NV5600 & Spec MS-9224

[mikepvg]

I recently needed to change my NV5600 fluid & researched all the debate here regarding such.



I could not find mentioned the fact that the Redline MTL does in fact meet MS-9224 just as the PZ Syncromesh & the Amsoil Syncromesh. I felt that these 3 oils were all very good choices.



I opted for Redline after doing a research article on transmission oils years ago for TDR. Redline has some extremely intelligent people employed there & a VERY professional & technical approach.



I'm positive Amsoil has a very good product but their salesmen approach is offensive & their product is not readily available locally.



Pennzoil Sychromesh is an excellent paraffinic base stock oil but will be inferior to the new generation synthetics.



BTW, had no issues w/ the MT90 in my NV4500 & there was an immediate improvement in my NV5600 w/ the MTL.





Mike

 

[DPKetchum]

I have not talked to a Amsoil sales person in years. Big Brown delivers to my door in 24/48 hours. Couldn't get much easier then that.

 

[mberry]

I have had easier shifting and quieter performance from the Amsoil over the Redline MTL. I will say that the Redline product appears to have worked very well in protecting the transmission as there was very little debris in the oil when I changed the oil this last time.

 

[steved]

I have had easier shifting and quieter performance from the Amsoil over the Redline MTL. I will say that the Redline product appears to have worked very well in protecting the transmission as there was very little debris in the oil when I changed the oil this last time.

I have the opposite experince, the MTL outperforms the MTF in shifting. The MTF lasted under 10k before needing changed... MTL can squeak 20k out beofer needing changed.



steved

 

[JHardwick]

So does this mean that I've been towing with my 5600 filled with PZ for the 340,000 miles ... ... ..... and I've been doing it injustice? :{

 

[amsoilman]

I have the opposite experince, the MTL outperforms the MTF in shifting. The MTF lasted under 10k before needing changed... MTL can squeak 20k out beofer needing changed.



steved

Steved,

You know darn well your Amsoil did not need changing (based on the oil analysis you posted) Even "Blackstone" told you that! You only changed it because you are upset with the Amsoil Company! Why don't you tell ait as it is?Remeber, people can go back and read what you posted



Wayne

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

The NV-5600 transmission is sort of a maverick oddity, in that no 2 seem exactly alike, and often will respond entirely differently to the same lubes - thus, an owner may well have to experiment to discover which will function best in his specific transmission.



Just because lube brand "A" works best for Joe Blow, does NOT mean it will also work the same way for Slick Willy up the street with a virtually identical truck - and analysis - oil quality in a lab test is NOT necessarily the most reliable as to which lube will provide best overall lubrication COMBINED with acceptable shifting quality.



The bad part of that, is that the primary "judgement tool" most of us must rely upon, is purely related to shifting quality - and it's very possible that the lube that SHIFTS best, is NOT necessarily the best LUBRICANT!



The transmission synchronizer material, and varying internal tolerance variations make it virtually impossible for the most part to safely state WHICH brand/type lube will work best for all users. In my own case, the OEM DC lube has provided the best and easiest shifting quality - is it the best LUBE for the other internal parts?



I don't have a clue!



(EDIT)



I should have mentioned above, I have tried both the Redline MTL and Amsoil in my own 5600, undoubtedly fine lubes - but shifting quality seriously degraded with both in less than a mile after their installation - so I quickly returned to the OEM DC stuff. My transmission had always worked fine, and my own efforts to experiment with "better" lubes just for the sake of comparison was an $80 failure...



Live and learn - and obviously, many others have had exactly the OPPOSITE results from my own...

 

[steved]

Steved,

You know darn well your Amsoil did not need changing (based on the oil analysis you posted) Even "Blackstone" told you that! You only changed it because you are upset with the Amsoil Company! Why don't you tell ait as it is?Remeber, people can go back and read what you posted



Wayne

Here is what WAYNE didn't tell you...



I changed the Amsoil MTF out because the shifting had degraded significantly around 10k miles on the fluid. Based on the UOA (something that gave me a clue as to what was going on), I determined through BITOG-members (those members were Amsoil-dealers) that the fluid had sheared slightly (You can research this on BITOG if you so feel the need). From this, *I* determined the fluid had sheared to a point MY trans didn't like. That is also the reason I believe the thicker fluids work better in MY transmission... MTL is the thickest, RP Synchromax is the thinnest... guess which works the worst??



