GL-4 or GL-5 for Bravo's
 

What does Merc recommend for a GL (Gear Lube) rating on the Bravo drives? GL-4 or GL-5. Anyone have any thoughts on this recommendation? Does anyone think a GL-4 is inadequate? I need to know.

Thanks,

GL4
 

I use AMSOIL GL4 exclusively in my Bravos. I run twin 565 hp. I change at approximately 25 hr intervals. I believe it superior to Merc High Perf lube. I've used AMSOIL for years.

Merc doesn't specify anything but their own product for the outdrive. Personally, I use a Pennzoil 100% synthetic (GL-5) that works great. FYI, Volvo recommends GL-5.

I'am running the Amsoil 75-90 , it has a gl-2 through a gl-5 rateing:cool:

Interesting how many use Amsoil. I have become a distributor for Amsoil mainly since a friend of mine purchased a couple of Teague Platinum drives and they highly recommend Amsoil. I even called them to ask which one they used and it was the same one that Amsoil recommends for Outboard lower units and sterndrive lowers which is the 80W-90 AGT/ALU which is only rated GL-4.

Amsoil offers about 6 different gear oils. Only the AGT/ALU is recommended for Sterndrive use. I will contact Amsoil and find out why the others would not be recommended. Here is the list of what they carry.

AGR 75W-90 (GL-2 thru GL-5)
AGL 80W-90 (GL2 thru GL-5)
AGT/ALU 80W-90 (GL-4) Recommended
AGO 85W-140 (GL-2 thru GL-5)

Series 2000
TGR 75W-90 (GL-2 thru GL-5)
TGO 75W-140 (GL-5)

The technical properties of these lubes do not differ significantly although the four ball wear properties of the recommended lube is better than the others.

Thanks for the input. I will continue my research. I have to have the answers when people ask me why.

That's interesting that Teague specified Amsoil. I've always known them to endorse Redline products.

They claim that the Amsoil gear lube resists foaming better than anything else on the market. I spoke with them directly.

Anyone using Mobil 1 Synthetic GL5?
 

Is anyone using the Mobil 1 GL5 Synthetic gear lube in their Bravo?

RED LINE SHOCK PROOF ,JUST LOOK AND READ ON THEIR WEB SITE IT WORKS GREAT AND SO DOES MOBILE AND AMSOIL ,MY OPOION RED LINE SHOCK PROOF IS BETTER IN GEAR BOXES BECAUSE IT STAYS ON GEARS ,MY 2 CENTS WORTH :D :D

Bobby, which weight of shockproof do you recommend? Seems like the Heavy weight might be too heavy.

Bobby, WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING?

JIM I'M NOT SHOUTING IT AS I TOLD YOU BEFORE FASTER FOR ME TO USE CAPS OR ALL SMALL AS I'M A VERY SLOW TYPER , ITS A PHYSICAL THING ,,SORRY ,I KNOW YOUR TRYING TO HELP !!

I'VE USED THE HEAVY SHOCH PROOF IN HIGH H.P. UNITS AND LIGHT IN A TON OF BRAVO'S WITH GREAT SUCSESS I WOULD ASK THEM WHICH IS EQUAL TO 75W90 WHICH IS WHAT BRAVO'S ECT. NEED
IT REALLY DOES WORK IN REAR ENDS AND GEAR BOXES AND DRIVES BETTER THAN ANYTHING I'VE TRIED ,,ITS WIDLY USED IN
NASCAR ECT.
JIM I DON'T THINK THERE IS A BETTER ENGINE OIL THAN AMSOIL,PERIOD
TO EACH HIS OWN ,THIS IS MY FINDINGS
HOPE IT HELPS
BOBBY

Ok, I understand. Like I said before, I am sure Redine is a great oil. I still am trying to figure out which Amsoil product to recommend since they have several different kinds. I know what Amsoil recommends and I know what Teague recommends, but that may not be the best one for extreme applications. I am convinced that Amsoil is not thinking of the Racing applications but merely the everyday boater. I am trying to find out what some of the Racers are using. Talisman racing and Wild Rose Racing are two offshore teams that are sponsored by Amsoil. I just need to get a hold of them.

