Manual Transmission UOAs: OEM G52 & Redline MTL

SUNRG · Jan 5, 2007

Wear Rate Comparisons - all expressed in ppm / 1000 miles

G52 = OEM Factory Fill G52, MTL = Redline MTL

Fe: G52 - 3.41 | MTL - 5.83
Cu: G52 - 0.93 | MTL - 1.27
Al: G52 - 0.07 | MTL - 0.22
Pb: G52 - 0.02 | MTL - 0.16

The particle counts show that there was more stuff in the Factory Fill fluid after 43k than there was in the MTL after 18k, but in terms of "rates of wear metal production" G52 use in my engine correlated with significantly lower rates of wear than MTL.

AndyH · Jan 5, 2007

Which G052?

wjdell · Jan 5, 2007

Maybe they reacted to each other. Maybe if you ran it again you would get much better results. If you put the G series back in do a test on it at 18k. I think D4 is better for VW than MTL.

silverbox · Jan 8, 2007

wj
What makes you think that D4 is better for VW gear box?

SUNRG · Jan 8, 2007

AndyH said:
Which G052?

the G52 specified for my engine is the mineral oil = G052726A2 / G05272601 (both part numbers are listed on the same bottle)

wjdell - you may be right. i won't even begin to speculate. i have D4 in now and shifting feels fine. though i'm curious about and may try another fluid...

wjdell · Jan 8, 2007

silverbox said:
wj
What makes you think that D4 is better for VW gear box?

The tighter the tolerance the better the thinner fluids do. G series gear box fluids are closer in spec to D4.

Diesel Addict · Jan 8, 2007

Based on shifting feel, especially when shifting out of reverse while rolling back and cold, I would say the factory fluid in my Jetta was slightly more viscous than the MTL I have in there now.

While the results of these UOA's are a little surprising to me, I think we need at least one more UOA to have any meaningful conclusion.

SUNRG · Jan 8, 2007

Diesel Addict said:
While the results of these UOA's are a little surprising to me, I think we need at least one more UOA to have any meaningful conclusion.

i personally think it'd take 10+ UOAs, and if the results were all similar / consistent then we could then begin to draw some conclusions.

DA - i just want to point out if the results were reversed you would have bashed OEM fluids all up and down this thread.

wjdell said:
The tighter the tolerance the better the thinner fluids do. G series gear box fluids are closer in spec to D4.

are you saying that G52 and D4 specs have more similarities other than viscosity? do you have VOAs of both?

cheers!

Diesel Addict · Jan 8, 2007

SUNRG said:
DA - i just want to point out if the results were reversed you would have bashed OEM fluids all up and down this thread.

Don't count on it. When GMARK had better results with Delvac1 than a 505.01 oil in his PD engine, I didn't bash anything.

SUNRG · Jan 8, 2007

Diesel Addict said:
Don't count on it. When GMARK had better results with Delvac1 than a 505.01 oil in his PD engine, I didn't bash anything.

there must be more than one person with your user name...

also, did you see GMARK's Pentosin 50501 UOA that immediately preceeded his first D1 UOA? only a few ppm seperated the two - there's no way someone could legitimately say one is better than the other.

cheers!

Diesel Addict · Jan 8, 2007

I may have been a little harsh on manufacturer-approved fluids in my early days on this board, but it was in response to all the hostility toward anyone using unapproved fluids. I think some people have since become more open-minded, myself included, but I've lost count of the number of people who insisted that GMARK would see nothing but death and destruction with Delvac1 and who are to this day still disappointed with the excellent results he's getting.

PDJetta · Jan 9, 2007

SUNRG said:
Wear Rate Comparisons - all expressed in ppm / 1000 miles

G52 = OEM Factory Fill G52, MTL = Redline MTL
Fe: G52 - 3.41 | MTL - 5.83
Cu: G52 - 0.93 | MTL - 1.27
Al: G52 - 0.07 | MTL - 0.22
Pb: G52 - 0.02 | MTL - 0.16

The particle counts show that there was more stuff in the Factory Fill fluid after 43k than there was in the MTL after 18k, but in terms of "rates of wear metal production" G52 use in my engine correlated with significantly lower rates of wear than MTL.

Which fluid did you check the wear metals on first? I'd suspect it was the G052, since it was the factory fill. You would expect the wear particles to be much higher on the first fill (parts breaking in) and therefore, with LOWER particles indicated in the G052, the results are even more spectacular.

--Nate

rjr311 · Jan 9, 2007

Any experience with this in 2000 gas engines ?
My dealer said the G52 was for 02 on and 198x - 199( early )

thanks
????

AndyH · Jan 9, 2007

SUNRG said:
the G52 specified for my engine is the mineral oil = G052726A2 / G05272601 (both part numbers are listed on the same bottle)

wjdell - you may be right. i won't even begin to speculate. i have D4 in now and shifting feels fine. though i'm curious about and may try another fluid...

Thanks Rob.

You may want to keep some notes from time to time with your opinion of shifting, feel, etc.

I noticed when I moved from 75W-90 to Synchromesh to G052171A2 that shifting feel seemed to degrade sometime in the first 2000-4000 miles, then it changed significantly (for the better). I think I drained the Synchromesh too soon - it may have smoothed out once I got into the 4000-5000 mile range.

dr.zed · Jan 14, 2007

My wife had an 02 GLS 2.0L M5. We had a transmission output shaft seal replaced and filled the transmission with Redline or Royal Purple oil. About 20,000 kms later we developed a 2nd gear grind when the fluid was up to temp.

I am convinced that oil messed up the 2nd gear synchros.

Went back to stock fluid, and the grind went away about half the time right away. We definately did cause permanent damage.

The car was sold shortly after that.

Diesel Addict · Jan 15, 2007

dr.zed said:
We had a transmission output shaft seal replaced and filled the transmission with Redline or Royal Purple oil.

Which was it?

dr.zed said:
About 20,000 kms later we developed a 2nd gear grind when the fluid was up to temp.

I am convinced that oil messed up the 2nd gear synchros.

Are you sure it wasn't a driver error or change in temperature that affected the shift quality?

dr.zed · Jan 15, 2007

Royal Purple. My point is that it wasn't the VW oil.

It was not driver error, nor was it temperature. It was last summer. Pretty steady temps here in Toronto, not too hot or too cold.

My wife is a very good stick driver (I'm not saying you aren't saying that BTW). She has never driven an automatic for more than 2 weeks. Her last car went 260,000 kms on the original clutch. (1996 Subaru wagon).

Something happened inside that transmission. The clutch had only 160,000 kms on it and was the stronger Sachs's (it replaced the weaker Luk).

dr.zed · Jan 15, 2007

Almost immediately after going back to the VW oil, it stopped 50% of the grinding. You could tell immediately there was still a problem, that was permanent.

Diesel Addict · Jan 15, 2007

Well my experience with Red Line MTL has been good so far, though I've never done any oil analysis. Here I described my experience with MTL in my Jetta: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=144662

dabear95 · Jan 16, 2007

I have run Redline MT-90 for 80K + miles with nothing but great things to say. However, my factory fill was G50 IIRC and the viscosity is almost identical to MT90.

Jason

Manual Transmission UOAs: OEM G52 & Redline MTL

Top Post Dawg

Registered Vendor , w/Business number

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Registered Vendor , w/Business number

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member