And just because wear metals looked good in the UOA, doesn't mean the viscosity hadn't degraded from shearing. I had SEVERAL Amsoil-dealers on BITOG indicate the fluid had sheared, and that was most likely the cause of my degraded shifting. You should know this if you were that aware of what was going on... so why didn't you bring this up???



I made a statement, AMSOIL MTF DID NOT WORK AS WELL AS THE REDLINE MTL in my application. In this thread, I thought that was a valuable bit of information for some, as all NV5600s seem to react differently to different fluids. I changed the "sheared" MTF to Redline MTL, and within a block, the trans was shifting better.



Again, as everyone can see, Wayne feels I'm not allowed to have an opinion. I guess just because Wayne felt the Amsoil was fine (based simply on wear metals in the UOA), I should have left it in and had a POOR SHIFTING NV5600??? Wayne, do you even own a NV5600??



But your right Wayne, Amsoil is perfect... it couldn't be the fluid... it had to be me not shifting the trans correctly...



steved

 

[amsoilman]

Here is what WAYNE didn't tell you...



I changed the Amsoil MTF out because the shifting had degraded significantly around 10k miles on the fluid. Based on the UOA (something that gave me a clue as to what was going on), I determined through BITOG-members (those members were Amsoil-dealers) that the fluid had sheared slightly (You can research this on BITOG if you so feel the need). From this, *I* determined the fluid had sheared to a point MY trans didn't like. That is also the reason I believe the thicker fluids work better in MY transmission... MTL is the thickest, RP Synchromax is the thinnest... guess which works the worst??



And just because wear metals looked good in the UOA, doesn't mean the viscosity hadn't degraded from shearing. I had SEVERAL Amsoil-dealers on BITOG indicate the fluid had sheared, and that was most likely the cause of my degraded shifting. You should know this if you were that aware of what was going on... so why didn't you bring this up???



I made a statement, AMSOIL MTF DID NOT WORK AS WELL AS THE REDLINE MTL in my application. In this thread, I thought that was a valuable bit of information for some, as all NV5600s seem to react differently to different fluids. I changed the "sheared" MTF to Redline MTL, and within a block, the trans was shifting better.



Again, as everyone can see, Wayne feels I'm not allowed to have an opinion. I guess just because Wayne felt the Amsoil was fine (based simply on wear metals in the UOA), I should have left it in and had a POOR SHIFTING NV5600??? Wayne, do you even own a NV5600??



But your right Wayne, Amsoil is perfect... it couldn't be the fluid... it had to be me not shifting the trans correctly...



steved

Well steved, as I read your analysis (blackstone) they say:"We didn't find any ovious signs of a problem in this transmission. " Wear was very low in this sample. Iniversal averages are based on an oil raun of~19. 700 miles. "we are not sure why you need to change the oil to make the transmission shift better", except that when you change the oil it removes any contaminants and/orwear metalsthat have accumulated in the system, which makes it easier for your transmission to do its job. No moisture was found and the trace of insolubles is not a problem.

VISCOSITY was 54. 2 SUS@210 F, which is well in the limits of a new MTF sample. At the time you had 10,143 miles on the sample.



So did you waste your money on an analysis, and take what some other person told you!



That oil had NOT degraded significantly as you say it did!



Did the changing of the oil help in your shifting? ONLY YOU can tell that, but the FACT is, the oil did NOT degrade significantly as you are trying to tell us here on this thread!



I just hate the fact that you are saying something that simply is not true... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... and that is the oil had not degrraded based on the analysis!



And YES, I do own an NV-5600!





Wayne

 

[betterthanstock]

The OEM fluid is a low tech oil, classic synchromesh oil. If you look at its viscosity, it's quite good, similar to synthetics, at least when new.

