| Author |
Message |
    
M202
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 12:14 pm: | 
|
I'm about to switch over to synthetic oil in my M2. What trans oil should i go with? |
Buellistic
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 02:19 pm: |
|
Harley-Davidson Syn3 !!! |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 10:05 am: |
|
Mobil 1 75W-90 Gear oil.
The difference is amazing!
Good luck. |
Sloppy
| | Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 05:08 pm: |
|
I would NOT use ANY GL-5 oil ("rear end" gear oil)! GL-5's use Sulphur which is corrosive to yellow metals (brass and copper) which is in your primary. Instead use (15w-50) - Mobil1, Amsoil, RP or HD Syn3. I recommend Mobil1 - it works excellent and is easy to find. You can also use Transmission Gear Oil (GL-4), but they are harder to find; RP and RL both have synthetic GL-4's.} |
Deltacruiser
| | Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 05:20 pm: |
|
I have used Mobil 1 75w90 full synthetic gear oil, HD sporttran, and HD Syn 3. I think the Mobil 1 75W90 shifts the smoothest, followed closely by the Syn3. Both synthetics are light years ahead of the Sporttrans in my opinion. |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 11:37 am: |
|
Sloppy,
As posted to Bobbyhead in other tranny oil threads...
Anyone care to explain what creates the nasty sulfur smell in the OEM SportTrans lube? I kinda figured it is the EP additive package and that it includes a sulfur compound. But I truly don't know. I just know that it smells offensive, in a pungent sulfur kind of way.
If your stator has copper exposed to the tranny fluid, is it not already toast?
Does the Buell primary/transmission contain brass, bronze, or copper components?
Please note that the sulfur in most EP gear lubricants should not be "active" and so not corrosive wrt copper at temperatures below 100 degrees C.
But maybe it is a moot point since that even without the use of EP additives polyglycol based synthetic tranny lubes provide wear control comparable to conventional EP rated gear lubes. Thus the risk of sulfur induced copper/brass/bronze corrosion is eliminated.
I've sent an inquiry to the Mobil-1 folks asking them whether or not their 75W90 tranny lube is corrosive to copper and its alloys.
Stay tuned.  |
Xldevil
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 12:23 pm: |
|
Does the Buell primary/transmission contain brass, bronze, or copper components?
I'm pretty sure, that the shift drum bushing in the trapdoor is made of some kind of bronze composition.
(Message edited by xldevil on March 31, 2006) |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 02:04 pm: |
|
Anyone running gear lube ever have that bushing fail? I've been running Mobil-1 75W90 for years now. Not had the trap door off though. I don't recall ever hearing of such a failure either though. |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 03:30 pm: |
|
The shift forks sure as heck looked bronze to me on my M2 when I had the tranny apart.
At that point, I had been running Mobil 1 Gear oil for probably 10k miles in the thing, and everything in there (except the 2nd gear dogs) looked perfect.
There were plenty of shiney polished surfaces on those shift forks, they looked perfect. I can't imagine the gear oil being damaging to them at all and having them look that good. |
Sloppy
| | Posted on Saturday, April 01, 2006 - 03:08 am: |
|
The yellow metals in the tranny are your shift forks and stator. The stator connection to the voltage regulator is where the trouble lies. The problem is that over time, your battery's charging system slowly degrades and it takes a while to spot.
Please note that from my research, there is no GL-5 gear oil that is EVER recommend for use in a manual transmission... the ONLY gear oil recommended in these applications is GL-4.
There is an "odor" in sporttrans, but nothing compared to GL-5 gear oil. Open a bottle side by side and you'll smell the difference.
I'm not sure what is meant by a non-"active" sulphur. Perhaps a "non-corrosive" form? As an example, seeminly non-corrosive drinking water safe for humans will corrode 304 stainless.
If you really want to use a gear oil, then go to your local motocross or Kart shop and get 2-stroke gear oil (they carry synthetic GL-4 oils). Since there are so many good alternatives to GL-5's, I wouldn't use them. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, April 01, 2006 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Again, if the stator has voltage bearing copper exposed to the transmission fluid, has is it not already failed?
seemingly non-corrosive drinking water safe for humans will corrode 304 stainless."
For sure. So will the acid in our stomachs react aggressively with all kinds of matter. But that interesting observation is neither here nor there concerning the topic issue. It is well understood that sulfur and some sulfur compounds will attack copper and its yellow alloys; I certainly don't dispute that fact. And wrt to corrosion of iron alloys in the presence of water, H2O, please note that the oxidation reaction (corrosion) of iron in any steel alloy, including 304 grade stainless steel, also requires/depends-upon the presence of molecular oxygen, O2, in order to convert the iron to iron-oxide (rust).
Back to the topical issue...
Please consider the following:
quote:Modern gear lube additives contain sulfur-phosphorus components that are thermally stable, and are noncorrosive to bronze and other nonferrous metals. .
.
.Modern EP gear oils contain thermally stable additives that promote system cleanliness and do not corrode yellow metals under moderate operating conditions. The goal in formulating top-tier EP gear oils is to develop additive chemistries that will carry high loads under boundary conditions and protect mating surfaces from wear while minimizing corrosiveness to yellow metals and keeping steel gear components clean.
Source
I trust the above source. Lubrication analysis is their entire reason for being, and they are highly respected throughout the industry. The author is well-qualified and highly respected in the field of tribology.
Please also review the section entitled "Rust and Corrosion Protection" by this other reputable lubrication industry source.
I'll be interested to read what the Mobil-1 engineer has to say on the issue.
Does the Buell stator have any exposed copper?
(Message edited by blake on April 01, 2006) |
Sloppy
| | Posted on Saturday, April 01, 2006 - 05:18 pm: |
|
Practicing Oil Analysis & Mach. Lubrication are great resources ( I subscribe to it as well). I will not qualify myself as being a Tribologist, but let's agree that "gear oil" comes in different forms - for this discussion, GL-4 and GL-5 grades. Let's also agree that Mobil1's (and most manufacturer's) GL-5 oil is NOT recommend for manual transmissions in ANY vehicle. The only gear oil recommend for tranmsissions is GL-4. Please refer to any oil manuf's. website and see where GL-5 and GL-4's are supposed to be used.
Let's also agree that anti-corrosion additives wear out over time, temperature and duty cycle. While GL-5's have anti-corrosion additives, they don't last indefinitely.
From the same source:
Modern EP gear oils contain thermally stable additives that promote system cleanliness and do not corrode yellow metals under moderate operating conditions.
Note - moderate operating conditions. Please also note that the article doesn't differentiate it's discussion between GL-4 or GL-5 or other grades of gear oil.
When I used GL-5 gear oil for a little over a year (?), I noticed that my battery was not charging as well as it used to -- but I just thought it was due to being an old battery (~ 4 years). During a tranny PM, I was inspecting my stator when I noted that the leads from the stator where thin and partially missing -- it was not a "cold work fracture" failure - it was as if the metal was thinned & dissolved. I did not notice any additional wear on the brass forks.
In my analysis of failure, the main thing I could reasonably come up with is that the GL-5 oil had sulphur in it and it was this sulpher that was corroding the copper wires. I had analyzed the Sport Trans Fluid and it was reported to me that the fluid was not a motor or a gear oil, but actually hydraulic oil. Hence, more evidence (to me) that GL-5's don't belong in this transmission.
Did the corrision inhibitors get worn out? Were the additives unable to protect the pure (and very reactive) copper from the stator? Was I working under "extreme" conditions (I do track days about twice a year and ride year round)? Did the yellow metals in the tranny use up all the inhibitors? All of these can be answered with "maybe".
I admit that my conclusion come from anecdotal evidence, but my main point is that 1. GL-5's don't belong in a manual transmission, 2. HD OEM fluid is not a gear oil and 3. there are plenty of other fluids that give as good performance and as available as the GL-5. I won't pretend to be an expert, but I would simply caution against the use GL-5's in a manual transmission -- just pick up Mobil1 motor oil or Torco's full syn. GL-4 if you want a gear oil.
p.s. -- my discussion on 304 SS and water was just to demonstrate that seamingly "safe" fluids, will corrode seamingly "impervious" metals. In this case, the chlorides dissolved in fresh water will corrode the stainless. I didn't realize that you have a technical background in these matters. I will refrain from such examples then.} |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Saturday, April 01, 2006 - 09:10 pm: |
|
Sloppy, what the heck are you talking about? The connection to the voltage regulator and stator is about a foot away from any mobil 1.
As Blake keeps saying, if the copper in your wires is exposed to your tranny lube, you already failed. If you want to assert that the Mobil 1 caused that failure, you need to be thinking about the effect of Mobil 1 on the sealing insulation on those wires, not the effect of the lube on the metal in those wires. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, April 01, 2006 - 09:42 pm: |
|
I think Bill has a very good point. Yes?
