Reduction Gear Oil Change - Benefits for Range

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
voltamps said:
Wonder if Valvoline ULV is doing something to lower the gear surface friction to work with the lower viscosity , as in the chemical film (moly, boron, esters(?)) at the contacts. ..... Anyway, the results are what they are, even though I can't quite see how the "small" visc difference alone accounts for the benefits, both in range & operating temperature.
Yeah, it makes me wonder what is in the Nissan Matic S formula. Blackstone Labs shows it to be fine for what it does. If you are running thicker oil and still getting good numbers, it might come down to the quality of the oil itself. Maybe it is more than just viscosity alone but as you said, something else that is helping it to run cooler. I'm not a chemical engineer, so I don't know if viscosity is the main factor or if a lot of other unknown variables play into helping the efficiency of the gear oil.
 
voltamps said:
Yes, preventing the 140F motor temperature (in Leafspy) from tripping the fans & coolant pump from running on high is a real savings. Thanks knightmb for uncovering that.
Not to mention just having cooler electronics & motor for long term durability. Heat is the degradation enemy of electronics.
I think that is where the benefit is; any quality gear oil will help things run cooler and not trip the cooling system into high mode. I don't know what that means for winter driving yet. :eek:
OK, I'm going to deviate a little from using Valvoline ULV, instead trying the Mustang Mach E's Motorcraft Mercon ULV, only $6.24 per quart at a Ford dealership not far away. It has about the same "ULV" ultra-low-viscosity of kv100 4.5 vs. Valv ULV's 4.4, so I'm considering it the same.

Goal: If I can get my standard-route 70 mph run up the local highway down to an ending motor temperature of less than 135F, and I'll consider anything less than 130F to be a "win", then the experiment will essentially corroborate knightmb's finding (so far) that lower visc ATF helps a lot.
I think it would be a great test, especially since it's a lot cheaper than the Valvoline ULV, probably easier to get a hold of from a dealership. Auto stores don't seem to stock much of the Valvoline ULV for some reason. Imagine, a bunch of Leaf owners coming to a Ford dealership to buy ULV for their Leaf all the time. Sure will leave the staff puzzled. :lol:
 
(((( To any reading this thread: Note use of any ATF fluid thinner than Matic S is still a bit experimental. Stick with Matic S or DexronVI-type fluids if you're rightly skeptical of using ULV thinner oil. ))) .. Evidence seems to be mounting it is fine to use the thinner fluid; waitin' for mo' data though.

OK, that "disclaimer" ;) out of the way: Motorcraft Mercon ULV at my local Ford dealership (web pricing, ordered on their website for pickup in person) is cheap, but I did see that Grainger had Valvoline ULV for about a buck more per quart, downtown Denver, kind of a longer drive for me to pickup, and Grainger charges a lot for shipping. Amazon only sells Valv ULV in 6-packs, not cool. Walmart had Valv ULV for $10 on the web, mail-order only, so too expensive I guess.
Mercon ULV should be about the same fluid as Valv ULV, meant for the same applications (10-speed tranny & Mustang MachE's rear gears).

It's odd how Stealerships dealerships sometimes sell oil or ATF for cheap, and everything else is high there. Its the case for my VW Tiguan too, where dealership VW 508 spec 0w-20 oil is actually the best & cheapest to pick up. Their business profit model is supposed to make it tougher on the DIYer changing their own fluids, not encourage it thru actual friendliness, cooperation, & good prices..... :roll:
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
How many quarts does the Leaf need for the gearbox? 2?
See the Service Manual stuff at https://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=25076
1.5 quarts.
 
Just to try another Ultra-Low-Viscosity (ULV) ATF besides Valvoline ULV tried by others, this one is Ford Motorcraft Mustang MachE Mercon ULV. It should be similar to Valvoline ULV, you'd think, since both are meant for the same applications.

I changed out the Amsoil SS thicker stuff I had in there from 1,700 miles to 3,800 miles (still a new '20 Leaf). In fact, it's still breaking in. Or the magnetic plug iron dust might be from my heavy foot, as I do like to floor it when possible, something a 40kWH Leaf like this can do safely since it's not as fast as a bigger-battery Plus model.

Some observations:
1. Drain plug magnets are weak compared to GoldPlug or Dimple neodymium ones used as ICE drain plugs. They still work OK though.
2. I had exactly a half pint of Mercon ULV left, even though I spilled about 1/4 cup of the new fluid, meaning about 1/4 of the old Amsoil SS wouldn't drain out.

I put it up on Rhino-brand ramps on a slightly sloping driveway & it was close to level that way. Jack stands & other safe lifting is required if you don't have a mild slope with ramps.

