Hypoid oil and non-ferrous metals

[Semmerling]

If a lubrication engineer could travel back to the 30s and sat down with the lubrication engineers from Dodge back when, the 30s engineers would feel miserable about having to use their lubrications of their day. In short , the advancements made in lubrications place today's lubricants in a category of performance that is astonishing compared to the lubrications of the 30s.

I was going to write in Stever's thread "Transmission oil after rebuild" and address the often heard thought that goes something like this "Modern hypoid trans lubes have additives that don't play nice with brass,  bronze, and other "white metals". After staring at the screen, I came to the conclusion that addressing that statement would best be done in its own thread. That way I would not distract from SteveR's peaceable kingdom. 
 

My  '34 transmission received a complete rebuild this winter after 2 1/2 years of parts collection. I, like Steve had to choose an oil to put in it. I didn't struggle too terribly much with the issue. 

 

My transmission doesn't have synchromesh, but it does still have non-ferrous within. I am not driving in the winter as the salt up here requires a spring of rain to wash away. I am not advocating that a person fill their case with straight 140, but a person does need to know what weight they need to slow things down, stay in the case, etc. I use a 140 hypoid and love it. One does a changeout so infrequently that if you are shopping for value, THE VALUE is in the quality of the lube not how little you paid for it or how closely you stayed within the requirements of a 90 year old FSM. Buy a great modern buffered hypoid and you will get many many more miles than the original lube from the factory gave your great grandfather. The idea that hypoids cut the useful life of a transmission with non-ferrous in half is, is...like listening to someone warn us about nuclear reactor designs while musing about BolshoMoshchnosty Kanalny. Its ancient history folks....it just isn't the case (no pun intended).

No, hypoid oils do not all....repeat, all...effect the non-ferrous metals found in some manual transmission. That problem...the sulfur problem...has now been attended to in no less than three 3 completely different approaches and the issue of the protective deposited layer laid down on non-ferrous and is no longer a "thing" and hasn't been for a looooong time. Stay with GL-4 for now, though there are GL-5 offerings that unquestionable do not raise any concerns. Here, the maritime industry deals with the very issues we are talking about by knowing there literally is no issue. Though they do change out their manual transmission lubricants more religiously. Now we are not talking about the differential or rear axle as that is a slightly more complicated one. GL-4 provides a slightly less extreme pressure protection, some use something else. READ what the manufacturer/provider says in regard to non-ferrous materials. If it says something like....

"GL-4 Hypoid Gear Oil has high temp properties to provide lubrication over a wide temperature range. This versatile lubricant contains anti-rust and anti-wear EP additives to provide the corrosion protection in drives and hypoid gears.  It is not corrosive to copper, bronze, or other non-ferrous alloy bearings and bushings"

material engineers, mechanics, chemists, accountants and yes liability lawyers all have signed off on them. 

NAPA sells mineral oils to the very same people they sell wax base water pump lube to, yes there are modern non wax based lubes that do not group/collect/bind....the fire engine industry drove that solution. 

 

Edited May 28, 2023 by Semmerling

[Los_Control]

I fall into the same camp .... I have no professional mechanical or engineering  experience.

It just seems like common sense the oil industries have made massive improvements in quality over the decades.

Just now, Semmerling said:

material engineers, mechanics, chemists, accountants and yes liability lawyers all have signed off on them. 

That is just common sense, in todays world they will sue you for anything .... If there was a problem we would hear about it.

 

Just now, Semmerling said:

One does a changeout so infrequently that if you are shopping for value, THE VALUE is in the quality of the lube not how little you paid for it or how closely you stayed within the requirements of a 90 year old FSM.

I also agree with you there ..... in the other thread I stated I'm using super tech oil from Walmart. 85-140 GL-5. I also run their 5-30 engine oil in daily driver ... Dodge will be 10-40.

What I have found out, Walmart uses 2 different oil companies for suppliers. Depends what region you live in as who makes the oil. Here in Texas it is ExxonMobil.

The super tech oil is made in the same plant as mobile 1 engine oil. Just put into a different container to be sold as walmart brand.

 

I technically could say I run mobil 1 engine oil .... technically I just don't care.

I have no clue who makes their gear oils .... could easily be Exxonmobile also? ...... To me it simply does not matter, will be 100 times better then the old junk I'm draining out now.