Here's an interesting commentary on the issue of GL-4 versus GL-5 and also the issue of EP sulfur compounds and copper alloys (yellow metals). The author is reportedly an industry engineer. I find it to be credible and accurate.
quote:The subject of what gear oils should be used in older British Car transmissions is a common question. The issue is that gear oils use a number of different extreme pressure (EP) additives that may affect brass or bronze parts. The following one of the best dissertations on the topic found on the web. It is a copy of a posting to the Trimph mailing list from Brad Jordan, a Chemical Engineer with Equilon Lubricants, and reprinted with his permission.
At low pressure and temperatures, the viscosity of the fluid is what keeps the gear teeth apart and prevents wear. As the load and temperature increases, it becomes the job of the EP, or extreme pressure, additives to minimize metal to metal contact. EP additives in lubricants chemically react under pressure and elevated temperatures with the metal in gears to form a protective film and prevent this metal to metal contact. EP additives are mostly made up of Chlorine, Sulfur, Phosphorous, Zinc and Lead compounds. Due to environmental concerns, Lead is for the most part gone and Chlorine is also only used in limited applications. These compounds become active at different temperatures and therefore if balanced properly provide protection at all operating temperatures. The problem in the past with some Sulfur EP additive packages in gear oils and yellow metals is not how much is in the oil, or that the additive breaks down and forms an acid. This acid, if formed, would eat up yellow metals and steel alike. The problem is the difference between what is called active and inactive Sulfur in the EP additive package. "Active" Sulfur compounds chemically react and form these protective films at much lower temperatures than "inactive" Sulfur EP additives. In some cases these "active" Sulfur additives may even stain the yellow metals in the gear sets.
Whether a particular manufacturer uses active, or inactive Sulfur EP agents is really only known by them. API, GL-4 and GL-5 are performance specs, not a formulation specs. Texaco Havoline gear oil 80w-90 and Shell Spirax HD 80w-90 are the right products for this application and do not stain yellow metals. We also have synthetic products in both brands, but the smallest quantity is a 5-gallon bucket. Most major manufacturers have steered away from formulations with active sulfur EP additives to avoid staining yellow metals. In general, I would say the API GL-5 Multigear EP SAE 80w-90 lubricants marketed by ExxonMobil, Chevron, BPAmoco, Castrol, Valvoline and Pennzoil would be safe for yellow metals. Also, well known companies such as Redline, who specialize in motorcycle and sports car racing lubricants would have products that don't stain yellow metals. I would stay away from the smaller, little known companies that may be at trade shows selling "the greatest lubricants ever". The lubricants may perform extremely well in their table top bearing test against traditional motor oils, but they typically contain active Sulfur, Chlorine and other undesirable additives.
As far as the difference between GL-4 and GL-5, API GL-4 rated lubricants do not have the EP level to withstand shock loading. Unlike API engine service classifications, API gear lubricant classifications are not required to meet the specs of lower classes and it all depends on the application. In the case of the Triumph, it probably recommends a GL-5, but even if it only recommends a GL-4, I would go with the GL-5 fluid. Sorry this was so long, but I hope it helps.
Brad A. Jordan, CLS
Knoxville, TN
Source: http://www.sbcc.ca/tech/lube1.htm
My opinion is that if the significantly superior shock loading anti-wear protection afforded by a GL-5 does not pose a threat to the transmission, then it may well provide added protection for my Buell transmission, especially in scenarios like speed shifting or hard/clumsy shifts where the shifting dogs clash violently, surely experiencing significant levels of shock loading.
I could well be wrong to be using Mobil-1 75W90 in my Buell primary/transmission and subjecting it to undue risk. If I am, I'll be the first to admit it. If it's okay to run Mobil-1 75W90, I'll probably keep running it. If not, I'll switch to something else next oil change and be sure everyone on BadWeB knows about it.
(Message edited by blake on April 02, 2006) |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 12:05 am: |
|
Some questions to ponder.
Do GL-4 lubricants never contain EP additives or sulfur compounds?
What is the major difference between a GL-4 and GL-5 lubricant?
Here's some interesting info to ponder...
SAE Viscosities - Engine vs Gear Lubricant
Gear Lube AGMA Grade and Viscosities
Gear Lubricant Selector
With the primary drive reduction ratio being 1.5 for the 1200cc Buells, the peak operational clutch rpm in round numbers runs from around 700 to 4,500 rpm with power ranging from near zero to close to 100 HP.
Based just on those two parameters, which viscosity grade of gear lube does the selector table above indicate might be acceptable for a Buell transmission?
How does that relate to the various lubricant that we are using?
What are the differences between the viscosities of SAE 20W50 engine lubricant to SAE 75W90 gear lubricant?
I found the following from Castrol interesting:
quote:API GL-4 is generally equivalent to military specification MIL-L-2105 for manual
transmissions and spiral bevel gears engaged in moderate service. API GL-4 rates a
gear lubricant’s performance in several areas including: high shock and high speed
conditions, high torque and low speed conditions, corrosion in the presence of water,
anti-foam tendency, copper corrosion, lubricant and seal compatibility and solubility.
API GL-5 is similar to the specification MIL-L-2105E for manual transmissions,
hypoid and other types of gears in moderate or severe duty. \API GL-5 is the primary
field service recommendation for many passenger car and truck manufacturers. This
specification has all the same test requirements as API GL-4 with added thermal and
oxidative stability and cleanliness tests.
Source
And more from the folks at Fina:
quote:GL-4
This designation denotes lubricants intended for axles with spiral bevel gears operating under moderate to severe conditions of speed and load or axles with hypoid gears operating under moderate speeds and loads. These oils may be used in selected manual transmission and transaxle applications. The manufacturer's specific lubricant quality recommendations should be followed.
Although this service designation is still used commercially to describe lubricants, some test equipment used for performance verification is no longer available. Procedures to define this performance are currently being reviewed for adoption by ASTM.
GL-5
This designation denotes lubricants intended for gears, particularly hypoid gears, in axles operating under various combinations of high-speed, low-speed, high-torque, and shock-load conditions. Lubricants qualified under U.S. Military Specification MIL-L-2105E (formerly MIL-L-2105D) satisfy the requirements of the API GL-5 service designation. Performance test details are in ASTM Publication STP-512A, "Laboratory Performance Tests for Automotive Gear Lubricants Intended for API GL-5 Service."
API GL-5 quality gear lubricants possess adequate extreme pressure characteristics for essentially all automotive gear applications to prevent wear, pitting, scoring and ultimate gear failure, along with protection against oxidation, thermal degradation, rust, copper corrosion, foaming and water emulsification. API GL-5 oils are relatively equivalent to MIL-L-2105E gear lubricants (see below) and are the most widely used automotive gear lubricants in North America for automobile, truck, bus and heavy construction equipment applications.
Source
And finally, under the "Features" heading from the Mobil-1 75W-90 Synthetic Gear Lubricant Product Data Sheet:
quote:Excellent rust, staining and corrosion protection of copper and its alloys
I think at least for the Mobil-1 75W-90 gear lubricant, we have put this issue to bed. Yes?
I learned a lot in discussing it, which is always a very good and fun thing for me.
I hope everyone participating and reading all this feels the same way.
(Message edited by blake on April 02, 2006) |
Sloppy
| | Posted on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 03:14 am: |
|
If you don't have a connection between the stator and v. reg, then you'd never charge the battery! Since the stator resides in your primary case, it is exposed to tranny fluid. Good point, yes? While the stator IS insulated, it has to make a terminal connection to the v. reg., and hence, the point at which the tranny fluid can be in direct contact with the electrical components. The failure is NOT a short, but instead, an open circuit.
I won't argue that GL-5 is a great and superior gear oil and offers supreme EP protection. Heck, that's why it's used in rear-ends.
But I think this should settle the argument...
From Mobil1's website for it's gear oils under "applications" (use the link above)
"Not recommended for automatic, manual or semiautomatic transmissions for which engine oil or automatic transmission fluids are recommended"
Folks -- HD Sport Trans is hydraulic fluid (aka, ATF) and HD's latest recommendation is engine oil! That's the two strikes against the use of Mobil1 Gear Lube...
Use what you want -- it's a forum to share information. I will NOT use Mobil1 Gear Oil and I will continue to warn others against its use. You can follow my and Mobil1's recommendations or you can decide to use your own judgement. I'll stick with the Tribologists at Mobil 1...
And, BTW, Mobil 1 engine oil passes the requirements of GL-4 gear oil!
So who are you going to side with?
(Message edited by Sloppy on April 02, 2006) |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 10:01 am: |
|
Not sure why this has become such a big deal. Based on the warning on the Mobil website, I just swapped Red Line Oil for the M1 gear oil yesterday.
If anything, it shifts better now than with the M1.
Why take the chance when there are such good alternatives that actually cost less than the gear lube.
Hey, life is short! |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 12:45 pm: |
|
I'm only interested in the facts. Ego is a wondrous thing and serves its purpose, but not in a technical discussion. Should we not simply let the facts stand on their own, no?
Fact #1: The stator has no exposed copper for transmission lubricant to engage. All stator copper is insulated, sealed and encased in protective coating(s) and/or sealed covering(s). As soon as it's copper electrical components fail to be insulated against contact with the primary/transmission lubricant, the stator will likely fail, regardless of what type of lubricant is involved.
