-
TDR Magazine subscribers receive more than the magazine! You also gain additional forum privileges!
Details here: TDR Privileges
Subscribe to TDR Magazine here: https://www.tdr-online.com/
Might have found a fix for hard shifting
- Thread starter South Bend Clutch
- Start Date
Attention: TDR Forum Junkies To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.
Thanks, TDR Staff
I just wanna point out again, DC is pretty flexible in their spec for engine and differential lubes - and there are a wide number of potential suppliers for THOSE lubes that don't benefit DC in the slightest...
But the NV5600 clearly has a VERY limited source of qualified and spec-meeting suppliers - and that spec doesn't come just from DC, but NV as well - and NV designed and built the transmission, so you'd sorta think they would understand what SHOULD deliver the best performance and longevity. And rest assured, there IS something special involved in the MS-9224 DC spec that will NOT be met by any ordinary off-the-shelf 5w/30 engine oil - synthetic or otherwise!
It would APPEAR that whoever is now supplying the recommended lube is not a major refiner, but probably some smaller specialty outfit - if so, NV, and DC *COULD* have as easily had Redline OR Amsoil - or any similar outfit contracted to provide their special lube, IF they thought their stuff was superior, or those outfits had the required expertise - it's NOT a very high-volume business, and hardly requires a Chevron or BP as supplier...
Personally, *I* find it sorta ludicrous that any think NV or DC specifies a special lube for the 5600 for the "extra revenue" that would supply - it's such a pitiful potential amount as to be worthless, compared to other revenue sources - after all, on the larger scale, how much of the lube do you suppose they actually sell?
Only a few like us in this group are seriously anal about our trucks - hardly enought to fatten NV or DC's bottom line from sales of 5600 lubes... On the contrary, *I* think the fact there is so LITTLE potential market is exactly WHY there are so few sources meeting NV and DC spec for the lube - not ENOUGH sales to make it profitable
But the NV5600 clearly has a VERY limited source of qualified and spec-meeting suppliers - and that spec doesn't come just from DC, but NV as well - and NV designed and built the transmission, so you'd sorta think they would understand what SHOULD deliver the best performance and longevity. And rest assured, there IS something special involved in the MS-9224 DC spec that will NOT be met by any ordinary off-the-shelf 5w/30 engine oil - synthetic or otherwise!
It would APPEAR that whoever is now supplying the recommended lube is not a major refiner, but probably some smaller specialty outfit - if so, NV, and DC *COULD* have as easily had Redline OR Amsoil - or any similar outfit contracted to provide their special lube, IF they thought their stuff was superior, or those outfits had the required expertise - it's NOT a very high-volume business, and hardly requires a Chevron or BP as supplier...
Personally, *I* find it sorta ludicrous that any think NV or DC specifies a special lube for the 5600 for the "extra revenue" that would supply - it's such a pitiful potential amount as to be worthless, compared to other revenue sources - after all, on the larger scale, how much of the lube do you suppose they actually sell?
Only a few like us in this group are seriously anal about our trucks - hardly enought to fatten NV or DC's bottom line from sales of 5600 lubes... On the contrary, *I* think the fact there is so LITTLE potential market is exactly WHY there are so few sources meeting NV and DC spec for the lube - not ENOUGH sales to make it profitable
Last edited:
Thats funny, the PTO cover on my 5600 says Texaco 1874 ONLY.
Please document that "Amsoil 5W-30 meets that spec!"
Last edited:
I think that NV specs the fluid for the 5600 too. I remember reading that the 4500 goes to GM and DC empty ( dry ) and the 5600's leave NV filled with specific fluid. I can not back that up - I just remember reading about it ( I think on the TDR ) and deciding to use the Texaco stuff because they ( NV ) was way serious about it. I remember something about the reason being for the syncro's... ... ... .
85CJ - I think GM went w/ the ZF transmission due to weight savings ( it is all aluminium v/s cast iron) . When the new GM H. D. trucks were just comong out the Diesel page had an article about them and they gave weight as the reason for not going with the NV 6-speed.