[D35 Torpedo]

I ran GL5. Thought nothing of it...then I noticed it started to not shift as well..that's when I went down the rabbit hole. I drained it and put 30 wt mineral oil in. I'd prefer 40 or 50 but they were not readily available. Anyways, It hasn't got any worse since. I daily the car so it sees a lot of use. Oil wt ratings are not consistant across types. 30 wt mineral is like 70 wt gear oil.

[Sniper]

Not sure how this is any different from what I suggested in another thread.

 

 

[D35 Torpedo]

3 hours ago, Sniper said:

Not sure how this is any different from what I suggested in another thread.

 

 

I saw the other thread after this one. Unless I'm shown oil samples and proof, a long winded opinion is just hot air.

Edited May 28, 2023 by D35 Torpedo

[Semmerling]

Sniper, i must have missed your thread on it, spologies , then we agree.

 

D35, first off, the way the analysis is done is not by being shown oil samples.Secondly, if you found this long winded opinin and hot air you don't stand a chance getting through either the analysis process or the final ranking process and resulting descriptors. The only opinion I might have offered  up is its time to stop listening to people that either can't or won't read the spec sheets. 

 

PS GL'5 isnt an oil weight. If you picked the right buffered GL5 in the wrong weight than your issue has exactly zero to do with it being gl-5 and everything to do with picking the wrong weight. Swapping it out for the right weight in mineral oil got you the right weight and a whole lot less long term protection as you are missing the last 70 years of improvements. In 10 years your tranny's wear will look like what it would in the 1940s minus the added sawdust. 

Edited May 28, 2023 by Semmerling

[vintage6t]

IMO which GL oil to use is no different than a motor oil discussion. It's basically a religious argument based on empirical evidence mostly from reading labels,  manufacturer's claims, and seat of the pants experience. Bottom line use what you're most comfortable with. I agree use the correct weight though.

 

Having said that if you ask why GL-5 and other more modern lubes were developed it wasn't because the industry said we need a better lubricant for a 1930s, 40s or 50s 3 speed transmission. It was because lubrication requirements of the machines changed as technology advanced.

 

A more modern transmission has different operating parameters.  It operates under multiple times more horsepower, much higher rpms,  tighter machined tolerances, more complex design, extreme heat cycles, and so on.

 

Is a GL-5 backwards compatible with a transmission that originally used GL-1? Probably. Will that transmission benefit from GL-5, especially in the long term? Who knows. Most of us don't use these cars for daily drivers, so we're not subjecting the transmissions to extreme use. Given the relatively low operating parameters of our transmissions, who knows if the superiority of a GL-5 will have any benefits in an active way? Most likely condensation from sitting around most of the time will do more long term damage than your choice of lube.

 

Just do the proper preventative maintenance and the transmission will probably out last you regardless of your lubrication religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Semmerling]

This argument isn't based on faith. Its not about GL-5 specifically.It's not an argument at all. It's a dialogue refuting the idea that advancements made over the last 70 years have not accounted for all the impactful properties and for all the very same metals and materials that were used early transmissions  forward to today. The dialogue is to remind the people who simply cannot keep up with lubrication sciences that the decision not to use more modern products no longer have any bearing that they are harmful for non-ferrous metals.  If someone wants to come forward with an argument that suggests that one should not use the very best they can find to prolong the performance and useful life of their transmission, they are certainly free to do so.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Semmerling

[Bob Riding]

Great topic, and timely for me, as I will be picking up my stock 3 speed from the transmission shop next week. It's from a '56 Suburban- which I assume has synchos in 2nd and 3rd. Because it is 22 years newer than yours, would you stay with GL4? it will be an occasional use wagon, not a daily driver.

[Sam Buchanan]

2 hours ago, Bob Riding said:

Great topic, and timely for me, as I will be picking up my stock 3 speed from the transmission shop next week. It's from a '56 Suburban- which I assume has synchos in 2nd and 3rd. Because it is 22 years newer than yours, would you stay with GL4? it will be an occasional use wagon, not a daily driver.

GL-4 presented crunchy 2nd gear shifts with a cold transmission. Red Line MTL fixed the crunchies and is formulated for brass synchros. The cost is worth every penny in my opinion.