Fact #2: Mobil-1 75W-90 is not harmful to copper or its yellow alloys. Mobil-1 clearly states this, experience supports this. Thus Mobil-1 75W-90 poses no risk to transmission or primary drive components comprized of coppper or its yellow alloys.
Fact #3: GL-4 lubricant is commonly specified for hypoid gear applications while GL-5 lubricant is commonly specified for manual transmission applications. They each provide protection in scenarios involving extreme pressure (EP). GL-5 lubricants provide more EP protection than GL-4 lubricants.
Fact #4: GL-4 lubricants may also include EP additives including sulfur based compounds.
Fact #5: No egine oil except for HD Syn-3 is recommended for use in Buell transmissions. HD Syn-3 is a synthetic lubricant. Synthetic lubricants like Syn-3 provide protection in enclosed gearcase applications that are on par with gear specific lubricants. To pretend that "engine oil" is universally recommended for the Buell primary/transmission is extremely misleading.
Fact #6: Mobil-1 75W-90 is a synthetic gear lubricant that exceeds the API's Service GL-5 performance requirements for gear lubricants.
Sport Trans is ATF? Source for that claim please?
I know of no official recommendation that "engine oil" let alone ATF is appropriate for a Buell transmission. I know of one very specific synthetic engine oil that is recommended. That is it. In technical terms, and from a technical point of view, that seems to fall short of a transmission "for which engine oil or automatic transmission fluids are recommended."
I am very skeptical that Sport Trans consists entirely of automatic transmission fluid.
I could be wrong. I'm only interested in the facts, period. You have facts, fill me in. I've seen too much heresay and just plain horribly inaccurate assertions.
Bruce,
What Red Line oil? What "warning"?
(Message edited by blake on April 02, 2006) |
Sloppy
| | Posted on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 01:48 pm: |
|
Fact:
I had Sport Trans analyzed for the type of oil it was. The report was that it was a hydraulic fluid (not a motor or gear oil). I NEVER made the assertion that Sport Trans is the same as ATF. But, ATF is a class of hydraulic fluid -- as an example, automatic transmissions are hyrdraulic systems. If anyone wants to dispute the Sport Trans claim, then go get it analyzed by your own lab.
Fact:
The wire terminals on my stator were coated with transmission oil. So, the stator terminsals are not 100% protected from tranny fluid. Did I have an inferior stator? Maybe. Has HD improved their stator design? Maybe. Do you have a stator like mine? Maybe.
Fact:
There are compounds in "sulphurized" GL-5 gear oils that REDUCE, not eliminate, the rate of corrosion of yellow metals. While Mobil1 claims it is safe for brass / bronze, I don't recall see anything about copper. It's very likely that Mobil1 has little experience of its gear oil being used in applications of immersed charging systems. I will support that there will be no measurable loss of brass or bronze components.
Fact:
Buell/HD specifies the use of API "C" oil in their engines. They recommend Syn - 3, but C oils are specified. They have recently came out with the claim that Syn - 3 is recommend for use in the transmission. Draw whatever conclusions you'd like. It seems to me, that if you use an oil with the same properties as Syn - 3, then you should be fine. If the argument is that you should only use Syn - 3, then why is this discussion even taking place?
Fact:
Mobil 1 engine oil is closer in composition to Syn-3 than Mobil 1 gear oil...
Fact:
Since oil is used as an electrical insulator, there is little basis to say that exposed wiring in oil will automatically fail. I claim that the electricity will not short to ground via oil. I'm assuming that this is the "failure of charging system" claim from above. If not, then please explain.
Fact:
I did gloat, but only a little...
One can only deal with facts when they have data. In the abscence of data one forms a hypothesis based on observation. When there is enough observations to support the hypothesis, it turns into a theory. For me, it's a theory to not to use Mobil1 gear oil in the tranny.
Fact:
Mobil 1 doesn't want you to use their gear oil in your tranny either...
Fact:
The HD tranny is not just a "gear box". It is a charging, starting, engine sealing, chain drive, clutch, gear selector and gear box. Mobil 1 gear oil is the wrong oil for the HD tranny.
Fact:
I NEVER made the assertion that Mobil 1 GL-5 is not a great gear oil. You still have no argument from me.
Fact:
You still haven't answered my question -- in other words, will you continue to use Mobil 1 gear oil? If so, fine, I hope you don't run into a failure like mine. If not, then I think you're making a better decision. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 02:42 pm: |
|
I am using Red Line 20W-50 in the trans.
I was referring to the warning on the Mobil 1 website not to use the gear oil in transmissions.
Certainly, my Buell manual does not suggest that one put gear oil in the trans.
Having said that, I did just that for 9500 miles. I am no longer comfortable with that decision. |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 03:03 pm: |
|
"The wire terminals on my stator were coated with transmission oil. "
Thus it seems obvious that your stator failed due to an insulation/sealing failure.
Fact:
Since oil is used as an electrical insulator, there is little basis to say that exposed wiring in oil will automatically fail. I claim that the electricity will not short to ground via oil. I'm assuming that this is the "failure of charging system" claim from above. If not, then please explain."
Oil may indeed function as an electrical insulator, but the point is moot concerning the stator and transmission lubricant as it is highly likely to be polluted with suspended metal particles and moisture, not to mention that the stator wiring is in close proximity to, even in contact with highly conductive metal components. To assert that the primary/transmission lubricant is intended to and relied upon to function as an electrical insulator is horribly irresponsible in my view and is far from "fact."
In all likelyhood, your stator and many others have failed when their insulative sealed protection against contamination by the transmission lubricant and its associated pollutants and conductive housings failed.
I'd like to see a copy of your report on the Sport Trans fluid. Water is a hydraulic fluid. Most any oil including engine oil qualifies as a hydraulic fluid. Fork oil is a hydraulic fluid working in an hydraulic system. What was the viscosity; the viscosity index; what additives did it contain; what type of base stock(s) was it composed of?
"While Mobil1 claims it is safe for brass / bronze, I don't recall see anything about copper."
It's right there in the quote I posted above from their product data sheet under "Features".
quote:Excellent rust, staining and corrosion protection of copper and its alloys
"There are compounds in "sulphurized" GL-5 gear oils that REDUCE, not eliminate, the rate of corrosion of yellow metals."
I'm mot sure that your use of the term "corrosion" is accurate. Regardless, even if it is, one could say the exact same thing about GL-4 rated oils. In fact, most any conventional oil base will contain some sulfur that will stain copper and its alloys; it comes out of the ground with sulfur already in it.
"It's very likely that Mobil1 has little experience of its gear oil being used in applications of immersed charging systems."
If current voltage bearing components of said "immersed charging system" - please note that the Buell system is not "immersed" - are sealed against contact with the lubricant, that point would seem entirely irrelevant, on account of the charging system's electrical components would never come into contact with the lubricant.
Now you are speaking for Mobil-1 in claiming that they don't want me to use their gear lubricant in my Buell transmission? Forgive me if I prefer to wait for the answer on that by the Mobil-1 engineer.
So lacking any reason to worry about copper or its alloys in the presence of Mobil-1, as you now so state, what is your concern with its use in a Buell transmission?
"The HD tranny is not just a "gear box". It is a charging, starting, engine sealing, chain drive, clutch, gear selector and gear box."
Excellent observation. But to then claim that such a multi-funtional environment precludes the use of Mobil-1 gear lube is pure supposition. Forgive me if I demand something more than personal opinion to sway my view of the issue.
Mobil-1 may be the wrong oil for the Buell transmissions, at least the old ones prior to the lighter pull clutch spring ones. Or it may be perfectly acceptable. So far, I see the latter being the most plausible conclusion, but I'll wait to hear from Mobil-1.
(Message edited by Blake on April 02, 2006) |
Curtyd
| | Posted on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 08:31 pm: |
|
So let me see if I get the drift of these arguments. Some say don't use GEAR oil in your HD/BUELL GEARbox, use MOTOR oil.
And if that isn't confusing enough, HD says if you are travelling, need oil and can't get MOTOR oil that meets their usage specs you should temporarily substitute 50w oil that meets DIESEL motor specs!
DAMN Harleys... |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 08:40 pm: |
|
"I was referring to the warning on the Mobil 1 website not to use the gear oil in transmissions."
Where is this "warning" of which you speak?
(Message edited by Blake on April 02, 2006) |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 10:17 pm: |
|
This is the language on the M1 site for the syn gear oil.
"Not recommended for automatic, manual or semiautomatic transmissions for which engine oil or automatic transmission fluids are recommended"
Blake, while I agree with you 99% of the time, I don't in this case. The downside is great, the upside, not much.
Switch to a quality motor oil or the HD recommendations. Why spit in the wind? |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 12:25 am: |
|
"Why spit in the wind" you ask me?
What exactly do you consider in this investigation of the acceptability of Mobil-1 synthetic gear lubricant to be akin to "spitting in the wind"?