Again, I am sure there is more than one great lube to use. Redline must work since a lot of teams use it. Amsoil and others must work too since a lot of other teams use them as well. I am not trying to promote one product over the other, just trying to find out some technical info.

Thanks,

NW_Jim.....Keep us updated on what you find out.

Will do.

HEY JIM I AGREE THEIR BOTH GREAT ,I'VE USED ALOT OF THEIR 2000 RACING OIL AND I FEEL ITS THE BEST MADE !
THE SHOCK PROOF REDLINE JUST WORKS WELL IN GEAR BOXES ECT. AND HAS SOOM GREAT PROPERTIES I'VE NOT FOUND ANYWHERE ELSE ,GOOD LUCK ON THE TECH ISSUE
BOBBY

I've used RedLine ShockProof Heavy for years without a single drive failure- it and Royal Purple are the only polyolester-based synthetic lubes available; the same base as the best turbine oils.

Jim- I find it interesting that Teague is recommending Amsoil lubes to you when they strongly recommended only RedLine ShockProof Heavy in their modified Bravos before (Powerboat article on companies modifying the Bravo drives, published last year.) Not that there is anything wrong with Amsoil- it is a definite improvement over the Merc lube, but does not have the same ability to 'wet' and stick to gears as the polyolester-based lubricants.

Please find out for us why/if they changed their minds, or if RedLine is still an acceptable lube to them (not that I'll change :D)
What is Imco recommending these days? They have a lot of modified drives out there now. :confused:

A quote from the Redline website:

"The Heavy can be rated as a 75W250 Gear Oil, but has the lower internal fluid friction of an SAE 75W90. The LightWeight can be rated as a 75W140 Gear Oil, but has the lower internal fluid friction of an SAE 30 motor oil. The SuperLight can be rated as a 70W90 Gear Oil, but has the lower internal fluid friction of an ATF. These ShockProofTM lubricants provide much greater viscosity in the thin layers between the gear teeth, but have very low internal fluid friction, which means very little power loss for the protection achieved. "

So, what weight would be best in a relatively stock (400-450hp) Bravo 1 application? I don't want to minimize weight at the expense of protection, but I don't want to put molasses in my drive either.

I'd like to know what "Properites" people are referring to. I know a lot of people run stuff just because they never had any failures. That does not mean it's because of the oil. Is anyone basing their decisions on stuff on paper like kinematic viscosity, foul ball wear test results etc. etc.? Just curious.

I guess I need to do some research on Redline and Royal Purple too.

This topic is of a lot of interest to me. I recently purchased a new boat with 500 EFI's and XR drives and want the best protection I can find for the drives and motors. I would also like to reduce the drag in the XR drives while not compromising their life. It seems the synthetics provide the best option and I have been leaning toward Red Line but want to do all the research........beyond what the manufacturer says.

Great thread:cool:

h20warrior,

That's exactly what I think too. The last thing I am going to do is defend Amsoil because Amsoil says it's the best. If some other lube is the best, I want to know that too, but I want to know why and what information was provided to justify that claim. I like independant tests but they are not always readily available. There are also ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) tests that measure a lubricants performance. I just am not knowledgeable enough to know how critical the different aspects of these tests really affects a lubricants ability to keep a drive together. I don't really think there are many who do, although they would like us to think they do. Here are some of the tests that I know of but even Amsoil does not have all of these results for all their lubricants. I also don't know if they would all apply to Gear Lubes.

Noack Volatility test; (ASTM D5800)
The NOACK Volatility Test determines the evaporation loss of lubricants in high-temperature service. The more motor oils vaporize, the thicker and heavier they become, contributing to poor circulation, reduced fuel economy, increased oil consumption and excessive wear and emissions. A maximum of 15 percent evaporation loss is allowable to meet the API SL and ILSAC GF-3 specifications.

Four Ball Wear; (ASTM D4172B)
The Four Ball Wear Test determines the wear protection properties of a lubricant by measuring the wear scars produced by four metal balls in sliding contact under the test parameters. The smaller the average wear scar , the better the wear protection provided by the lubricant.