The Nv5600 has brass synchros, and they need a higher coefficient of friction, or you will grind gears. No one has worn out the gears, or bearings (they have failed due to fatigue cracking, from overloading, and lots of miles. ) So the NV 5600 does not need a more slippery oil. Will you get 0. 1 better mpg with Amsoil, Redline, etc? Maybe. But if it's more slippery, you will need to replace the synchros faster. You do the math. (and add to that the higher cost of synth. oil )



On edit: I think it's possible to temporarily experience better shifting when changing oil brands, because the different chemistry in some oil additives will cause the brass to shed some molecules, and that will make it grabbier (which gives better shifts) for a few miles, until the surface restabilizes. Shedding is equivalent to faster wear. The G56 transmission has paper synchros, like an automatic, so it uses ATF.

 

[JHardwick]

Just because lube brand "A" works best for Joe Blow, does NOT mean it will also work the same way for Slick Willy up the street with a virtually identical truck

What about me, Joe ***** the rag man? :-laf

 

[RVTRKN]

I'm sorry if I have to ask this question, but the oil in my NV5600 has never been changed and only the dealer recommendations have been performed ,so why does the oil need to be changed more often than factory specs? I cant imagine the dealer not trying to make more money if it was possible and made sense to the customer like me who only lets the dealer perform service. For example: my diffs are recommended to change oil every 15K and I only allow them to perform it every 20K. You know, the speech about your truck needs it and if it breaks it might not be covered under warranty.



The reason I ask about it, is I can perform all service to my truck if I wanted too and just prefer to let the dealer take care of it. I now have 45K on the truck and am I doing any harm?

 

[mikepvg]

RVTRKN



It is NOT necessary to change your oil to get a VERY useful life out of it. But because it is a NON-filtered system, "debris" will build up in the fluid & will decrease the life of the transmission. This shortened life may still (and in most cases IS) longer than you may keep the vehicle, so why change it? If you change vehicles every few years to have the latest & greatest, this changing of the oil expense is a waste of time. If you want to keep the vehicle "forever" & want to squeeze all the life out of it that you can, changing it will be very helpful.



Mike

 

[steved]

Well steved, as I read your analysis (blackstone) they say:"We didn't find any ovious signs of a problem in this transmission. " Wear was very low in this sample. Iniversal averages are based on an oil raun of~19. 700 miles. "we are not sure why you need to change the oil to make the transmission shift better", except that when you change the oil it removes any contaminants and/orwear metalsthat have accumulated in the system, which makes it easier for your transmission to do its job. No moisture was found and the trace of insolubles is not a problem.

VISCOSITY was 54. 2 SUS@210 F, which is well in the limits of a new MTF sample. At the time you had 10,143 miles on the sample.



So did you waste your money on an analysis, and take what some other person told you!



That oil had NOT degraded significantly as you say it did!



Did the changing of the oil help in your shifting? ONLY YOU can tell that, but the FACT is, the oil did NOT degrade significantly as you are trying to tell us here on this thread!



I just hate the fact that you are saying something that simply is not true... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... and that is the oil had not degrraded based on the analysis!



And YES, I do own an NV-5600!





Wayne

The fact is, the ONLY indication that caused the decrease in shifting was the fact it sheared (whether it was still in the "range" of a synchromesh fluid or not). Did I waste money on the UOA, nope... it told me what I needed to know... thinner fluids DO NOT WORK in my trans, and Amsoil being a thinner fluid once sheared didn't work.



So its one of two things... either the fluid sheared slightly (normal) and that caused my decrease in shifting OR, the AMSOIL FLUID WAS DEGRADING. So pick your choice.



The best part is the fact you are relying so heavily on what Blackstone is saying... based on the wear metals, no there isn't a problem (and there shouldn't be with 10k miles), but they don't know MTF in and out... which is why I asked the BITOG crowd...



So what I am saying is true... the Amsoil fluid caused a decrease in shifting in my application, what is so hard to see here? And whether it was 10,143 miles or around 10k (I've been doing too many changes to keep track)... it was still a very short OCI for a high dollar fluid.



The fact is, I have put this behind me... why can't you. You just can't stand the fact that Amsoil doesn't work in every application the way you think it should.



steved

 

[amsoilman]

The fact is, the ONLY indication that caused the decrease in shifting was the fact it sheared (whether it was still in the "range" of a synchromesh fluid or not). Did I waste money on the UOA, nope... it told me what I needed to know... thinner fluids DO NOT WORK in my trans, and Amsoil being a thinner fluid once sheared didn't work.