I rate the logic presented here against using Mobil-1 gear lubricant close to the following: When exposed over time to repeated cyclic loading, even at stresses far less than ultimate strength, metalic structural alloys will crack and fail. Aircraft and automobiles are made of structural metal alloys and are subject to relentless cyclic loading. Shall we cease using metalic alloys to construct aircraft, vehicles, and bridges?
The sun's rays can cause deadly skin cancer. Shall we all cease exposing ourselves to the sun?
I prefer a more measured and analytical analysis. One with honest and accurate information. That is not spitting in the wind. It is trying to ascertain if there is any wind, how strong it might be, and from which direction it is blowing.
Why fear hearsay when the evidence contradicts it?
What is this "great downside" that you imagine?
I take serious issue with advise imploring folks to "switch to a quality motor oil" for use in their Buell transmission/primary. Quality motor oils include a myriad of conventional base stock oils. The only motor oil that is recommended for use in Buell transmissions is the H-D Syn-3 fully synthetic oil. So in my opinion, yours is a very irresponsible suggestion which if followed, may lead to serious problems as a direct result.
If one is disinclined to use synthetic gear lubricant, fine, then run the Syn-3 or at least an equivalent fully synthetic engine oil.
And to further clarify the issue for the newest Buells on the street, it seems that only the OEM lubricant is acceptable. For the new 2006 Buells with the light pull clutch, at least until we are able to ascertain what might be equivalent, the tranny requires the specified OEM lubricant, the Formula+ stuff. |
Hkwan
| | Posted on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 04:05 am: |
|
"For the new 2006 Buells with the light pull clutch, at least until we are able to ascertain what might be equivalent, the tranny requires the specified OEM lubricant, the Formula+ stuff."
Just wonder if the older XB's can use the Formula+ stuff or must they stay with the Syn-3? |
Sloppy
| | Posted on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 04:05 am: |
|
Blake:
You may very well be correct that my failure was not directly due to Mobil 1 gear oil. I've stated that my failure mode was a theory based on facts. But let's agree that your conclusion on my failure is but a hypothesis. Considering that you never saw my failure, never looked at my terminal wires under a scope, never analyzed the oil, nor are you familier with my vehicles duty cycles, that you will forgive me if I hold my analysis in higher regard than yours...
I'm taken aback by your accusation that I was dishonest or irresponsible. Am I irresponsible in following M1's recommendations? Was I dishonest in sharing my warnings of M1's GL5 oils? You did enlighten me about M1's claim of it's greater protection afforded to yellow metals, but M1 doesn't claim that there is zero corrosion.
This is a forum -- a place to discuss information. If you'd like me to submit an ASME or SAE white paper on the use of GL-5 oils in an HD tranny so you can get your analytical data, I would be more than happy to. I've done it before... Just let me know where I can get the grant money to perform such a study and I will gladly pursue it. Until you get me the grant money we'll just discuss and share information, no?
As for your assertion that water also qualifies as a hydraulic fluid, well, never mind, I won't bother with a reply...
If you want to challenge my facts on Sport Trans, then proceed to your local bearing supply shop and submit a sample of Sport Trans yourself. I had mine sampled by JAX (http://www.jax.com/index.html) 3 years ago and I already gave you the response I got from their lab. My question to them was -- what type of motor or gear oil is this. Their reply: It is neither. It is a hyrdraulic oil with EP additives.
I'm dumbfounded, however, that one would continue to use M1 gear lube when their website and bottle clearly states it is not recommended for use in the HD transmission.
And Syn-3 is NOT the only motor oil that is approved in HD's sporty engine (perhaps the XD is different, I don't have a manual for such vehicle) HD's manual for my 2000 S3 clearly states that API "C" oils can also be used. In other words, they cannot refuse a warranty service if I used "C" oils.
I'm done with this discussion -- it's gone far out of the "which oil should I use in my tranny" thread. My answer to that question is: "Don't use M1 gear oil. Use, in order of preference; Syn-3, M1 motor oil or 2-cycle GL-4 oils."
And as always, on any forum, Cavet Emptor... |
Hkwan
| | Posted on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 04:07 am: |
|
"...Use, in order of preference; Syn-3, M1 motor oil or 2-cycle GL-4 oils."
What about the formula+ ? |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 09:09 am: |
|
Blake,
I hardly "implored" anyone to switch from M1 gear oil. Frankly, I have already done so, but folks are free to do what they want.
I mis-typed. I should have said a qualilty SYNTHETIC motor oil. Dino of course, is not OK.
This would be consistent with what Buell says to use in the XB trans, i.e., the HD3 synthetic motor oil. I am of course assuming the HD3 is a "quality synthetic" which may be a big assumption.
Who knows?
Otherwise, why do you ignore the Mobil warning on their website? I have posted it twice and it is there for all the world to see. If Mobil has the warning there, I assume there is a reason.
THAT is the downside that I was referring to and I assumed it was obvious.
I guess it wasn't.
And back to my original issue, why are you so inflammed about such a pissant issue. Since HD has several approved fluids and Mobil is telling us not to use this gear oil in transmissions that call for motor oil, why the big flap?
Chill my friend, it will all be OK!
(Message edited by brucelee on April 03, 2006) |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 01:05 pm: |
|
quote:Hydraulic Fluid: fluid serving as the power transmission medium in a hydraulic system. The most commonly used fluids are petroleum oils, synthetic lubricants, oil-water emulsions, and water-glycol mixtures. The principal requirements of a premium hydraulic fluid are proper viscosity, high viscosity index, anti-wear protection (if needed), good oxidation stability, adequate pour point, good demulsibility, rust inhibition, resistance to foaming, and compatibility with seal materials. Anti-wear oils are frequently used in compact, high-pressure, and capacity pumps that require extra lubrication protection.
Source
Gear oil: A high-quality oil with good oxidation stability, load-carrying capacity, rust protection, and resistance to foaming, for service in gear housings and enclosed chain drives. Specially formulated industrial EP gear oils are used where highly loaded gear sets or excessive sliding action (as in worm gears) is encountered.
Source
If conventional engine oil is not okay to use in our Buell transmission/primary chain drive, then logically speaking the transmission is absolutely not one for which engine oil in general is specified, which is exactly the meaning I take from the Mobil-1 disclaimer, that Mobil-1 does not recommend their 75W-90 synthetic gear lubricant for use in applications where engine oil, generically speaking, is called for, such as for manual transmissions that utilize synchromesh technology.
But I could be wrong.
Please consider that a synthetic engine oil that meets GL-4 service requirements is not just an engine oil; it is also a gear oil.
I refuse to turn this vigorous debate into a personal issue. I'd be gratified if others would see fit to do the same.
There is information, fact, and conjecture. There is technical and personal commentary.
It is irresponsible to offer up conjecture as though it were technical fact.
I've not accused anyone here of being dishonest.
I didn't ask for a white paper; I merely asked for a few of the most very basic lubricant properties from what was characterized as an "oil analysis", a few numbers is all.
Is a base stock oil akin to those used in hydraulic fluid but that contains EP additives still a hydraulic fluid? Do you figure those EP additives included sulfur compounds?
What specifically are the traits of hydraulic oils that differentiate them from engine oils or gear oils? Do you know?
Brake fluid is also a hydraulic fluid.
Power steering fluid is a hydraulic fluid.
Power brake fluid is a hydraulic fluid.
My point is that an analysis that concludes that an oil is a hydraulic oil doesn't tell us much if anything.
I am really only interested in a technical discussion, one that concentrates almost entirely upon discussing the technical reasoning/facts/information that indicate whether or not it is good idea to use Mobil-1 75W-90 Synthetic Gear Lubricant in my Buell primary/transmission. That's all. Just an honest debate with facts and logic is all I care to engage in here.
So then, technically speaking, what are the possible downsides to using the Mobil-1 gear lubricant in my Buell transmission?
One potential downside offered was that it might attack components made of copper and its alloys; mostly concern in this area was expressed wrt the stator system with all its copper wiring.
Some apparently remain unconvinced that the stator wiring is intended to be sealed against contact with transmission/primary lubricant and that any failure of that protective seal/insulation would in and of itself constitute the root cause of subsequent related stator failure.
Given that our Buell transmission/primary lubricant circulates unfiltered, laden with highly conductive metallic particles and is in constant communication with the ambient environment and thus moisture via the breather/vent and clutch cable, one must logically conclude that any failure of the stator's sealed electrical insulation that would allow contact with such a potentially highly polluted transmission/primary lubricant would absolutely undeniably constitute a failure of the stator. I see little room for honest technical debate on this issue. Therefore I conclude that any concern so-based pertaining to the use of Mobil-1 Synthetic gear lubricant in a Buell transmission/primary lacks merit. This even without even considering the fact that Mobil-1 75W-90 Synthetic gear lubricant is non-hostile to copper and its alloys.
The concern wrt the use of Mobil-1 gear lube as relates to its effect upon copper and its alloys would thus seem to lack merit.
What else then should we be concerned about?
What other technical basis must be investigated?