Flash/Fire Point; (ASTM D92)
The Flash/Fire Point Test determines the lowest temperatures at which application of a flame will cause lubricant vapors to ignite (flash point) and sustain burning for five seconds (fire point). Lubricants with higher flash and fire points exhibit more stable volatility characteristics and are safer to use and transport.

Pour Point; (ASTM D97)
The Pour Point Test determines the lowest temperature at which a lubricant flows. The lower a lubricant's pour point, the better protection it provides in low-temperature service.

Total Base Number; (TBN)
Total Base Number (TBN) is the measurement of a lubricant's reserve alkalinity. The higher a motor oil's TBN, the more effective it is in handling contaminants and reducing the corrosive effects of acids for an extended period of time.

There are also the Kinematic viscosity test (ASTM D445) which tests at different temperatures, the Brookfield viscosity test (ASTM D3829) which also tests at specific temperature. I just don't know enough about them either.

If I am going to promote or sell anything, I need to know a lot more about it than the average person. If it's good, I want to know why. If it's better than the other guy's stuff, I want to know why and be able to prove it. At least beyond a reasonable doubt, with facts, not specualtion.

I will now attend to my continued search for the answers.
;)

Thanks,

I can see this is not going to be easy.

Redline tests their lube using different ASTM tests than Amsoil does. Redline is using;

ASTM D2266 Coefficient of Friction and
ASTM D2596 Coefficient of wear.

I am not sure how these tests are performed or how they would compare to the Four ball wear test, but in my opinion, they have very little to do with shock resistance. A gears ability to absorb shock does not have a great deal to do with the lubricant but more to do with the chemical and molecular make-up of the material the gear is made from and how it is heat-treated.

Certain tool steels such a the S-5 and S-7 grades are Shock resistant alloys designed to operated in those conditions. Imagine clamping a gear in a vise. Now grab a big hammer and smack the gear teeth. You can pour all the gear oil on it you want and you are still going to break off a couple of teeth. How hard you have to hit it will depend on the gear material.

I believe most drive failures are due to metal fatigue, not lubricant issues. That is why most of the effort has been on making stonger drive gears, shafts, Thrust caps, etc. You don't generally snap a shaft from an inadequate lubricant.

If anybody cares to throw the Bull$**** flag at any time, feel free to do so. I am no expert (yet) on lubricants, but I do know a little about metalurgy.

Wear and longevity due to inferior lubrication is another issue. I will continue my search.

Why does this not suprise me. There is no way the everyday guy is going to know what is best. All the test data on these lubes is different. Apples and Oranges.

Royal Purple uses the Four Ball test, but not the wear test. They use the weld test. They do not list an ASTM number for any of their tests so I cannot compare.

Looks like I will have to send some emails and make some phone calls. This is really starting to piss me off. Good thing I don't have a job anymore. I've got lots of time to harrass people. :D

I'll post back when I find out more info. I want apples and apples, side by side, on black and white. A little color would be OK. ;)

NW_Jim,

Your point is good about actual drive failures not being caused by inadequate lubrication. My Bravo failed this year. At the time of failure it was 6 years old. It is powered by a mild 385hp 454 Mag. The drive failure was a broken shaft. I believe that none of the magic oils would have prevented the failure. I was using Mercury high performance gear oil and other than the metal bits in it after the failure, the oil looked and smelled good.

It is good to keep in mind the failure mechanisms when trying to prevent failures. The main reason that I am considering a synthetic lube is for other reasons mentioned by people here: Easier shifting and piece of mind.

JIM READ WHAT JAFO POSTED HE'S RIGHT ON WITH THE POST !!