 

[keithb7]

Maybe I'm not paying close enough attention, I will maybe state another way to look at this:

 

You may want to understand what is unique about GL-5 and what it it designed for. What are the differences between the power transfer between gears in a transmission and a rear axle assembly? A rear axle has side gears and a crown a pinion set. The diff utilizes both straight bevel gears and hypoid gears. Hypoid and bevel gears, hmm. Are those types of gear sets also used in early Mopar transmissions? How does the transmission clutch gear work? Is it the same as a synchromesh?  How does a synchromesh actually work? Does the power go through a synchromesh like it does in a hypoid gear set in the rear axle? Are straight spur or helical cut gears found in the transmission and the diff?

 

A basic understanding here will guide you to what oil to put in your transmission and your axle housing. You can use modern oils for both, yet the right modern oils is important. I personally use a different oil in my transmission than I do in the axle housing. Modern oils, yes. Same oils, no.

Edited May 28, 2023 by keithb7

[Hickory]

Semmerling, what weight does your transmission call for.  My 29 doesn't say in the users manual but I've been told it's supposed to be 800weight. I'm wondering what should I use in mine. They are non-snychro straight cut gears.

[Bob Riding]

1 hour ago, Sam Buchanan said:

GL-4 presented crunchy 2nd gear shifts with a cold transmission. Red Line MTL fixed the crunchies and is formulated for brass synchros. The cost is worth every penny in my opinion.

 

No issues from it being a synthetic? I thought we needed to shy away from synthetics, or is that more of a concern with engine oil?

[Bob Riding]

Just now, Bob Riding said:

No issues from it being a synthetic? I thought we needed to shy away from synthetics, or is that more of a concern with engine oil?

And overdrives...

[rallyace]

23 hours ago, Semmerling said:

If a lubrication engineer could travel back to the 30s and sat down with the lubrication engineers from Dodge back when, the 30s engineers would feel miserable about having to use their lubrications of their day. In short , the advancements made in lubrications place today's lubricants in a category of performance that is astonishing compared to the lubrications of the 30s.

I was going to write in Stever's thread "Transmission oil after rebuild" and address the often heard thought that goes something like this "Modern hypoid trans lubes have additives that don't play nice with brass,  bronze, and other "white metals". After staring at the screen, I came to the conclusion that addressing that statement would best be done in its own thread. That way I would not distract from SteveR's peaceable kingdom. 
 

My  '34 transmission received a complete rebuild this winter after 2 1/2 years of parts collection. I, like Steve had to choose an oil to put in it. I didn't struggle too terribly much with the issue. 

 

My transmission doesn't have synchromesh, but it does still have non-ferrous within. I am not driving in the winter as the salt up here requires a spring of rain to wash away. I am not advocating that a person fill their case with straight 140, but a person does need to know what weight they need to slow things down, stay in the case, etc. I use a 140 hypoid and love it. One does a changeout so infrequently that if you are shopping for value, THE VALUE is in the quality of the lube not how little you paid for it or how closely you stayed within the requirements of a 90 year old FSM. Buy a great modern buffered hypoid and you will get many many more miles than the original lube from the factory gave your great grandfather. The idea that hypoids cut the useful life of a transmission with non-ferrous in half is, is...like listening to someone warn us about nuclear reactor designs while musing about BolshoMoshchnosty Kanalny. Its ancient history folks....it just isn't the case (no pun intended).

No, hypoid oils do not all....repeat, all...effect the non-ferrous metals found in some manual transmission. That problem...the sulfur problem...has now been attended to in no less than three 3 completely different approaches and the issue of the protective deposited layer laid down on non-ferrous and is no longer a "thing" and hasn't been for a looooong time. Stay with GL-4 for now, though there are GL-5 offerings that unquestionable do not raise any concerns. Here, the maritime industry deals with the very issues we are talking about by knowing there literally is no issue. Though they do change out their manual transmission lubricants more religiously. Now we are not talking about the differential or rear axle as that is a slightly more complicated one. GL-4 provides a slightly less extreme pressure protection, some use something else. READ what the manufacturer/provider says in regard to non-ferrous materials. If it says something like....

"GL-4 Hypoid Gear Oil has high temp properties to provide lubrication over a wide temperature range. This versatile lubricant contains anti-rust and anti-wear EP additives to provide the corrosion protection in drives and hypoid gears.  It is not corrosive to copper, bronze, or other non-ferrous alloy bearings and bushings"

material engineers, mechanics, chemists, accountants and yes liability lawyers all have signed off on them. 

NAPA sells mineral oils to the very same people they sell wax base water pump lube to, yes there are modern non wax based lubes that do not group/collect/bind....the fire engine industry drove that solution. 