Here's one: EP additives can be problematic in transmissions utilizing synchromesh technology (a type of conical clutch mechanisms inside most automotive manual transmissions that facilitate gear changes). For those types of manual transmissions, EP gear oils can be problematic for synchromesh transmissions in that they reduce the friction needed to operate the synchronizers; synchromesh type manual transmissions utilize non-EP lubricants, some specify "engine oil" in general along with the required viscosity grade.
Buell transmissions do not use synchromesh technology. Buell transmissions are of the "constant mesh" configuration, but do not utilize synchronizers. Motorcycle transmissions in general do not use synchros.
EP additives in general are not a threat to other non-synchro constant mesh transmission components.
This synchro issue is very likely the reason why Mobil-1 does not recommend their gear lube for use in manual transmissions that require engine oil.
Again, the Buell transmission does not use synchromesh technology.
Maybe the clutch is not well-served by an EP laden synthetic gear oil? Maybe the clutch is affected similarly to synchros where the EP additives are problematic for optimum life of clutch mating surfaces?
Experience would seem to indicate otherwise. But this may be a concern.
I could be wrong. But I'm only interested in an honest technical debate. That's it. REALLY! |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 01:17 pm: |
|
Pictures are helpful...
Synchromesh |
Djkaplan
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 04:43 pm: |
|
You guys should know by now if you argue with Blake... pack a lunch! Right or wrong, everyone learns something. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 06:08 pm: |
|
All I know is, if a company like Mobil tells me NOT to use a particular product, I am not going to use it.
How hard is that to figure? |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 07:19 pm: |
|
Richard,
It's not hard to figure at all. And I agree whole-heartedly with your statement.
Where did Mobile tell you not to use their synthetic gear oil in your Buell transmission/primary?
I am 90% certain that their statement not recommending their 75W-90 synthetic gear lubricant for tranmsissions that use engine oil or automatic transmission fluids is based upon the unsuitablility of EP additives in synchromesh transmissions.
The Buell transmission does not use synchros' it is not a synchromesh transmission. I cannot see any reason why EP additives would be detrimental to a Buell transmission. I can see reasons why they might be beneficial.
But I could be wrong. Am still waiting on the answer from the Mobil-1 engineer.
Thanks DJK, I enjoy good technical debate. It's a pity some insist on making is a personal thing. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 05, 2006 - 10:49 am: |
|
I see it this way.
Buell says to use the HD3 syn motor oil in the trans.
Buell does not say to use Hypoid gear oil in the trans.
M1 says not to use their gear oil in trans that have motor oil recommended for them.
To me, that is close enough to a no-no. Esp when I can put in Red Line 20W-50 which has the highest HTST of any 20-50 motor oil out there.
But, since I have been using the M1 gear oil, what the hell do I know? |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 05, 2006 - 04:38 pm: |
|
I understand, and your view of the issue may be valid. I'm looking for the technical reasoning as to why your view might be valid. I can find none, but will await the response from Mobil-1.
For discussion's sake though, let's use your way of thinking but apply it conversely.
Neither H-D nor Buell say NOT to use gear oil in the transmission. Wouldn't you think that if a GL-5 gear oil were problematic that we would have heard about it a long time ago, most likely from H-D or Buell. Don't you think? I am sure of it!
There are too many folks here using Mobil-1 and talking about it openly. I've not seen a single cautionary post or email on the issue from anyone in a position to represent the manufacturer. Not one.
Buell used to say to use Sport Trans fluid in the transmission. They also now say to use Formula+ in the transmission. The fact that they now say to use their synthetic motor oil carries little if any weight in my mind.
I don't disagree with your choice to switch from Mobil-1. I disagree with statements implying that to not do so is irresponsible. I disagree with statements telling folks to switch from Mobil-1 gear oil to a synthetic engine oil.
That is simply premature, and as far as I can tell, likely to be entirely unnecessary. |
Hkwan
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 05, 2006 - 04:40 pm: |
|
Blake, the M1 engineers has not replied to your email yet huh? |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 05, 2006 - 04:57 pm: |
|
Blake,
I don't believe I ever said that folks would be irresponsible in using M1. If so, please show me and I will retract that for sure.
I also don't think bike makers generally tell us what NOT to put in our bikes, only what we SHOULD put in the bike.
To wit, they wouldn't tell us not to put brake fluid in the trans but they do tell that we can use Syn3 for example.
However, I am fine if folks build a rationale for using maple syrup in the trans. I simply won't follow that lead. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 05, 2006 - 07:00 pm: |
|
"I also don't think bike makers generally tell us what NOT to put in our bikes, only what we SHOULD put in the bike."
Then you think wrong. Read your owner's manual for instance. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 05, 2006 - 07:06 pm: |
|
quote:CAUTION
Do not use gasoline that contains methanol. Doing so can result in fuel system component failure, engine damage and/or equipment malfunction. (00148a).
.
.Do not use race gas or octane boosters. Use of these fuels will damage the fuel system.
|
Sloppy
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 05, 2006 - 07:29 pm: |
|
^^^ BRILLIANT Bruce!!! My manual doesn't say not to use maple syrup either. There's no methanol or octane boosters in maple syrup, is there? So, I should be fine, right?
I couldn't help myself, but:
"I disagree with statements telling folks to switch from Mobil-1 gear oil..."
when Mobil-1 says to use their ENGINE OIL in the HD transmission:
"Excellent transmission performance (in 10W-40/20W-50 grades)."
and when Mobil 1 Gearl Lubes WARN us that:
"Not recommended for ... manual transmissions for which engine oil or automatic transmission fluids are recommended"
and specifically:
"Mobil 1 Synthetic Gear Lubes are designed to help protect and extend the life of automotive gears, rear axles and differentials."
and
"This unique, high technology final drive gear lubricant"
I'll listen to Mobil-1 when it tells me where NOT to use their product AND what their product is designed FOR. M1 GL IS designed for final drives, rear axles & differentials and IS NOT for use in my transmission, no matter if my Service Manual doesn't tell me not to use them.
I had a failure when I use Mobil 1 gear lube. Haven't had a failure since I stopped using Mobil 1 gear lube. Is this a Fact? YES!
Coincidence? maybe...
(Message edited by Sloppy on April 05, 2006) |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 05, 2006 - 08:19 pm: |
|
Henry,
No. I may have to submit the question again. |
Djkaplan
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 05, 2006 - 10:08 pm: |
|
The suspense is killing me... really. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Thursday, April 06, 2006 - 10:14 am: |
|
Blake, you know the gasoline example is a bad one. They are simply telling us about a version of gasoline.
Rear diff fluid vs. engine oil? Hmmm.
You are reaching buddy. Why not give it up here? |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, April 06, 2006 - 12:02 pm: |
|
How am I "reaching"?
"Reaching" would be to equate putting maple syrup in the transmission to using a GL-5 rated gear lubricant.
Richard, I ask you again, please either address/discuss the pertinent technical issues or cease posting here. Your continued personal commentary is unwelcome. Capice?
Mobil-1 is not limited to use in rear differentials, not by any stretch of the imagination; to imply so is horribly inaccurate. Right on the bottle, the one sitting on the desk next to me, is stated the many advantages provided by Mobil-1 75W-90 synthetic gear lubricant. One of those advantages is "Gear shifting ease." It is a "gear lubricant." Manual transmissions consist of many components known within the engineering world as "gears."
Like I always say, I could be wrong. There may be some reason, possibly clutch related, why the higher level of EP additives might be problematic in a Buell transmission. I don't know. All I know is that we've debunked the myth concerning copper and its alloys which was the one primary reason given in support of the claim that we should not use a GL-5 gear lubricant in our transmissions. You have another technical reason, I'd sure like to know it. Short of that I'm not interested in continuing this discussion. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Thursday, April 06, 2006 - 12:49 pm: |
|
"Like I always say, I could be wrong"
You do say this, but no one here really believes you mean it!
Capice? |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, April 06, 2006 - 02:56 pm: |
|
Henry,
Sorry I misssed your question about using the Formula+ in pre-2006 model Buells. The answer is that I don't know. Hopefully someone will chime in that does know, and I mean knows for certain, not based upon conjecture. We can only hope.
Bruce,
Please take a long hard look in the mirror amigo. I've been wrong plenty. Just ask José Q. Will most likely be wrong again, and on multiple issues. But my goal more than to be right all the time, is to be respectful of folks. It becomes difficult for me sometimes, especially when I don't feel the respect returned. Why are you so intent on having a discussion about my personality traits? There is a topic for that you know. Again, please avoid that kind of commentary, especially here in the KV. |
Sloppy
| | Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 02:08 am: |
|
Blake:
I need to argue that your statment is just plain wrong:
"All I know is that we've debunked the myth concerning copper and its alloys..."
Mobil1 Gear Lube has only stated that their gear lube is LESS corrosive to copper & its alloys. I will "assume" that it is less corrosive compared to other GL-5 gear oils.