RIC232 PLEASE USE THE LIGHT WEIGHT REDLINE IT WILL WORK GREAT EVEN THE HEAVY IS NOT THICK LIKE MOLASSES ,BUT LIGHT IS WHAT YOU NEED UNLESS YOUR DRIVE GETS HOT FROM LONG RUNS OR NO COOLER

JIM THE 4 BALL TEST IN REDLINE IS ALITTLE BETTER THAN AMSOIL, AND MOBILE IN GEAR OIL ONLY THIS IS NOT WHY I RECOMEND IT !! AGAIN WE MADE A 9INCH FORD REAR END AT A LOCAL NASCAR SHOP WITH A CLEAR COVER AND CHUCKED IT UP IN A DRIVE SHAFT MACHINE TO SEE WHICH OIL WOULD STAY ON THE GEARS ,ECT,---- THE SHOK PROOF REDLINE WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT PAST OUR TEST AND LONG ONE WEEK AT VERY HIGH RPM TEST -- THATS WHY WE USE IT IT STAYS ON THE GEARS,AND NOTHING ELSE WOULD AND MOST EVEN SHOWED WEAR,EVEN THE SYN. I LOVED ,
IF YOU HAVE WEAK METAL NO OIL WILL HELP BUT THE CUSHION OF LUBE BETWEEN GEARS HELPS ALOT
I DO'T SELL THE STUFF JUST USE IT ,JUST TRYING TO HELP

Bobby, just to clarify, you do mean LIGHT and not the SUPERlight, correct ?? Also, I do have a drive shower, but what qualifies as a long run? 5 mins @ near WOT or 1 hour?

RIC
YES SIR LIGHT ,NOT SUPER LITE ,10 MINS. AT WOT OR LONG ENOUGH TO HEAT THE DRIVE AND NOT GIVE IT TIME TO COOL BEFORE RUNNING AGAIN OR NO COOLER IS WHY I WOULD RUN HEAVY ,I FEEL VERY SURE EITHER WOULD DO GREAT IN YOUR BOAT ,PM ME IF YOU NEED MORE NFO ,SUMMIT CAN SELL TO YOU
OR I COULD FIND SOME AT A NASCAR SHOP AROUND HERE IF NOT
I ONLY KEEP ENOUGH IN STOCK FOR MY CUSTOMERS
ENJOY

Lucas products makes some good stuff, most all the lubes today are good, I like the synthetic stuff for less friction, maybe a little more speed, Royal purple, Redline, are also very good, but like you said most of the failures are going to happen no matter what oil you run

I'm not want to dis any product at this time but found it interesting that Redline used ASTM D2266 and ASTM D2596. These tests are for GREASE, not for FLUID. They do not even apply to the product they are promoting.

Amsoil uses this test method;

D4172 Test Method for Wear Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Fluid (Four-Ball Method)
Developed by Subcommittee: D02.L0.11
Adoptions: DOD Adopted; ANSI Approved
Book of Standards Volume: 05.02


1. Scope


1.1 This test method covers a procedure for making a preliminary evaluation of the anti-wear properties of fluid lubricants in sliding contact
by means of the Four-Ball Wear Test Machine. Evaluation of lubricating grease using the same machine is detailed in Test Method D2266.

1.2 The values stated in either inch-pound units or SI units are to be regarded separately as standard. Within the test the inch-pound units are shown in brackets.
The values stated in each system are not exact equivalents, therefore each system must be used independently of the other.
Combining values of the two systems may result in nonconformance with the specification.

1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use.
It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory
limitations prior to use.

2. Referenced Documents


D2266 Test Method for Wear Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Grease (Four-Ball Method)ANSI Standard:
B3.12 Specification for Metal Balls



Here is the ASTM descriptions for the method Redline uses;

D2266-01 Standard Test Method for Wear Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Grease (Four-Ball Method)
Developed by Subcommittee: D02.G0
Adoptions: DOD Adopted; ANSI Approved
Book of Standards Volume: 05.01


1. Scope

1.1 This test method covers the determination of the wear preventive characteristics of greases in sliding steel-on-steel applications.
It is not intended to predict wear characteristics with metal combinations other than steel-on-steel or to evaluate the extreme pressure characteristics of the grease.

1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard except where the test apparatus or consumable parts are only available in other units.
In such cases, these will be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.

1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems, if any, associated with its use.
It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory
limitations prior to use.