Thomas
85CJ - I think GM went w/ the ZF transmission due to weight savings ( it is all aluminium v/s cast iron) . When the new GM H. D. trucks were just comong out the Diesel page had an article about them and they gave weight as the reason for not going with the NV 6-speed.
Thomas
Just for grins, here's Redline's own commentary on the difference between 5w/30 engine oils, and oils made SPECIFICALLY for manual transmission use... .
Also note that they make NO claim that their 5w/30 transmission lube meets the DC 9224 spec...
http://www.redlineoil.com/redlineoil/mtlti.htm
For those too lazy to go read the whole bit, here's the heart of the piece:
======================
Viscosity of common lubricants at 0°C (32°F) is compared with Red Line MTL in the chart below. Note that the viscosity of ATF and 10W30 motor oil seems to be adequate. These lubricants are not well suited for transmission use because of two factors - shear stability and improper coefficient of friction - which will be discussed in more detail later. At even lower temperatures such as -17. 7°C (0°F), the differences between conventional lubricants and Red Line MTL are even more dramatic. At such a temperature many of these lubricants would prevent shifting into certain gears, depending on the design of the transmission.
All oils are slippery, and with most lubricated components, the slipperier the better, but this is not so with manual transmissions. The synchronization of shifting gears requires friction to transfer energy from the synchronizer, which is locked to the input shaft, to its mating surface attached to the gear to be locked in as the drive gear. Few modern transmissions use sliding gears to change gearing other than for reverse gearing. Synchromesh transmissions have the gear pairs constantly in mesh. The drive gear is selected by using the shift forks to slide a synchronizer ring, which rotates at the same speed as the input shaft, in contact with the selected drive gear. Once the drive gear is brought to the same speed as the input shaft, the locking ring on the synchro assembly is allowed to slide over and lock into the drive gear.
The time this process takes depends on how easily the synchro ring moves and the rate of frictional energy transfer between the two synchronizer surfaces. Higher viscosity lubricants slow the sliding of the synchro ring on the input shaft and require a longer time for the oil to be squeezed out from between the mating synchronizer surfaces. After the lubricant is squeezed out, the coefficient of friction of the lubricant determines the rate of frictional energy transfer between the two surfaces. Slippery lubricants such as hypoid gear oils and ATFs can take too long to synchronize the gears, which promotes synchronizer wear. Red Line MTL and MT-90 has a coefficient of friction which is greater than conventional oils, allowing a quicker transfer of frictional energy.
===============================
The above - and additional info in the article - all pretty well points out that an oil designed and intended for ENGINE use, where MAXIMUM friction reduction is needed, is NOT what works best in a transmission - and is why any off-the-shelf MOTOR oil probably is not the best choice for long-term manual transmission use - and for that matter, *I* sure wouldn't want an ENGINE oil that also carried a manual transmission spec in my ENGINE, either!
Engine oils for engines, transmission oils for trannies!
Also note that they make NO claim that their 5w/30 transmission lube meets the DC 9224 spec...
http://www.redlineoil.com/redlineoil/mtlti.htm
For those too lazy to go read the whole bit, here's the heart of the piece:
======================
Viscosity of common lubricants at 0°C (32°F) is compared with Red Line MTL in the chart below. Note that the viscosity of ATF and 10W30 motor oil seems to be adequate. These lubricants are not well suited for transmission use because of two factors - shear stability and improper coefficient of friction - which will be discussed in more detail later. At even lower temperatures such as -17. 7°C (0°F), the differences between conventional lubricants and Red Line MTL are even more dramatic. At such a temperature many of these lubricants would prevent shifting into certain gears, depending on the design of the transmission.