But let me quote Mobil-1:
"Excellent rust, staining and corrosion protection of copper and its alloys, (leading to) Reduced wear (and) Longer component life"
Note that it doesn't specify "ZERO" wear, it says REDUCED WEAR! Hence, there is SOME WEAR. You can argue that it's neglible, but you can not argue that their isn't any. For everyone's information, these wires that I had a failure on are less than 0.030" thick! Would "reduced" wear be enough protection for 1 mm thin wire???
Let's look at the following facts (ref: http://www.mobil.com):
1. Mobil-1 gear lube has some rate of corrosion on copper and its alloys since it says that it only has "reduced wear" of copper alloy components.
2. Mobil-1 recommends the use of their engine oil in motorcycle transmissions.
3. Mobil-1 does not recommend the use of their Gear Lube (GL-5) in engines that recommend engine oil in ther transmissions.
4. Mobil-1 Gear Lube is designed for automotive rear differentials.
5. Mobil-1 Gear Lube is recommend for use in GL-5 specified applications.
6. I had a failure in my primary gear case of a thin copper (alloy?) component while I used Mobil-1 Gear Lube.
7. The terminal wires were coated with gear oil. I had to cut away the insulation around the wire to identify the failure. There "may" have been a break or cut in the insulation that allowed oil into the wires.
8. My stator wires failed as an OPEN (not a CLOSED circuit as you and others may have been trying to argue). If the argument is that exposed wiring went to ground (through the oil or case), it would have failed as a CLOSED (or short) circuit.
9. I have not had another failure since I stopped using Mobil-1 Gear lube
10. This was the first failure mode of a stator wire / open circuit that my local Buell / HD mechanic said he'd seen.
These are ALL facts. It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not, they are all truths...
But everyone can now make their own conclusion...
Now for my conclusions:
1. Do I KNOW that my failure was due to Mobil-1 Gear lube: NO.
2. Do I suspect that it did: Yes.
3. Will I use Mobil-1 Gear lube again: No.
4. Can I get a similar or improved level of protection and performance by NOT using Mobil-1 gear lube: YES!!!
For what it's worth, I see little difference in the style of arguments between Blake and Bruce. IMO, Bruce, if there has been a "transgression", that you are just as guilty as Bruce... but that's just my opinion, not a fact 
(Message edited by Sloppy on April 07, 2006)
(Message edited by Sloppy on April 07, 2006) |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 08:31 am: |
|
quote:8. My stator wires failed as an OPEN (not a CLOSED circuit as you and others may have been trying to argue). If the argument is that exposed wiring went to ground (through the oil or case), it would have failed as a CLOSED (or short) circuit.
If I am understanding you correctly, you are trying to assert two things here, neither of which seem supportable to me.
1) Your stator failed because Mobil 1 Gear Oil somehow dissolved all the metal the entire width of your stator lead (which is what, 12 gauge wire? 10 gauge wire?).
This should be easy to test. Take the wire from an old stator, submerge it in Mobile 1 gear oil, and pull it out after a few months to see how much it dissolved. It is my opinion to that the wire would still look fine 1000 years from now.
2) That any failure mode of a stator wire will result in a short to ground, and that any short to ground must be caused by wires that somehow dissolved.
I have not dunked my meter leads in Mobil 1 gear oil (but I may, that would be interesting) to see what the conductivity is. Whatever it is, when it is shorting out, there is no fuse there to blow, it just shorts out. Your bike will continue running fine on the battery while the battery can hold a charge. So basically, for intermittent shorts, which it seems like most shorts would be at least initially, you basically have a tiny little welder in there. Each time it shorts, you have a very hot spot on the wire, with all the associated metal fatigue of many heat and cool cycles.
I know the stator output is AC, and I *think* it is both positive and negative relative to the bikes ground (that is to say it goes from +30 volts to -30 volts, not 0 volts to 60 volts). If this is the case, then electrolysis is not an issue, but if that is a net + or - signal, then electrolysis will quickly "dissolve" that wire once the insulation fails.
It could also be a plain old simple mechanical failure of the wire. Unless you spend a boatload of engineering time to try and avoid it, just about any wire or connector doing anything interesting anywhere on a vehicle will break sooner or later... and the engineering is an excercise in entropy management, not a "slam dunk problem solution".
So are you saying the Mobil 1 dissolved your stator wire? How long did it take? We ought to be able to test it pretty easily, I think I have some tuber stator wire and mobil 1 sitting out in the garage. If you are saying that your wires completely dissolved in 18 months, we should be seeing appreciable changes in 2 months (10% of the wire gone).
Badweb Mythbusters
I think the point that Blake and I are making is that if your insulation on your stator wires is good, the Mobil 1 can't be having any effect on the copper in your stator. If your insulation on your stator wires is compromised, you are soon to be screwed no matter *what* you put in your primary short of filling it with epoxy or RTV.
(which actually is the more interesting question I was hinting at before... which may make you completely right for all the wrong reasons... what is the effect of Mobil 1 on the insulation used for the wires on a Buell stator?) |
Buellistic
| | Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 08:41 am: |
|
IMHO one should make every effort to keep the "STRESS DOWN" and "BRAIN DRAIN" at a minium ...
SO "i" JUST USE H-D Syn3 and the H-D/BUELL Dealer always has it !!! |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 10:18 am: |
|
Hey, stop trying to inject rationality into this discussion! 
Bill,
We'd have to heat the Mobil-1 to accurately simulate conditions, and also stir and splash it vigorously. Higher temperature does increase the tendency of active sulfur compounds to react with copper.
Thing is, my understanding is that short of a submerging in sulfuric acid, once a patina forms, the sulfur-copper reaction stops, it's finished, caput. Copper is great that way. It's why it is so popular for stuff like water lines. |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 10:46 am: |
|
Heck, just put a strand of stripped wire from a stator into a real live primary (secured of course) and run it that way for a month or two.
If my 9sx weren't so reliable, I would do it. Seems like I had that M2 primary cover off more often then I did oil changes... |
Sweatmark
| | Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 11:48 am: |
|
If someone wanted to test corrosivity within an actual gearbox, just mount (securely) a small strip of appropriate Cu alloy inside, in contact with working lubricant.
Edit - Just saw that Reep's post beat me to the punch!
My guess is that Mobil's warning statement,
"Not recommended for automatic, manual or semiautomatic transmissions for which engine oil or automatic transmission fluids are recommended",
is intended to prevent use of GL4/GL5 oils in transmissions designed for lower viscosity fluids. The difference between 50wt (SAE crankcase)/90wt (SAE gearbox) and ISO 32 (10wt.) ATF is sufficient to cause problems in auto tranny hydraulic logic circuits, and/or cause higher-than-design temps in a manual gearbox originally designed for the lighter oils.
Guessing also that "modern" antiwear and extreme pressure additives have mitigated the concerns about Cu-based alloys, including GL5 hypoid oils (this wasn't the case 20 years ago). Lubrizol might be better resource for this issue (http://www.lubrizol.com/index.asp)
Mark
Oregon
formerly Mobil lube engr.
(Message edited by sweatmark on April 07, 2006) |
Flrider7
| | Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 12:06 pm: |
|
Hi guys & gals,I'm trying to change my shifter out but I cannot get the splined collar that the shifter lever itself bolts to to come off.The service manual says "remove assembly" but the collar only moves back & forth a couple of mms. Has anyone removed this thing before? |
Flrider7
| | Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 12:17 pm: |
|
I use syn3 20/50 bottom & top. Love it! |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 12:33 pm: |
|
FL, you loosened the pinch bolt, and completely removed the allen head bolt, right? It sits in a little groove as I recall, so unless you completely remove the bolt, it the collar thing will never come off no matter how loose it is.
I seem to remember a lot of wiggling and tugging as well. And be careful prying, it gets frequently broken by over torquing when reinstalling. |
Buellistic
| | Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 01:15 pm: |
|
Jonathon(AKA Flrider7):
Check out www.BuellClub.com ...
In BUELLing
LaFayette |
Ara
| | Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 01:50 pm: |
|
Sloppy - ZERO wear? This, of course, is impossible and no reputable lubricant manufacturer would make the claim for fear of being sued six ways from Sunday. |
Sloppy
| | Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 05:18 pm: |
|
To clarify, my failure was the opposite of this statement:
"2) That any failure mode of a stator wire will result in a short to ground, and that any short to ground must be caused by wires that somehow dissolved."
My failure was an open circuit (infinite resistance to ground), not a short curcuit(zero resistance to ground). It would be like trying to run your TV with only one prong in the AC outlet.
You can form your own conclusions, but you can't dismiss the facts -- they are all true. While many don't agree with my conclusion (which I completely understand), we still need to deal with facts. There "could" have been other reasons for my stator failure... the fact is other people have reported no problems with use of Mobil-1 gear lube even if Mobil-1 doesn't recommend it. I can't challenge this point so if you want to go ahead and use it, be my guest.
If someone would like to do the errosion test (I love the "Buell Busters" thought!!!), then all that is needed is a "copper coupon". Coupons are weighed and measured to an "exact" quantity (like 0.001 milli-grams or 0.0001"). Immerse the coupon in an agitation tank with other brass and gear components to simulate shear and corrosion inhibitor losses, heat to ~ 160F(?) and run it for 12+ months outside.