2. Referenced Documents


D4172 Test Method for Wear Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Fluid (Four-Ball Method)
D6300 Practice for Determination of Precision and Bias Data for Use in Test Methods for Petroleum Products and LubricantsANSI Standard:
B3.12 for Metal Balls

Next one'

D2596-97(2002)e1 Standard Test Method for Measurement of Extreme-Pressure Properties of Lubricating Grease (Four-Ball Method)
Developed by Subcommittee: D02.G0
Adoptions: DOD Adopted; ANSI Approved
Book of Standards Volume: 05.01


1. Scope

1.1 This test method covers the determination of the load-carrying properties of lubricating greases. Two determinations are made:

1.1.1 Load-Wear Index (formerly called Mean-Hertz Load), and

1.1.2 Weld Point, by means of the Four-Ball Extreme-Pressure (EP) Tester.

1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values in parentheses are for information only.

1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use.
It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory
limitations prior to use. Specific precautionary statements are given in 7.1 and 7.2.

2. Referenced Documents


D235 Specification for Mineral Spirits (Petroleum Spirits) (Hydrocarbon Dry Cleaning Solvent)
B3.12Metal Balls


I was up really late researching this. I will find out more later. Got other work to do right now.

Jafo's post is interesting, but it lacks any facts. Where is the documetation that polyester based lubicants are better? Where are the test results. What does "WET and STICK" mean. I mean really! These are salesman terms. I need facts. I am not a salesman and these terms do nothing for me.

I have not researched polyester based lubricants, but if someone else has, I would like to see the data. It would most likely come in the form of an ASTM test.

JIM I'M GLAD YOUR INTERESTED IN HARDCORE TECH ,REALLY !!

I JUST AM GOING ON YEARS OF TRIAL AND ERROR AND THE TEST WE RAN A THE NASCAR SHOP // PLUS JUST SOME COMMON SENSE !
BUT JIM I'M INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU FIND OUT :D

Boy, this discussion has gone deeper than is really necessary for a boat engine or outdrive!

I'm not a salesman. I'm a jet technician and consultant with over 20 years of experience on some of the world's most expensive private and corporate jets.
I'm not even going to come close to getting in a pissing match with anyone about lubricants or fluids used in recips or turbines, regardless of mfg. or base. I have more than enough text book and real world experience to know what works and what doesn't, and am regulated in my work with what I can and can't use anyway.
BTW, it's polyolester, not polyester. These oils are the best in the business for their ability to handle the high heats associated with turbines, where 75-80% of an oils' purpose is to remove heat from frictional parts. They work quite well protecting engines worth millions of dollars, where the cost of one shaft support bearing would buy you a new HP500, and believe me, GE, Allied Signal, and Pratt & Whitney spend ample research dollars on lubricant reasearch to protect their engines.
As you are finding out, all mfg.'s have their own testing procedures. Just adds to the confusion of trying to compare one to the other. Amsoil is a good product, and good luck not only with your sales of it, but your research and fact-finding mission as well. So many of these standards are geared strictly to meeting the needs of the automotive industry. Their is a lot more out there, with a lot more stringent requirements.
Plain and simple, Amsoil is not my choice. To each his own.
Jim

Jafo, Thank for pointing out my mistake. I thought polyolester what a mistype. I respect your real world experience and knowledge in this field and have no intentions of getting into a piising contest about this. The ultimate result, I hope, would be that individuals would be able to make a more informed choice about what lube to use, and why.

Actually, I set out to find out what the best Amsoil lube to use was. I still want to get to the bottom of that, but nobody has been able to answer my original question. Maybe Merc doesn't even know.

Thanks for all the input

Fact:

Redline says they are the best
Royal Purple says they are the best
Amsoil says they are the best.
Merc wont even let you use anything else
Countless others say they are the best.

Not everyone can be the best. :rolleyes:

Jim -
Your facts are exactly right - they are all the best; how would they ever sell the stuff if they didn't claim that, right?:D
It actually is nice to have a choice.