Just a summary of what I used:

7Dgb349.jpg


Torque to 25 ft-lbs.
Digital torque wrench is an ACDelco ARM601-3 3/8” from Amazon.
10 mm allen for the drain plugs
Aluminum crush washers are https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08DKVPHP6/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title ,
and measurements are Thickness: 1.95 mm / 0.08 inch, outside Diameter: 25.5 mm / 1 inch; inside diameter: 18 mm / 0.71 inch.
2 flathead screwdrivers to pry off the underbody cover clips.
Thumb drive with 10 mm hex socket for underbody cover screws.
Pump to handle wid-mouth or gallon bottles: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B088YQ4YRG/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00
(The Amsoil SS ATF I put in before used a squeeze bottle that didn't need the pump; I should've kept the empty for this.)
RTV silicone goo for a final paranoid seal on the lower threads & crush washer.

And, still breaking in, or suffering from my lead foot:
RN9j0O3.jpg


Tools are great. Here is me using a tool I made myself to get some tasty ant snacks:
Chimpanzee1.jpg
 
DougWantsALeaf said:
.... oil is good to go/use?
It's complicated. Summarizing:
The report doesn't say Valvoline ULV is unusual in any way. Typical stuff floating around in there. His magnets were very clean too. Thumbs up.



knightmb said:
My new report on the ULV oil I changed out before switching to the Nissan Matic S before switching back to the ULV. :lol:
Looks fine. Some things don't show up on a Blackstone analysis such as whether or not Valvoline ULV threw in some anti-wear polymer esters, for example. Certainly the high flash point of the Valvoline indicates their base oils are great.

One should divide the iron accumulation (parts per million PPM) by miles driven to get an approximate idea of the wear rates. Both the new ULV and old Matic S shed iron Fe at around the same rate per mile. The magnets catch some too of course.

Note the old original Matic S fluid (column on the right) may have a tiny amount of manufacturing dust, as the aluminum & silicon was a little high, although completely normal.

Original manufacturing iron dust isn't there as much due to all the carbonitriding processing the gears themselves get to wash it off. Extra aluminim casting & silicon seals particles show up more when new. It's hard to look at original gear (or motor oil) fluid since break-in particles & original dust intermingle.

See the Blackstone image above or go to imgur.com: https://i.imgur.com/3FjYWi6.png

The Valvoline ULV phosphorus & boron levels look almost identical to Amsoil SS Signature Series Fuel-Efficient ATF ( https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/voa-of-amsoil-atl-low-viscosity-atf.179169/ ). Any differences between the two could easily be inside the envelope of normal Blackstone measurement errors.

Phosphorus is in the important Extreme Pressure (EP) anti-wear chemistry. Boron I think is a friction modifier (FM), anti-wear (AW), or dispersant, or all three functions, not sure. ...
The original Matic S from the factory had lower amounts of EP anti-wear phosphorus but is typical of most ATF fluids so no problem there.
I think we see the higher levels of phosphorus EP in Valvoline ULV to counter the potential wear problems with low-viscosity fluids. They make up for the low-visc with higher EP additives.
Amsoil SS, similarly high in EP phosporus, is that way since Amsoil has always been a long endurance design.

Lubrizol is probably(?) the source of both Valvoline ULV & Amsoil SS additive chemicals (exclusive of the base oil component), and I wouldn't be surprised if Lubrizol sold the same additive package to both Valvoline and Amsoil since Lubrizol already had a high-EP style ATF package in their sales catalog, tested & qualified, ready-to-go, off-the-shelf. Guessing.

Viscosity of the old Matic S kv100 5.67 was right where Eneos (potential supplier) puts their version of that fluid. I wonder if Idemitsu's version of Matic S spec-sheet kv100 5.2 was actually a typo? Those errors happen on spec sheets & sometimes never get corrected, no kidding. Either that, or any difference between 5.67 & 5.2 from potential suppliers to Nissan's Leaf factories and Nissan OE dealership fluid is considered all within an acceptable range.
 
Thanks for the info, I'll write up a final conclusion here in a few days. It's a lot of spreadsheet data and rather than posting pages of that, I'll just summarize the most interesting ones that are longer trips. :geek:
 
knightmb said:
Thanks for the info, I'll write up a final conclusion here in a few days. It's a lot of spreadsheet data and rather than posting pages of that, I'll just summarize the most interesting ones that are longer trips. :geek:
I'm almost there too. I got in a few "standard" runs, on a usual highway run of mine, consistently getting repeatable results using the thicker Amsoil SS, ......and only 1 run in similar weather with the new Motorcraft thin Mercon ULV.

I need more weather days in the 80's to get comparison runs. We're in a cooler spell right now. So maybe in a week or two I'll have some decent comparson numbers. With only 1 Mercon ULV run in, it doesn't look good. The result for that 1 run was nearly identical to the Amsoil SS. We'll see if I can get repeatable Mercon ULV results to be sure.