Or I can use Syn-3 and enjoy my bike, babes and beer!!!
Let me know what you find out... |
Djkaplan
| | Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 07:23 pm: |
|
Well, this is interesting. My 2000 M2 just broke for the first time since I've bought it brand new; it has the symptoms of stator failure(!). I've been using Mobil 1 70w90 for almost 30,000 thousand miles.
It never left me stranded, though. It just won't start in the garage. That's the best place in the world it could have broken down in.
Any predictions on what I'll find when I open it up? |
Jackbequick
| | Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 07:37 pm: |
|
Daniel,
Did you check the stator output voltage? Should be 38-52VAC at 2,000 RPM, that can be measured across the double connector near the oil pump. The single connector there is the output from the VR.
Or did you Ohm it out? It should read open to ground and 0.2-0.4 Ohms across the windings.
I thought I had a bad stator too last year until I worked my way down to the final check, no output from the VR.
My VR died at 2,100 miles/five years.
Jack |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 08:32 pm: |
|
30k on a stator is good. Do the voltage test (easy) and pop off the primary inspection cover and take a whiff. You will typically smell a burnt stator. |
Djkaplan
| | Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 08:34 pm: |
|
"Did you check the stator output voltage?"
No, I just grabbed my shop manual and left the garage with a determined look on my face. |
Johnnylunchbox
| | Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 10:08 pm: |
|
Sloppy said: >>>>>But let me quote Mobil-1:
"Excellent rust, staining and corrosion protection of copper and its alloys, (leading to) Reduced wear (and) Longer component life"
Note that it doesn't specify "ZERO" wear, it says REDUCED WEAR! Hence, there is SOME WEAR. You can argue that it's neglible, but you can not argue that their isn't any.<<<<<
I think you misread that. Mobil is saying reduced wear compared to an inferior lubricant or no lubricant at all. In this context they are saying that whatever normal wear occurs such as from metal to metal contact will be reduced. They are not saying, "Our gear lube corrodes Cu, but only a little bit."
I just bought this stuff ***donning flame suit***:
Walmart Super Tech Synthetic Blend SAE 75W-90 Gear Lubricant.
I quote from the label...."A multi-purpose, extreme pressure (EP) gear lubricant to be used where API GL-5 lubricants are recommended. This superior quality, synthetic blend gear oil is RECOMMENDED for manual shift transmissions, conventional differentials, rear axles and steering gear boxes as found in cars, trucks, tractors and farm implements. Can be used for top off of limited slip/positive traction rear axles. PROTECTS AGAINST rust, foam, high temperature and CORROSION OF COPPER OR BRONZE BUSHINGS."
I am going to use it, and at 3.50 or so a quart it allows for more frequent changes, which in my book is the best thing you can do for component longevity.
Just my 2 shekels. |
Ara
| | Posted on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 02:17 am: |
|
Sloppy and Flrider7:
What is Syn3? Who makes it? Where do you get it? |
Buellistic
| | Posted on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 08:49 am: |
|
Ara:
At you LOCAL HARLEY-DAVIDSON Dealer or the
closest one to you ...
It is FULL SYNTHETIC Oil ...
"i" use it in engine and transmission ... |
Ara
| | Posted on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 01:00 pm: |
|
LaFayette, I thought you used Mobil 1 gear oil in the tranny of your S3. Did you change? If so, I'd be interested in knowing your reasons for doing so.
Russ |
Buellistic
| | Posted on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 02:49 pm: |
|
Ara:
Used Sportster H-D trans. fluid and 20W-50 H-D engine oil up until "i" 60K on my 97S3T ...
From 60K to date(now have 88,415.3 miles as of last ride)have used Syn3 in engine and transmission ... |
Ara
| | Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 07:18 pm: |
|
LaFayette,
Why the switch? I trust your judgment on these things, and I'm curious about your thinking. What weight Syn3 do you use in the primary?
BTW, if you ever want a SS rear brake line for your S3 I am the alpha tester for a new Goodridge design. Their sport bike designer has come up with a configuration that is adjustable and accommodates the orientation of the brake light fixture and the banjo ends. American Sport Bike doesn't have it yet, but will shortly.
Russ in Huntsville, AL |
Buellistic
| | Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 11:36 pm: |
|
Ara:
As you probably already know, the oil seal
on the sprocket shaft will go bad ... What "i" did not want is SPORTSTER TRANS. LUBE sucked into the engine ... It is like puting automatic transmission
fluid in your engine oil ... Rather have Syn3 in trans. when and if the seal goes bad
only Syn3 gets into the engine ...
Syn3 20W50 ... |
Ara
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 03:23 am: |
|
Ah, I get it. Makes sense.
Thanks LaFayette. |
Ara
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 09:09 am: |
|
Well OK, upon further reflection it makes sense only up to a point. Equating gear oil to auto trans hydraulic fluid is pretty specious. I don't think anything will happen if some Mobil 1 85W-90 synthetic gear oil leaks into the motor.
I'm evidently missing something. What has happened all of a sudden that Mobil 1 15w-50 motor oil and Mobil 1 75W-90 gear oil is suddenly not good (despite the hundreds of thousands of miles of successful running with that combination) and H-D Syn3 is now the be-all and end-all????
I would be thoroughly surprised if Syn3 was legitimately superior to the Mobil 1 products. Do we even know who makes Syn 3? |
Buellistic
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 09:52 am: |
|
Ara:
It could very well be Mobil(Syn3) ??? |
Ara
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 11:09 am: |
|
LaFayette,
It would more likely be the manufacturer of SportTrans and the other "H-D" lubrication products.
Russ |
Sloppy
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 02:15 pm: |
|
I haven't seen anyone question the validity of Mobil1 motor oil (it is a GL-4 gear oil as well as a motor oil) and Mobil1 recommends engine oil for motorcycle transmissions. It's what I use without any problems. Amsoil recommends engine oil. HD also recommends "their" engine oil as well (Syn3).
It's Mobil1 Gear Lube that I (and Mobil1) don't recommend for us in the tranny... |
Djkaplan
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 08:18 am: |
|
"Well, this is interesting. My 2000 M2... ...has the symptoms of stator failure. I've been using Mobil 1 70w90 for almost 30,000 thousand miles.
Any predictions on what I'll find when I open it up?"
Well, it did turn out to be stator failure. It passed the continuity and milliamp test and the oil didn't have a burnt smell, but it was only putting out 1.42 volts at 2000rpm. When I removed it, I discovered that one of the wires was very corroded where it was connected to the stator windings. I inspected the wiring and noticed it was corroded down to very fine strands.
What caused this corrosion? Heck if I know, but it does give pause to wonder.
Has anyone gotten any kind of response from Mobil about this issue? It seems like they'd want us to know, either way.} |
Jackbequick
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 09:03 am: |
|
Isn't the stator made with bare solid (not stranded) wire? And then it has two insulated stranded leads crimped or welded on to take the output out?
A failure point noted in the past was the metal hold down plate that keeps the two insulated wires near the engine housing. Of course when the wires shorted out to the plate, it produced arcing, heating, burning, stinking, etc.
A photo of the corrosion would be interesting.
Jack |
Djkaplan
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 11:01 am: |
|
It was the insulated wire lead that corroded, not the stator winding. The wires were fine behind the hold down plate. The insulation was intact and didn't show any wear at all.
I wanted to post a pic, but my camera won't get close enough to show anything in detail. I would be willing to send the stator (for free) to anyone who wants to investigate the failure up close.
Blake? Anyone? |
Jackbequick
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Thanks for the details Daniel.
I'm sort of baffled by the fact that it still Ohms out okay. If the windings the leads are still complete and the magnets are intact and going around, it seems like it would produce the AC. Maybe the electrical guru can explain that.
Jack |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 02:04 pm: |
|
Again, if the primary/tranny lube touches any bare copper associated with voltage bearing wiring of the stator, I'm pretty sure that said stator has already failed.
Would be very interested in seeing a pic of the failure area though. |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 02:04 pm: |
|
Never heard back from Mobil-1. Have resubmitted my question. |
Sparky
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 03:09 pm: |
|
There are two types of resistance tests to make on a stator with an ohmmeter: continuity (low resistance between stator terminals) and insulation resistance (high resistance i.e. open circuit between each terminal and engine ground). If it fails either test, the stator is toast, figuratively speaking.
The third test is AC voltage output with the engine running which you did and it failed because the voltage was going to ground before it could be used by the rest of the system.
The corrosion failure was most likely caused by water contamination from water vapor condensing inside the trans. You know that white, milky looking goo that sometimes comes out when you change the trans oil? That's water mixed with oil. |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 03:31 pm: |
|
I'm a little confused here. The wire you say failed Dan, is pretty much out of harms way. I'd find it hard to say corrosion was caused by water vapour up there.
Wouldn't it be more likely that water had found its way down the insulation from outside the case? Maybe from power washing or riding often in bad weather. Water is well known for getting to places that one wouldn't imagine possible.