 

Who is the manufacturer of the oil that you quoted?  While I don't dispute what is there, is it one manufacturer that says this or all of them?  My information is from having conversations with lubrication engineers we brought in to study issues we were having with premature failures of industrial gearboxes. They are the ones that told me about how relatively low amounts of use, additive issues, and moisture from condensation having a corrosive effect on the red metals and soft metals used in our industrial gearboxes, especially the ones we had that were over 60 years old. I asked them about use in older transmissions and they said to always use whatever the box was designed for as that will give the best results. They also told me that newer is not always better. This is the basis of my comments.

[Los_Control]

Just now, rallyace said:

low amounts of use,

 

Just now, rallyace said:

and moisture from condensation having a corrosive effect on the red metals and soft metals used in our industrial gearboxes, especially the ones we had that were over 60 years old. I asked them about use in older transmissions and they said to always use whatever the box was designed for as that will give the best results. They also told me that newer is not always better. This is the basis of my comments.

 

Sorry I edited your comment .... the moisture will kill any gear box, does not matter what type of oil it is in. ..... The older the gear box the more moisture it has been subjected too.

 

I asked them about use in older transmissions and they said to always use whatever the box was designed for as that will give the best results.

 

That is the standard .... "Leave me out of it I'm giving no recommendations here"  .... They have no desire to be liable .

[Los_Control]

@rallyace I would suggest that metal absorbs moisture from the humidity in the air.

I have seen it a few times when a car engine sits for a few years, you start them up & white steam pours out the exhaust for a hour as the moisture comes out of the engine with the heat.

Same time the moisture is contaminating the oil. ..... you need to change the oil right away afterwards.

 

 

In your situation with several industrial gear boxes, you probably need a strict maintenance schedule .... tough to do.

Lets say you change the oil in all gear boxes every 2 years. You have 1 box you only run once per year.

I would argue that the oil in the gear boxes used daily, is in better condition then the gear box used once With virtually new oil in them.

They actually need changed more then the gear boxes you use daily. When the boxes get to operating temps the moisture just comes out of the metal.

 

I'm only suggesting it is the low use of your equipment causing the damage, not the oil you are using.

[D35 Torpedo]

18 hours ago, Semmerling said:

Sniper, i must have missed your thread on it, spologies , then we agree.

 

D35, first off, the way the analysis is done is not by being shown oil samples.Secondly, if you found this long winded opinin and hot air you don't stand a chance getting through either the analysis process or the final ranking process and resulting descriptors. The only opinion I might have offered  up is its time to stop listening to people that either can't or won't read the spec sheets. 

 

PS GL'5 isnt an oil weight. If you picked the right buffered GL5 in the wrong weight than your issue has exactly zero to do with it being gl-5 and everything to do with picking the wrong weight. Swapping it out for the right weight in mineral oil got you the right weight and a whole lot less long term protection as you are missing the last 70 years of improvements. In 10 years your tranny's wear will look like what it would in the 1940s minus the added sawdust. 

I never told you what weight GL5 I used.......I say, show me proof. These oils are possibly engineered beyond compatibility. I'd rather use out-dated oil and have to change it regularly. The syncros relys on friction to work, now your bathing it in modern high pressure, low friction oil and expecting it to perform the same. Even if the oil says it won't chemically damage the syncro, it could physically. This is now my opinion, based on my experience. Just like my syncro, it's to late to change me.

[Semmerling]

As long as at the end of all this people stop saying that Hypoid Lubes don't have in their spectrum the finest transmission oils that can be used in the transmission that use non-ferrous metals....well....its worth it.  

I use this 
 

 

and it provides a flawless shift throughout the whole range. The infamous slider ring 1st to 2nd "Kathunk" is nowhere to be found and the reverse dig is S M O O T H. Most people do not know that the 1934 transmission had one of the most impactful slider select designs. It was so bad it makes the speedo gear look robust.  It consisted of a astonishingly low spline count that was spread way too far apart. It tops the list of the "Scarce 7"  for that transmission. That, along with being non-synchro, made it a very heavy wear part. The number of splines went up tremendously right after 1934 as a result. For those that know their transmissions, look at this compared to your 1-2 slider. Unbelievable right? Lubrication for this piece alone matters. Because of the count and the gap, IMPACT lubrication is everything. You do not get the equivalent with minerals oils. If you know what you are looking at, if you want a seamless transition, this slider is already shot. The spline width is less than 70% and worn in a spiral, the lead ins are already worn.If you want 2nd to go in or, perhaps more importantly, stay in during engine breaking on a steep incline, you aren't getting that back. Yes, you can file the lead ins (clunk) but that isn't going top solve the pop out under breaking load. Now most people would still use this, old hands might just turn it around (not if the spline is arched.) People....stop fooling around and use the best lubs you can buy. 

