

I'll have to grab a picture of the Mobile1 LS GL-5 as it says "yellow metal safe" on the bottle itself.

Mobile is well aware of the warranty requirements that Mazda puts on cars. If you email or call Mobile1's tech line and ask them which of their motor oils would best work in the RX8 they will tell you NONE. They are under specific instructions not to market their oils for the RX8 motor.

 

wowo good edit Flashwing- that post was aLOT shorter when i started to quote it.

"if everyone played it safe" well if everyone listened to what you posted previously

They'd be filling their transmissions with the wrong stuff and we'd ahve even more bad transmissions around here.

Your correction here

is much better except where you say "theory" . Its not a theory that original GL-5 formulations caused synchro failures in transmissions. It happened MANY MANY TIMES. The guys that make the stuff even pu tit in the info "do not use in transmissions spec'd for GL-4".

As for the point of your testing- you know there are people that do that at the companies that produce the stuff. You could have just contacted Eneos and asked them if they were using a buffered sulphur GL-5 formula that was appropriate for use in a GL-4 spec'd tranny.

I havent given any heresay or rumour. I'm giving facts.

It may well be true now that email is a year or so old. but the link I provided does not mention using it in GL-4 applications except rear axles.

Its important to point out that I never asked Mobil about any specific car I only asked about using it in transmissions calling for GL-4 lubes.

 

quit editing your post while I'm typing I'm a slow typer dammmit

 

People are going to use the wrong stuff no matter what I or anyone else will say. Look at how many threads we have warning people to NOT use the RP gear oil in their transmission and yet we still have people doing it.

I've gone nearly 30,000 miles with GL-5 in my transmission. With nearly 100,000 miles on the orgional factory transmission you would think if I was being self destructive with this stuff it would have happened by now.

Believe me zoom, if my tranny blew up tomorrow I'd be on here telling everyone to NOT use the stuff.

The "origional" formulations perhaps. You already stated several times that there are various versions that are now adverised as transmission safe. If the specific formulation says "not for use in manual transmissions" then don't do it. Everything I have used has said either it's yellow metal safe OR for manual transmissions.

Ha! Funny as I was just having a conversation today about how untrustworthy some manufacturers are regarding knowledge of their own products. Anymore I second guess the results, facts or figures that are advertised about anything I put on my own car. The whole reason I started getting into lubrication was because I couldn't trust the facts and figures posted by oil manufacturers.

Trust but verify.

As soon as BlackStone labs gets me my testing results I'll post them up and we can argue some more.

 

Well if the question is whether or not X fluid eats brass, couldn't you take some brass, put it in X oil and keep it at Y temperature for a period of time? Then test the brass - resultant surface hardness, visual tarnish, etc. You might not get anything meaningful, but if you have RP, Redline, and Eneos all tested you might see something interesting.

 

Perhaps, but the only way it would satisfy me is if the fluid was tested under operational conditions. I admit it was a risk and I was taking a chance with my transmission in doing so. Still, if I was interested in playing it safe with the car then I suppose I should stop doing all the other fun things I do.

In the case of the Eneos, there was no indication that the fluid was going to be harmful to the transmission and it's performance was good enough that I wanted to know for sure. I've tried a lot of redline's products including their shockproof lineup, their MT90 and MTL. I had grinding issues early on due to running RP and struggled to find something I liked.

At 93,000 miles I still have a pretty smooth transmission considering the miles and the fact that this was my first manual car.

 

so its okay to give out wrong information?



see that's different than saying "the yellow metal issue is a myth" and GL-5 fluids across the board are ok for our transmissions as you did previously.


You couldn't trust that GL-4 lubes were safe for use in our transmissions so you started using GL-5s that could be detrimental to them in order to "trust but verify"?

No offense but if a company says its yellow metal safe on its label than its going to be safe. they higher very good chemists to make sure it is. they want to sell more product obviously.

 

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm with Zoom44 on this one.

You just said it, some people are going to use the wrong stuff no matter what. It will be exacerbated by saying GL-5 is okay for our transmissions if you take the time to research and contact the manufacturer.

Most RX-8 owners aren't on here and a lot of the ones that on here are still clueless (you alluded to that above). Look how many people can't search, flood their engines, continue to use RP trans fluid, etc.

So with 30K with Eneos GL-5, can you honestly say that the experience is that much better than an AMSOIL or Redline GL-4? I would think that just the switch to a synthetic GL-4 transmission fluid is going to make a more noticeable difference than going from AMSOIL/Redline to Eneos.

 

isnt the GL 4 rating now antiquated?
The difference between the 4 and the 5 is additives--right. The extreme pressures ones etc and then the dreaded sulfur.
Oils have greatly improved since the gl-4 rating was accepted. plus this information i have found:

"Typically, a GL-5 gear oil will have about 2 times the active additive level
of a GL-4 product. This additional additive can cause problems with yellow
metals like brass or bronze."
Please note too that bronze bearings (bushings) are made from a alloy such as “bronzalloy” or “oilite” that is softer than the alloy used to make syncro rings. Also the bearing would be subject to stress the entire time the transmission is working while the syncro rings see intermittent stresses of short duration. This may be why bearings could be affected but not syncro rings."

From what I have learned about the issue - copper based alloys do not like acid environments. GL-5 gear oils contains EP (extreme pressure) sulfur based additives which may increase the acidity of the oil especially at high temps when the additives tend to break down releasing sulfur and forming sulfuric acid.

Yellow metals = brass & bronze which contain copper.