So its one of two things... either the fluid sheared slightly (normal) and that caused my decrease in shifting OR, the AMSOIL FLUID WAS DEGRADING. So pick your choice.



The best part is the fact you are relying so heavily on what Blackstone is saying... based on the wear metals, no there isn't a problem (and there shouldn't be with 10k miles), but they don't know MTF in and out... which is why I asked the BITOG crowd...



So what I am saying is true... the Amsoil fluid caused a decrease in shifting in my application, what is so hard to see here? And whether it was 10,143 miles or around 10k (I've been doing too many changes to keep track)... it was still a very short OCI for a high dollar fluid.



The fact is, I have put this behind me... why can't you. You just can't stand the fact that Amsoil doesn't work in every application the way you think it should.



steved

Steve,

I AGREE with you that AMsoil doesn't work in EVERY application, but I still disagree with you that the lube in your sample DID NOT SHEAR!



We'll leave it at that, OK?



Wayne

 

[steved]

Steve,

I AGREE with you that AMsoil doesn't work in EVERY application, but I still disagree with you that the lube in your sample DID NOT SHEAR!



We'll leave it at that, OK?



Wayne

I would, but I still have NO reason for the decrease in shifting quality nearing the 10k mark... and IMO, based on the UOA, the only explanation is the fact that at the 10k mark the Amsoil MTF had sheared to a point OUTSIDE the useable range in MY transmission.



And am I singling out Amsoil?? NO! Royal Purple PERFORMS WORST in my trans.



steved

 

[rbattelle]

But because it is a NON-filtered system, "debris" will build up in the fluid & will decrease the life of the transmission.

I agree. Actually, in 2003 there was NO published change interval for the NV5600! Amazing, but true. A "lifetime lubricated" transmission.



I change mine with Pennzoil Synchromesh every 30k. Transmission shifts as good as new.



Ryan

 

[NIsaacs]

I don't think a mass produced NV5600 transmission is unique in itself, with different operating characteristics, based on which lube it is using.



However, I do think it might have unique operating differences based on it's owner/driver.



I now have 14,000 miles on my transmission, using standard fill (not over full) Rotella 15x40. I have always said, the manufacturers are trying to save fuel with the light oils, at the trannys expense.





"NICK"

 

[steved]

The OEM fluid is a low tech oil, classic synchromesh oil. If you look at its viscosity, it's quite good, similar to synthetics, at least when new.

The Nv5600 has brass synchros, and they need a higher coefficient of friction, or you will grind gears. No one has worn out the gears, or bearings (they have failed due to fatigue cracking, from overloading, and lots of miles. ) So the NV 5600 does not need a more slippery oil. Will you get 0. 1 better mpg with Amsoil, Redline, etc? Maybe. But if it's more slippery, you will need to replace the synchros faster. You do the math. (and add to that the higher cost of synth. oil )



On edit: I think it's possible to temporarily experience better shifting when changing oil brands, because the different chemistry in some oil additives will cause the brass to shed some molecules, and that will make it grabbier (which gives better shifts) for a few miles, until the surface restabilizes. Shedding is equivalent to faster wear. The G56 transmission has paper synchros, like an automatic, so it uses ATF.

And because of this thinking, I will be reverting back to shorter drain intervals (probably 10k-15k miles) and Pennzoil Synchromesh because the high dollar oils don't pay in my experience, nor do they appear to offer any longer OCI or other benefit over conventional synchromesh.



I had been considering this for a while (probably 6 months now, since the last change), and the only reason I recently changed to Redline was the simple fact it was obtained for cheap... if I would have needed to pay full price, I would have reverted back to PZ already.



In short, if what you are using works, you probably ought to stick with it.



steved

 

[steved]

I don't think a mass produced NV5600 transmission is unique in itself, with different operating characteristics, based on which lube it is using.



However, I do think it might have unique operating differences based on it's owner/driver.



I now have 14,000 miles on my transmission, using standard fill (not over full) Rotella 15x40. I have always said, the manufacturers are trying to save fuel with the light oils, at the trannys expense.





"NICK"

The tolerances within each trans could make each trans act differently with different oils... they are not all identically the same.



While motor oil was used early on, IIRC, it doesn't have the shear stability that the synchromesh fluids (read: gear oils) have... but if you are doing frequent OCIs, would it matter?



steved