 

 

Here is the write up. It is the exact same text on all the weights. You can do just as well with all the other extremely advanced and perfectly superb MODERN hypoids with one of the 3 buffers. Go online and simply look up the weight you need and read the spec sheet for any MODERN lubricant. 

"GL-4 Hypoid Gear Oil has low pour points and high temp properties to provide lubrication over a wide temperature range. This versatile lubricant contains anti-rust and anti-wear EP additives to provide the corrosion protection in drives and hypoid gears.  It is not corrosive to copper, bronze, or other non-ferrous alloy bearings and bushings"

Now D...

First, read what I originally wrote about GL-5 for now.....and the exceptions I mentioned. 

You didn't have to tell me the weight you used. its obvious, because if you did use the right weight you would not have had a single issue if your GL-5 was buffered. Nothing presents immediately other than weight. The deterioration that used to....in the past....a long time ago.....that had to do with non-ferrous metals, took a  long time to even appear on the those parts that could be seen with a basic disassembly. Bushings were more complicated as they could only be inspected with the full monty. 

Oil sample....if somebody placated you by giving you samples what would you do with them? You don't look at the samples, you look at the effected parts....You don't have the equipment, the variety of platforms, the staff, etc. etc. etc. 
Trying to help you here, you think reading takes time...try writing this out. 

 

https://pqia.org/engine-oil-lubricant-astm-tests/#:~:text=Engine Oil Lubricant ASTM Tests ,Elemental Anal ... 28 more rows

 

https://www.astm.org/mnl62-eb.html

 

 

Edited May 29, 2023 by Semmerling

[Young Ed]

Sounds like this just comes down to reading the bottles. The stuff I was using I believe Valvoline changed about two years ago and specifically said it wasn't safe for those metals. The product pictured above says it is safe so I wouldn't hesitate to use that. 

[Adam H P15 D30]

One question:  Why risk it?  Manual transmission lube is readily available and I too saw a shifting improvement with the MTL fluid.  If GL-5 was the ONLY oil available then I understand but that's not the case. 

Put the right stuff in and forget about it for 5 years...

 

Modern transmissions don't have yellow metal in them and most don't use gear oil anyway.

[Plymouthy Adams]

GL1 is still available, never been made obsolete and likely never will, the GL2, GL3 and GL6 are obsolete with GL4 and GL5 a hypoid oil with EP additives and the move from sulfur to other additives, you still  do not need this in a tranny, only in the rear differential.   If the GL1 was not available I could see a discussion for a substitute, I also see other marketed gear lubes used but again, these are not hypoid gear classed oils.  If it is marked EP...not for the tranny.

[Semmerling]

Nobody here said use "use GL-5" for the reasons that were stated more than once.

There are no risks if one reads the labels and real advantages over vintage and earlier offerings. 
Young Ed, you care correct, the only offering from Valvoline that is non-ferrous safe is a single weight and one can do better.

 

[Ivan_B]

On 5/28/2023 at 10:07 PM, Bob Riding said:

No issues from it being a synthetic? I thought we needed to shy away from synthetics, or is that more of a concern with engine oil?

 

Well, it appears that synthetic lubricants, in general, offer superior properties (protection) in comparison to the traditional mineral ones. So, unless the cost-benefit analysis dictates differently, for some reason, I tend to use everything synthetic when it comes to automotive fluids (and grease).

Edited May 30, 2023 by Ivan_B

[Plymouthy Adams]

1 hour ago, Semmerling said:

Nobody here said use "use GL-5" for the reasons that were stated more than once.

There are no risks if one reads the labels and real advantages over vintage and earlier offerings. 
Young Ed, you care correct, the only offering from Valvoline that is non-ferrous safe is a single weight and one can do better.

 

in your first post you mentioned you used 140 wt. hypoid oil....do you know what hypoid oil is.....enough said.....the API still rates the oil,  the industry still supplies the correct oils as needed. you free to read interpret and use what you wish....it is the posting of misinformation that more the manner I said what I did.