All oils are slippery, and with most lubricated components, the slipperier the better, but this is not so with manual transmissions. The synchronization of shifting gears requires friction to transfer energy from the synchronizer, which is locked to the input shaft, to its mating surface attached to the gear to be locked in as the drive gear. Few modern transmissions use sliding gears to change gearing other than for reverse gearing. Synchromesh transmissions have the gear pairs constantly in mesh. The drive gear is selected by using the shift forks to slide a synchronizer ring, which rotates at the same speed as the input shaft, in contact with the selected drive gear. Once the drive gear is brought to the same speed as the input shaft, the locking ring on the synchro assembly is allowed to slide over and lock into the drive gear.
The time this process takes depends on how easily the synchro ring moves and the rate of frictional energy transfer between the two synchronizer surfaces. Higher viscosity lubricants slow the sliding of the synchro ring on the input shaft and require a longer time for the oil to be squeezed out from between the mating synchronizer surfaces. After the lubricant is squeezed out, the coefficient of friction of the lubricant determines the rate of frictional energy transfer between the two surfaces. Slippery lubricants such as hypoid gear oils and ATFs can take too long to synchronize the gears, which promotes synchronizer wear. Red Line MTL and MT-90 has a coefficient of friction which is greater than conventional oils, allowing a quicker transfer of frictional energy.
===============================
The above - and additional info in the article - all pretty well points out that an oil designed and intended for ENGINE use, where MAXIMUM friction reduction is needed, is NOT what works best in a transmission - and is why any off-the-shelf MOTOR oil probably is not the best choice for long-term manual transmission use - and for that matter, *I* sure wouldn't want an ENGINE oil that also carried a manual transmission spec in my ENGINE, either!
Engine oils for engines, transmission oils for trannies!
Last edited:
I will inform Amsoil right away that Gary said they are recommending the incorrect lubricant on the 5600s.
My feeling?
Take advantage of Amsoils warranty, nothing to lose, everything to gain, according to the above.
They warrant that product in that transmission.
Why would they even take a chance of telling us it was ok if there was a question?
My feeling?
Take advantage of Amsoils warranty, nothing to lose, everything to gain, according to the above.
They warrant that product in that transmission.
Why would they even take a chance of telling us it was ok if there was a question?
"Why would they even take a chance of telling us it was ok if there was a question?"
Show me just *ONE PLACE*, ANYWHERE, that Amsoil claims ANY of their lubes are recommended in the NV-5600, OR that ANY of their products meet DC's 9224 spec...
ANYWHERE - just ONE will be enough!
You certainly can't hold Amsoil in ANY way responsible for using their stuff in an application where it is NOT recommended - and *I* haven't yet seen anyplace where they HAVE claimed any of their stuff is suitable for use in the NV-5600!
If YOU have, produce it!
Hey, use mashed bananas in yer transmission if it makes ya feel warm and fuzzy - it's a free country!
And leave "Gary" out of it - I'm simply supplying support material directly from folks who know a lot more about lubes than most of us do, if ya wanna get into personal references, attack THEM - not ME! :-{}
Show me just *ONE PLACE*, ANYWHERE, that Amsoil claims ANY of their lubes are recommended in the NV-5600, OR that ANY of their products meet DC's 9224 spec...
ANYWHERE - just ONE will be enough!
You certainly can't hold Amsoil in ANY way responsible for using their stuff in an application where it is NOT recommended - and *I* haven't yet seen anyplace where they HAVE claimed any of their stuff is suitable for use in the NV-5600!
If YOU have, produce it!
Hey, use mashed bananas in yer transmission if it makes ya feel warm and fuzzy - it's a free country!
And leave "Gary" out of it - I'm simply supplying support material directly from folks who know a lot more about lubes than most of us do, if ya wanna get into personal references, attack THEM - not ME! :-{}
Last edited:
Because it's a pyramid scheme
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Seriously, I'd love to see some documentation (maybe a dyno sheet - reference to the dieselstop thread - preferrably from a 3rd party) that SHOWS that Amsoil, Redline, Royal Purple or any other fluid meets the spec.
I find it quite amusing that some of the same guys that bash Banks for their "false advertising" regarding the M-M Act stand behind Amsoil and the same practice. I'll be brutally honest IMO the Amsoil warranty isn't worth the webspace that it takes up - yes, I've read it. I'd have to jump through too many hoops to be reimbursed. Now when my 5year/100K warranty expires I might be willing to run it.