Rocket |
Buellistic
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 05:20 pm: |
|
BUELLers:
Water(ie: condensation, washing too much, or leaving outside) seems to appear ...
Was getting ths MILKY FOAM on my clutch inspection cover where the spring is ...
PUT A PVC VALVE(out of a CHEV. SPRINT METRO) in the breather hose and no more MILKY FOAM !!! "BUT" "i" was more concerened about the motor shaft seal going bad and engine oil draining past the seal into the transmission ... This way the oil is sucked back into the engine when running ...
IS EVERYBODY IN STEP WITH WHAT "i" JUST POSTED ??? |
Sloppy
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 05:26 pm: |
|
FWIW, DJ's failure sounds very similar to mine. To my understanding, water doesn't corrode copper unless it has a low pH (below 6.5) so I don't think that is the cause of failure. Take the data for what it is worth -- take caution if you use Mobil1 Gear Lube. At a minimum check you're stator condition often. |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 05:51 pm: |
|
Again, if the primary/tranny lube touches any bare copper associated with voltage baring wiring of the stator, I'm pretty sure that said stator has already failed.
I figure that if I say it enough, it might someday sink in. |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 07:17 pm: |
|
If you think mobil 1 kills stators (for the record, I don't), you should be looking at it's effect on epoxy and plastic insulation, not copper.
I figure if I repeat Blake enough, it someday might sink in |
Court
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 08:36 pm: |
|
V-I-B-R-A-T-I-O-N
Pot the wires. Old issue with the Sportster motors.
For the record, I buy $20M transformers (think of 379,000# of copper wound in some big coils) and the moment they arrive I pump two tanker full of oil in and then heat the entire mess.
You can imagine how distraught I am over reading this.
|
Al_lighton
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 08:41 pm: |
|
I spoke with daniel about this earlier today. I've seen two identical failures on my stators on my S1W and S3. They both occurred in the 25k-35K window, the way that many do.
My THEORY is this:
The wire between the rubber plug and the attachment to the stator is unsupported. It goes behind the metal plate that keeps it from being able to rub the rotor, but it is not retained. It lives in what I believe has to be one of the highest vibration points in the engine.
The wire has insulation on it, up until where the bare strands are soldered (or whatever) to the solid core stator wires. The joint is coated with the same insulative material that the stator wires are coated in.
My theory is that the unsupported wire flexes back and forth for about 30,000 miles. During that 30K miles, the plastic stator coating on the joint gets older and more brittle, and eventually the flexing undermines both the integrity of the coating and the fatigue strength of the joint. Eventually, the coating leaks, and mild corrosion on the joint finishes it off.
It is just a theory, I have no proof of any of it. But I can tell you that I now degrease the area where the wires go behind the metal plate, and I pot the wires behind that metal plate with RTV. It can't hurt, and I think it may help. I won't know for another 30,000 miles or so.
YMMV.
Al |
Court
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 08:42 pm: |
|
Just in case you've never seen the inside . . . and a fat man crawling out of one.
|
Buellistic
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 08:49 pm: |
|
Have 89K on my 97S3T and have not had that
problem yet ??? |
Chico33
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 09:29 pm: |
|
I bought a new 99 M-2 and had to replace two stators before I sold it to a friend at 36k miles, helped him replace stator at 40k, used Mobil 1 75-90 gear lube since new. Buellistic has never had any stator problems in 80k miles (never used Mobil 1 in primary) ??? |
Buellistic
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 10:59 am: |
|
Started out with H-D 20W-50 and Sportster Transmission lube ... At 60K went to Syn3 in "BOTH" engine/transmission ... Have 89K
as of the last ride ... |
Bomber
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:47 am: |
|
Whoa, Blake -- are those the legendary 5-Bucklers on your feetses?
Big Time, dude, Big Time |
Sloppy
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 01:03 pm: |
|
Court:
What kind of oil do you put in those transformers? I would bet it's not a GL-5 oil... I didn't see that as it's application on the M1 website
Again, FWIW, after 6 years I've never had another stator connection failure since I stopped using M1 GL. M1 doesn't want you to use it's GL1 in your tranny. Maybe if I repeat this enough... |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 01:46 pm: |
|
Bomber,
Obviously, Court and I will now each be gunning for you. Okay we'll use rubber bean bag bullets for now, but if you do that again, we'll be forced to escalate to rock salt, or maybe even a taser. Be careful man!
"M1 doesn't want you to use it's GL1 in your tranny."
That is a terribly inaccurate statement. 
(Message edited by Blake on April 25, 2006) |
Court
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 03:04 pm: |
|
>>>>What kind of oil do you put in those transformers?
Mineral oil and LOTS of it . . . what could go wrong?...right?
Look Closely
Honest.....we didn't see nothing! |
Bomber
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 03:39 pm: |
|
Blake -- I ain't skeered, bud -- come on up for homecoming, and I'll scotch you up ;-}
well, mebbe scared if Court's better half is going to accompany him -- she may still be crancky with me (bigger ;-} ) |
Sloppy
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 06:34 pm: |
|
Mobil 1 Synthetic Gear Lubricant
"Not recommended for automatic, manual or semiautomatic transmissions for which engine oil or automatic transmission fluids are recommended"
ref: http://www.mobil.com
Perhaps this is a more accurate statement for you Blake? |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:00 pm: |
|
I can't believe this issue is still being debated. |
Oz666
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 02, 2006 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Now on my 3rd stator, I have/had been using M1 75w90 GL. It DID DEFINITELY improve shifting and (I think) reduce noise. After seeing this, and looking at the viscosity comparison, the new(est) stator received M1 15w50 syn. until I see a definitive answer from Mobil.
Switched from SportTran to GL1 @~10K, currently @~50K. Reasoning for switch, gear lube formulated (and contains additives for) extreme shear forces produced by gear tooth contact - the syn version should just last longer.
I did not know, nor is it stated anywhere on the label that the additives attack copper or copper containing parts, who knew...
BTW, both stators removed were BLACK - I mean you-drew-WAY-TOO-MUCH-current-through-me black. The last one metered fine but the leads FELL OFF the stator attachment point upon removal.
For those who are keeping track, no foamy whiteness, low ohms within spec, neither lead shorted to earth, AC output < 1 volt, all measured with Fluke 75.
Retaining plate for stator leads "relieved" and leads potted in RTV upon FIRST replacement.
YMMV
 Oz
Less than 30 days now, less than 30 days, less than less than... |
Oz666
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 02, 2006 - 12:45 pm: |
|
Court,
It's much cheaper to make those pictures with Photoshop |
Scott_in_nh
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 02, 2006 - 01:01 pm: |
|
I am a senior product specialist for the scientific temperature control devices we sell. These units are fluid based and there are a lot of fluids out there that customers would like to use in our products.
So what does this have to do with Mobil?
Unless we have specifically tested a fluid in our product, and had an engineer analyze the compatibility, we do not recommend it's use and neither will Mobil. Regardless of how many e-mails are sent, they aren't going to test it in Buell trannies or do a detailed analysis of what materials it comes in contact with. So they are not going to say go ahead and use it (even if it actually is ok). Especially when they offer another product that is compatible and can be safely recommended without further testing ($$).
If they answer at all, they will tow the corporate line and stay with "Not recommended for automatic, manual or semiautomatic transmissions for which engine oil or automatic transmission fluids are recommended". I pretty much do the same thing daily.
So that will leave each to make his own decision (as it has been).
Of course this is just my opinion, but I would be (pleasantly) shocked if it goes down any other way..... |
Darthane
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 09:56 am: |
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, if the primary/tranny lube touches any bare copper associated with voltage bearing wiring of the stator, I'm pretty sure that said stator has already failed.
Would be very interested in seeing a pic of the failure area though.
>>>>>Blake
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Take a good look at a new stator, Blake. There is indeed bare copper where the stator windings are crimped together with the wiring (which is also bare, though it appears to be tinned-core wire). That area will quickly get coated in whatever lubricant you use in the primary, and if I weren't so antsy from 3 weeks of no Firebolt I probably would have sealed that area up good and proper the way it SHOULD come from the factory.
I posted some pics of my failed stator in the "Stator Replacement Questions" thread in the Quick Board. Two of my three wires were corroded clean through, right where they attach to the stator windings (where the bare copper was, for those of you keeping score).
...did this cause my stator failure? I don't know. I'll likely never know exactly what caused it - but I do know this: I'm now using M1 20W50 in my primary instead of the 75W90 GL-5 synth.
(Message edited by darthane on July 12, 2006) |
Whodom
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 04:28 pm: |
|
I'm posting this a few places around the KV. I had seen this posted at BadWeb by someone else a year or so ago, but I e-mailed Mobil and verified it for myself.
I asked "what lubricant do you recommend for the primaries and transmissions of Buell motorcycles?" They responded: "Mobil 1 MX4T 10W40 motorcycle motor oil [synthetic] is the recommended and appropriate product."
I think I'm going to try a quart of that at my next change. |
|