(By a similar issue exists with jewelry being worn in swimming pools. The chlorine compounds react with the non gold portions of the alloys resulting in embrittlement. Really messes jewelry up.)

Here's a simple experiment for anybody who has some extra time.

Compare the effects on a piece of copper placed in different hot gear oils (GL4s and GL5s) after time. Use a microscope to observe any visual changes and a measuring device to see if there are any dimensional changes. (digital caliper) It will be necessary to heat the oils up to higher temps to get a reaction. I would suggest 150-175F for at least 24 hrs. If the GL5 oil was affecting the copper I am pretty sure it would be visible through the microscope.
It would also be a good school science project for your child.
The experiment would tell a lot. Any volunteer amateur scientists out there ?

The ML1--gl4/5 ratings are really confusing.
olddragger

 

Don't worry yourself Zoom. I'm sure if anyone's tranny goes south and they say that "Flashwing said it was fine!" you'll be right here kicking me in the face about it. I'm not above admitting I am wrong.

However, it's hard for me to believe the "GL-5 is bad" hype when I have my own car as an example.

My using the Eneos had nothing to do with trust issues. BHR got the product, it was found it performed very well and we wanted to make sure it was safe. I took the chance of running it in my transmission so I could get it tested. When the testing came back and showed no unusual amounts of yellow metals in the fluid I continued to use it. That was at 8,000 miles and with plenty of driving in the summer time so the transmission was running with plenty of heat.

The "trust but verify" deals with the testing. BHR doesn't push products that we don't support. This is no exception. With information out there that GL-5 is bad for manual transmissions there were two choices. Take the chance and run it or give up a great performing fluid to play it safe.

If you want to nail me for making a blanket statement then fine! Ya got me! It doesn't change the fact that my transmission is still running fine with GL-5.

Had I gotten a UOA back showing large amounts of dissolved yellow metals I would have removed the fluid and it wouldn't be for sale.

People question the claims of products every single day. This isn't anything new. Next time you're shopping for oils read the description on the back of a few brands and you'll notice they all make the same claims. How can you believe every single band is the best for your motor?
Yes the experience was good enough.

 

flash has a point--all GL 5 oils seemingly are not equal. Its a really messed up classification system and it really is good to call the company but it is also excellent to get the analysis done!
It will become more credible if more cars would run it and post their uoa results. Few more beta testers maybe?
OD

 

no.

 

actually OD thats the point I was making. re-read the last page or so and you'll find flash has changed his tune since my earlier post.

Flashwing- I'm not posting here to "kick you in the face" about anything. Im pretty sure you wont find me posting any "i told you so" in the forum like that.
But you made several posts that were wrong or at least incomplete. And i will continue to make posts to correct errors like that.

Of course all lubes/oils are not the same but when it comes to things like whether they eat your transmission or not I do tend to believe them. Thats what API standards are for.

 

I've made clarifications as needed and if anyone honestly thinks that BHR supports ALL GL-5 oils regardless of who makes them then what I have said might be mis-read.

This thread started with some serous generalizations saying that GL-5's were dangerous. My point was that of the GL-5's that have been tried by myself and other BHR team members we have not experienced any of the ill effects.

I'm also not saying that GL-4 fluids are substandard. There are plenty of great GL-4 products but when it comes to the exotic fluids we suggest the Eneos.

If anyone was confused by my blanket statements then I apologize and stand corrected. I simply want to refute the notion that all GL-5 oils are hazardous to manual transmissions.

 

Thanks Zoom and Flash.
One of the problems is a true gl-4 fluid is difficult to find in your neighberhood auto parts store.
Like me for example-- I like to run a little thicker oil than the 75w/90 in transmissions that have 50+K on them. Trying to find one locally is impossible. Even Redline doesnt have it. I am unsure if their shockproof products are gl4 safe?
Amsoil has a 110w but i cant determine if it is gl4 safe either as one site says it is and another says no.
Dilema maybe i will look at the Eneos?
olddragger

 

OD - there is a copper corrosion strip test, ASTM D-130, like your experiment in your earlier post. it consists of taking a strip of a certain size and immersing it in the oil thats being tested at @300f for 3 hours and then checking for discoloration of the strip . a "1A" result is found when there is no discoloration of the strip that's best. a "1B" result is found there is only minor discoloration and passes. "1C" and anything worse is FAIL.

the Amsoil Severe Gear 75w-110 has a result of 1B so it passes and can be used. 1A would be better but 1B is considered safe. http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/svt.aspx

 

I know there are only a few '09 owners on the forum, but the '09 US manual says GL-4 ONLY, for what it's worth. I stopped at the Ford dealer and the Motorcraft product appears to be a special formulation to correct specific issues in some Ford gearboxes and transaxles.

There is no actual SAE rating or grade on the bottle. It doesn't say 75w-90 or GL-4 anywhere. There are lots of cautions about handling and the label says the product contains zinc salts. I presume that is the EP additive.

So, who knows what's in it? Could be anything. SOunds like a modern version of Marvel Mystery Oil.

 

they must have an MSDS available for it

 

Indeed there is. I read it. This means nothing in terms of how it will help my gearbox.

HIGHLY REFINED BASE OIL
PHOSPHORODITHIOIC ACID, O,ODI-
C1-14-ALKYL ESTERS, ZINC
SALTS
64741-89-5C
68649-42-3
10-30
1-5 HAZCOM
LOCAL REV 1
RSMS_METALS
SARA 313


Was unable to find a product data sheet, which might be more edifying.