If the Mercon ULV isn't an improvement, it would be interesting to see if there is something in the Valv ULV (some unknown chemistry) that gives better range & lower temperatures, as your early results appear to be. Hopeful.
 
knightmb said:
Maybe it is more than just viscosity alone but as you said, something else that is helping it to run cooler.
Certainly viscosity alone contributes the most to gear drag, known as "churning losses", just like it's harder to stir honey than maple syrup.

Then, there are some weird physics happening at the metal-to-metal gear faces themselves.
Ravenol, on their website, has discussed the use of PAO and some types of esters, in reducing the force drag (traction coefficient, friction itself) inside the Extreme Pressure (EP) moving contact areas in gears. PAO is the elite, expensive synthetic, Grpup IV, and esters are in Group V. Most full-syn ATFs out there use the cheaper but acceptable Group III synthetics. Amsoil and Redline are the only ones I know that use PAO, besides the Europe-only low visc Ravenol T-ULV stuff.

Then, Machinery Lubrication magazine tribologists have said:
"Compared to mineral oil molecules, synthetic lubricants, for example, have up to a 30 percent advantage over mineral oils for traction coefficient. This means the force needed to move a load is less, which means less horsepower to do the work.
In a gear reducer, the lubricant in the tooth mesh is sheared, and the lower the traction coefficient, the lower the energy dissipated due to lubricant shearing. The difference is realized by low amperage draw on the motor and reduced lubricant /gear temperature."
 
No advantage to using Motorcraft ULV thin stuff compared to the thicker Amsoil Signature Series ATF.
I've had repeatable highway runs now, similar ambient temperatures, etc., and I don't see any difference in motor temperature at the end of my standard run.

If the Valvoline ULV turns out to be promising in knightmb's tests, then I could try that. I'm liking all the extra phosphor & boron in that anyway.
Otherwise, I might try OE Nissan Matic S to see if it's somehow worse than both Motorcraft ULV & Amsoil, it's possible that is the case.
 
This is the season to compare hot oils, but I'm a lot more interested in the upcoming cold weather results :D
 
SageBrush said:
This is the season to compare hot oils, but I'm a lot more interested in the upcoming cold weather results :D
You'd think thinner gear oil in 25F weather would increase Range.

For hot weather, using ULV, knightmb was showing a cooler gearbox (preliminary runs only) using thin Valvoline ULV, meaning it was running at about the same viscosity as Matic S anyway once up to the plateau running temperature, after a few miles.

That also translated into cooler LeafSpy motor temperature since they are connected in the big shiny aluminum box. ((( Yet to be confirmed from repeated runs. ))) Motorcraft ULV for me didn't run cooler in warm weather, at least compared to the all-PAO Amsoil goop.
 
voltamps said:
SageBrush said:
This is the season to compare hot oils, but I'm a lot more interested in the upcoming cold weather results :D
You'd think thinner gear oil in 25F weather would increase Range.
Each to their own winter climate.
For me it is 10F - 25F in the AM

And yes, the low viscosity of the ULV Valvoline is the reason I think I should have chosen it. I still am not inclined to change out the new Walmart generic I just put in but if winter range can be increased by say ... 5% I'll have to think about it.

However, now that I think about it a bit more while writing this post, In my specific case a ULV in the winter may not improve range because I live in the foothills and our trip away from home is downhill. Regen is negligible when the battery is that cold so I have the potential energy to waste to warm up the higher viscosity oil for the trip back home.

This is an example of what I'd like to see people try to sort out before they presume an oil change is worthwhile. Context matters. It also should make us somewhat skeptical of the applicability of anecdotal results unless the test case is well described and is similar to the person considering the change.
 
SageBrush said:
.... skeptical of the applicability of anecdotal results ....
The only safe choice is Nissan Matic S from a dealership parts department.

Any other ATF, & you need to know what you're doing. Or just willing to experiment, with risk. .... We engineers are warned about going to a thinner rheology, with dire warnings about possible thermal runaway at worst, or maybe just slightly elevated wear rates at best. The unknowns are many.

Generally you can trust Big Oil companies when they say "This ATF can be used as a Matic S replacement."
Like when Valvoline first came out with their MaxLife Multi-Vehicle ATF, they tried it out on about 20 different automatic transmissions before putting it on shelves, covering a bunch of different specs with varying clutch friction characteristics, etc.
 
I couldn't pass up the opportunity to get some readings in this 100F heat, so it has delayed my response here. But as Voltamps said, stick with the recommended for warranty (aka Lawyer) reasons. :eek:
 
For the record, I am definitely interested in your high-temp results @knightmb. It's hot here in Texas, and I'm all for a few more "m/kWh" if the data supports it.
 
Back
Top