From: Jon Shoop (shoop19@brick.net)
Date: Tue Sep 03 2002 - 20:20:54 PDT
My gear guru here says "better refrain from sulfer component lube for brass
or bronze...not good for them at all".....he builds transmissions and
rearends every day for heavy truck applications......
Jon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart & Jane Robinson" <stalwart@nwlink.com>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [MV] 90 Weight Oil Caution (MUTTS and MANY Others!)
>
> On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 07:35 PM, Gene Pantano wrote:
>
> > There is nothing wrong with 90
> > wt...it is plain old "operator error" that trashes a transmission. A
> > bit of
> > an additive will even make the 90 wt better. Anyone that says 90 wt is
> > bad
> > for a transmission need to see a shrink !!
>
> It isn't the 90 weight they are arguing about! They are arguing about
> 90 weight with "EP" additives (extreme pressure) that were NOT
> available years ago. Oils made to anything higher than GL-1
> specification (GL-5 is most common today) will have the EP additives
> that are VERY unfriendly to "yellow" metals. The good part is that
> GL-1 oils are readily available and contain NO EP additives.
>
> I use 140 weight GL-1 to protect the bronze alloy bushings in the
> suspension of my Stalwarts but I use 90 weight GL-5 where I want the
> extra protection a EP oil can provide where yellow metals are not
> present.
>
> Stuart Robinson
> Alvis Scorpion CVR(T)
> Fox CVR(W)
> 3-Alvis Stalwart Mk 2
> 2-Alvis Stalwart Mk 2, crane variant
> Daimler Ferret Mk2/3
> Daimler Dingo
> M211
> M42A1 "Duster"
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 13:21:18 PDT