One thing for sure, Merc will only recommend their own lubes and oils, and won't give any recommendations outside of that spectrum. When I switched to RedLine with my old Formula (this is a twin Alpha equipped boat with built SBC's) I no longer saw any fuzz on the plug like I had using the green hi-per lube from Merc. I have heard others say the same when switching to other synthetics as well. Same held true with my Bravo-equipped AT.
It also reduced (didn't completely get rid of) the chalking on the side of the drives. I think it is a fairly well-known fact that the only hotter running drive out there than the Alpha is the Bravo III, so every little bit of temp reduction helps, and all synthetics are better with heat than conventional oil. The addition of drive showers and external reservoirs got rid of the chalking completely.
I do think some metallurgical failures to shafts and gears in these outdrives could be heat-stress/fatigue related over time.
IMHO, any Amsoil, RedLine, or Royal Purple oil in the drives would be an improvement over the Merc.

bobby- the high running temp of the Alpha drive is why I used the Shockproof Heavy- it really isn't any more viscous than the Merc hi-perf, and is what RedLine recommended for that drive.
Still curious to what Imco recommends for their modified drives! Anyone know?:confused:

NW_Jim,

There is an ingredient in the Merc's HP gear lube that an engineer friend thinks is very important for marine gear lube to have. It is Molybdenum Disulfide. Mere used to list it on their jugs of gear lube, but don't anymore. I am a big proponent of using synthetic gears lubes and have been using them in my Bravos since 1991, along with drive showers. I had my first gear failure this year and it was in new XR drives that we think had a problem with the manufacturing of the pinion gears (see other thread on pinion gear for details). The synthetic I use has not been mentioned here and does not have moly in it. I am real interested in what you find out, as it looks like RedLine Shockproof might be the next gear lube I use.


Here are a couple of paragraphs I have found on what moly does.

1. The lubricating properties of moly come from its structure of stacked plates. Each moly particle, on a microscopic scale, can be visualized in simple terms as a series of buttered bread slices one on another. The bread represents layers of molybdenum atoms and butter represents layers of sulfur atoms. The bread and butter units align themselves parallel to the metal surfaces in contact and adhere by mechanical and physical forces to the peaks and valleys of the metal surfaces. Because the butter layers are weak, the layers of the bread and butter easily slide sideways on each other while still adhering to the opposed metal surfaces. Metal-to-metal contact is minimized because the moly fills in the peaks and valleys, and it creates a protective film over the metal surface. Exceptionally smooth contact surfaces are established as the moly film develops, thus reducing friction, wear, and its attendant rise in temperature. The moly film is not permanent, but it can be replenished from the moly contained in the bulk lubricant.

2. From Mr Moly web site.

The molybdenum disulfide molecules in Mr. MOLY arrange themselves into layers into which each molybdenum atom is sandwiched between two sulfur atoms. The sulfur atoms are attracted to metals and therefore become plated or bonded on to each of the adjacent bearing surfaces. In between these two platings, further layers of molecules form. The sulfur-to-metal bonding is very strong, but the sulfur-to-sulfur bonding between adjacent molecules is very weak, allowing molecules to slide freely over one another. In this way direct contact of metal-to-metal surfaces is prevented and friction is considerably reduced. Consequently, local heating and wear is inhibited and protection is achieved even under extreme conditions of pressure and temperature.

The molybdenum disulfide plating is, in effect, a separating layer of immense strength, greater than the yield stress of most metals...and in addition it possesses the low coefficient of friction of .03 to .06 which gives more efficient lubrication combined with this greater protection.

Great information rbtnt. More info to look into. :crazy:

HEY JIM JAFO AND I ARE ON THE SAME PAGE EVERYONE SAYS THERE BEST ,,,,BUT GO WITH WHAT YOU KNOW WORKS AND I THINK BOTH OF US AGREE IN REDLINE,
JAFO I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE VISCOSITY ON THE HEAVY ,THATS FOR THE INPUT ,HAVE A GREAT DAY

They did mention on the Redline website about it having a "Cult like following". You guys aren't gonna start drinkin Kool-aid or somethin are ya?

:D :D :D :eek:

Called Imco and asked what they wanted in my Bravo XR upper/Imco SC lower and they recomended Torco RTF. Anyone used this or know how it compares.

Sorry, It is RTF (Found it) Synthetic GL5


http://www.torcoracingoils.com/produ...tsGroupIDPK=94

Last time I checked, RTV was for gaskets.:D

Their website shows they sell both. I could not find RTV. Are you sure that is the correct one?