me, I dont' ever stray from stock unless I understand the consequences, good or bad. For example, junking the stock filter box for a proguard-7 is wise. putting anti-slip friction modifier in the rear diff is not. so without fully understading why one would put a CI-4 Diesel engine oil in a manual transmission with a fair amount of yellow metal components, I'll wait for more information before *I* would do this.
In other words, I haven't yet seen enough evidence that straying from the Mopar or the equivalent Penzoil lubricant is a good idea. Those lubes are specific for manuals with syncros, and meet a very specific set of specifications that crankcase oil doesn't. So no, I won't put crankcase oil in my transmission just because someone says it quiets the gear lash. For all I know it will eat brass or other yellow metals not found in a crankcase. So let me ask you guys: on what basis, other than quieting the gear lash, are you changing to the Amsoil crankcase formulation?
I note the following, comparing Penzoil synchromesh to Amsoil 3000:
Penzoil is formulated for synchromesh manual transmissions for GM and chrysler. Amsoil 5w30 is a CI-4 engine crankcase oil.
Penzoil meets Chrysler spec #MS 9925 for manual transmissions. Amsoil 5w-30 does not indicate conformance to this spec
Penzoil viscosity index is 208 versus 176 for Amsoil. That means Penzoil maintains a more consistent viscocity over the temperature range of interest. In particular, the high temperature absolute viscosities are within about 20%, but the amsoil 5w30 is about 50% thicker at 40 degrees C. No wonder it shifts harder when cold
Penzoil indicates excelent compatibility with yellow metals (bronze, brass, copper). Amsoil does not.
I realize that there are manual transmissions out there using Engine oil. My Honda does in fact, though it does not expect a CI-4 diesel engine oil, and I do not know the yellow metal content of my Honda transmission.
I dunno, guys, the evidence doesn't look good to me...