Oil & Fuel Front axle/ 30 W oil ?

[Frankm]

Thanks Everyone , i will change it to the 80W90, sounds good ,Frank From Near Erie Pa , on The Pa Ny Line , THanks !

 

[greg_g]

I'm sure that both regular oil, and synthetics have this same atribute. I'm surprised that one would be better in this than the other.

Yeah, maybe this is a case of a picture being worth a thousand words. But it's easy to demonstrate that mineral oils clearly climb better than do most synthetics. Again, it's the "slippery factor" at play.

I actually saw it with my own eyes. A guy built a couple of clear plexiglass boxes with simple nylon gear trains inside. They were run by hand crank, oil level was at the half way mark on the lower gears. There were driven gears above the oil level. One box held synthetic oil, the other held conventional. When the gear trains are turned, the mineral oil climbs the teeth of the gears that were half submerged. Then it transferred to the teeth of the upper gears that were completely above oil level. It climbed them, until gravity pulled it back into the sump. In the synthetic box, there was visibly less climb - far less oil on the upper gears. In fact, more oil reached them by means of splashing than did by climbing. Wicking by the way, is not quite the same. It's an undesired property of oil - whether at rest or in motion - like how badly it "wicks" through seals and bushings, follows wires, et cetera. Climbing obviously, is is a desired property that is precipitated by motion.

Anyway. The boxes could be used to compare syn versus syn and mineral versus mineral too. It was a interesting demonstration, one that formed the basis of why I don't advocate synthetics in new machinery of Chinese origin.

//greg//

 

[greg_g]

Thanks Everyone , i will change it to the 80W90,

Excellent Frank. Just make sure that you buy stuff that's indicated as safe for yellow metals. If it's labeled with an API rating of MT1, that's the same thing. Also look on the label for the words "non-foaming", "anti-foaming additives", or words to that effect. You don't want bubbles in your transmission and differentials.

//greg//

 

[IH3444]

Greg, I've seen the same display with the nylon gears, but for the Lucas additives for gears. The Lucas additive did help the gear oil to cling, and climb up to the top gear which the crank was attached. Never have googled Lucas to find out what's so special about there additives. HY-Tran, and the transmission-hydraulic tractor oils could also be used I'm sure. They also have the extreme pressure additive. The 75-90w quality gear oil is a safe way to go. It does puzzle me why there would be brass thrust washers in the chinese differentals, or gear boxes. Seems that even though brass has lower friction, the thrusting over time would just wear it out, or flatten it. Plus it more costly, and my understanding up to now is that the chinese tractors have a good market here due to there lower cost up front when purchased.

 

[Soundguy]

My point exactly. There's no reason to use anything other than gear oil in (most) Chinese gearboxes and differentials. I'm not sure of the exact reason, but for a while there really was a reason for concern. Gear oils marked GL4 and GL5 appeared not suitable for yellow metals. That just left GL1 (hard to find at all anymore) and MT1 (hard to find in multi-viscosity). The reason stated was as Chip just mentioned, EP additives in GL4/GL5 attacked copper/brass/bronze. Either the original labeling was incorrect, the original concerns were unfounded, or - more likely - the manufacturers are starting to reformulate the EP additives. I say this because of the recent increase in the number of GL4 and GL5 gear oils that are now marked to include the API rating of MT1

//greg//

I don't think it was an error on the lable.. i think it was a reformulation to make the oils safe across the board.

As for gl1 being hard to find?? You can get it off the shelf at any napa store.. part number 65-205 is a 5g pail of 90w gl1, and 65-201 is a 1-g bottle of 90w gl1. Tractor supply sells a 90w oil marked for ford 39-52 and it is likely a gl-3 oil, again.. safe for yelow metals.. etc.

soundguy

 

[Soundguy]

The bras is sacrificial.. designed to wear before other more expesive parts do.

soundguy

Greg, I've seen the same display with the nylon gears, but for the Lucas additives for gears. The Lucas additive did help the gear oil to cling, and climb up to the top gear which the crank was attached. Never have googled Lucas to find out what's so special about there additives. HY-Tran, and the transmission-hydraulic tractor oils could also be used I'm sure. They also have the extreme pressure additive. The 75-90w quality gear oil is a safe way to go. It does puzzle me why there would be brass thrust washers in the chinese differentals, or gear boxes. Seems that even though brass has lower friction, the thrusting over time would just wear it out, or flatten it. Plus it more costly, and my understanding up to now is that the chinese tractors have a good market here due to there lower cost up front when purchased.

 

[IH3444]

Soundguy, it just seems that wear causes increased tolerances between gears, hence less gear tooth contact, and becomes a downward sprial. More clearance, less contact, more wear.

 

[Soundguy]

So you are arguing with all the mechanical engineers that still use this method then?

soundguy

 

[greg_g]

As for gl1 being hard to find?? You can get it off the shelf at any napa store..

Yes. My point however, was that GL1/MT1 is rare in multi-viscosity formulation. That's ok for implement transmissions, I guess. I do use 140W - in my rotary cutters, finish mower, spreader, etc. But my tractors are used 12 months of the year. As such, I have an ongoing need for multi-viscosity gear oil. That's why I was glad to see GL5s starting to tack on the MT1 rating.

//greg//

 

[Soundguy]

Yes. My point however, was that GL1/MT1 is rare in multi-viscosity formulation. That's ok for implement transmissions, I guess. I do use 140W - in my rotary cutters, finish mower, spreader, etc. But my tractors are used 12 months of the year. As such, I have an ongoing need for multi-viscosity gear oil. That's why I was glad to see GL5s starting to tack on the MT1 rating.

//greg//

sorry, I was working off the following quote for post # 19 when I wrote that:

That just left GL1 (hard to find at all anymore) and MT1 (hard to find in multi-viscosity).

I read that as two seperate statements:

GL1 is hard to find at all --AND-- MT1 was hard to find in multi-vis.


soundguy