Brian
Sheesh Gary! Calm down!
Redlines word is ok, but Amsoils's isn't, thats fine.
I am finding documentation right now... .....
Dyno sheet ,Ford site... ... . hehehhehehe.
Just the same Brian, as we have learned on another thread, our 5/50 D-C warranty is worthless.
So who do we trust?
I trust myself! Period!
Redlines word is ok, but Amsoils's isn't, thats fine.
I am finding documentation right now... .....
Dyno sheet ,Ford site... ... . hehehhehehe.
Just the same Brian, as we have learned on another thread, our 5/50 D-C warranty is worthless.
So who do we trust?
I trust myself! Period!
I don't think the DC warranty is worthless, if you have DC maintain your truck based on the recommended maintance schle that DC publishes in our owners manual. (and keep your receipts)
:-laf I don't even think they would try and get out of covering you.
But I have been wrong in the past Just ask my wife or read some of my previous posts
:-laf I don't even think they would try and get out of covering you.
But I have been wrong in the past Just ask my wife or read some of my previous posts According to my product selection guide and cross reference. The Dodge NV5600 calls for:
GLS little 5. (the 5 stands for Mopar part number 04874464, just so we know we talking about the same lube)
So now I go to the back of the book and see what we cross it to.
Gear Lube, Special, MS 9224, Use Amsoil HDD, ASL, or XLF.
HDD- Series 3000 5w-30 Diesel Engine oil.
ASL- 5W-30 Gas engine oil 25,000 mile
XLF- 5W-30 Gas Engine oil 7500 mile
3 different lubes they have, that they have in print will work. The HDD is the best choice.
This is a Chek- Chart Lubrication recommendations guide, copyrighted by Hearst Business Publishing.
So, it is in writing.
Also, that book has lots of 'N/A" through out it. Meaning, they do not have a product available. Amsoil does not make recommendations lightly.
Still, If Vaughn says his shifts nicer with the Redline, I would by all means try it. If they stand behind their product, nothing to lose there either.
GLS little 5. (the 5 stands for Mopar part number 04874464, just so we know we talking about the same lube)
So now I go to the back of the book and see what we cross it to.
Gear Lube, Special, MS 9224, Use Amsoil HDD, ASL, or XLF.
HDD- Series 3000 5w-30 Diesel Engine oil.
ASL- 5W-30 Gas engine oil 25,000 mile
XLF- 5W-30 Gas Engine oil 7500 mile
3 different lubes they have, that they have in print will work. The HDD is the best choice.
This is a Chek- Chart Lubrication recommendations guide, copyrighted by Hearst Business Publishing.
So, it is in writing.
Also, that book has lots of 'N/A" through out it. Meaning, they do not have a product available. Amsoil does not make recommendations lightly.
Still, If Vaughn says his shifts nicer with the Redline, I would by all means try it. If they stand behind their product, nothing to lose there either.
Good question.
How does ANY company do that?
Homework assignment.
Everybody who cares, e-mail the oil company of your choice and ask them that very thing.
How does ANY company do that?
Homework assignment.
Everybody who cares, e-mail the oil company of your choice and ask them that very thing.
Gene, Thank you for your professionalism. I now have a TON of respect for you... you are the man. (I say this because I know you sell Amsoil)
I started this thread because of the overwhelming people that thought they needed a clutch when they in fact did not. I also had people calling with problems shifting after installing our clutch. I see our clutches working on the tables and felt as though they were working properly and desperately needed an answer. I started this post with a possible resolution by someone who took it upon them-self to find the answer. It appeared to me that he had done enough testing to justify his results, so I brought it to the boards. I wanted to hear from others that might have tried this and I also wanted to hear from people that tried it after the post. I have received a number of calls from people that did it with great results and Vaughn is the only one that came public with it. I guess there are a lot more readers then we thought. And, a lot more willing to try something new (if it will fix the problem) without worrying about the warranty. All they said was they hated their truck the way it was and they were willing to try anything at this point.
I did not start this tread to debate oils and I am asking all of you to please stop. I just wanted to see if this could in fact help the problem that we all know exists. This was not open for debate, this was open for trial. I don't get it... If it doesn't work, drain it and nobody is the wiser.
Peter
I started this thread because of the overwhelming people that thought they needed a clutch when they in fact did not. I also had people calling with problems shifting after installing our clutch. I see our clutches working on the tables and felt as though they were working properly and desperately needed an answer. I started this post with a possible resolution by someone who took it upon them-self to find the answer. It appeared to me that he had done enough testing to justify his results, so I brought it to the boards. I wanted to hear from others that might have tried this and I also wanted to hear from people that tried it after the post. I have received a number of calls from people that did it with great results and Vaughn is the only one that came public with it. I guess there are a lot more readers then we thought. And, a lot more willing to try something new (if it will fix the problem) without worrying about the warranty. All they said was they hated their truck the way it was and they were willing to try anything at this point.
I did not start this tread to debate oils and I am asking all of you to please stop. I just wanted to see if this could in fact help the problem that we all know exists. This was not open for debate, this was open for trial. I don't get it... If it doesn't work, drain it and nobody is the wiser.
Peter
Last edited:
I just want to see the dyno sheet... ... .
"This is a Chek- Chart Lubrication recommendations guide, copyrighted by Hearst Business Publishing.
So, it is in writing. "
Good enough, and I assume you are quoting from an Amsoil publication, or one authorized by them (I have no idea who puts out the Chek- Chart Lubrication recommendations guide, or under what authority) - thanks for the info - too bad Amsoil hasn't seen fit to include that info on their web pages viewable by the general public tho!
So, it is in writing. "
Good enough, and I assume you are quoting from an Amsoil publication, or one authorized by them (I have no idea who puts out the Chek- Chart Lubrication recommendations guide, or under what authority) - thanks for the info - too bad Amsoil hasn't seen fit to include that info on their web pages viewable by the general public tho!
Last edited:
amsoilman
Staff Alumni
All you people who have the NV-5600 transmissions prior to the 2003 may have some sort of plate on the side of it, making some statement concerning a specific product, but I'm telling you my 2003 model does not have any such thing. In the Repair manual, this is what it says about the brand of lube.
NOTE: DaimlerChrysler recommends using Mopar
lubricants or lubricants of equal quality.
Transmission Lubricant- NV5600 - Mopart Manual Transmission Lubricant.
Wayne
amsoilman
NOTE: DaimlerChrysler recommends using Mopar
lubricants or lubricants of equal quality.
Transmission Lubricant- NV5600 - Mopart Manual Transmission Lubricant.
Wayne
amsoilman
One of the fellas up above provided the quote off the tag on earlier NV-5600's - including mine, which reference the 9224 spec and DC #04874464 - maybe the spec is changed for the '03's?
As far as getting excited over lube discussions - hardly necessary - good info came out of this one *I* wouldn't have benefitted from any other way - it's only when frustration leads to unnecessary and uncalled for personal references or durogatory comments that problems arise...
As far as getting excited over lube discussions - hardly necessary - good info came out of this one *I* wouldn't have benefitted from any other way - it's only when frustration leads to unnecessary and uncalled for personal references or durogatory comments that problems arise...
Wait a second... ... . does that mean you had LESS than a ton of respect for me before?:{
I have always told these guys my truck comes before anything else.
My 97 5 speed had a"MUST USE" decal, but they covered their butts by stating in the owners manual, "equivalent. "
I peeled that sucker off and put an AMSOIL decal in it 's place.
I have always told these guys my truck comes before anything else.
My 97 5 speed had a"MUST USE" decal, but they covered their butts by stating in the owners manual, "equivalent. "
I peeled that sucker off and put an AMSOIL decal in it 's place.
Gene,
No, I just only liked you before.
Peter
No, I just only liked you before.
Peter
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
Turbo Diesel Register
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
