Lucas in trany/engine...

[Cal93sho]

Hey there guys, does anyone uses or tryed adding lucas oils to their motors, transmissions (mtx)? Its going to be my second oil change with lucas oil stabilizer added to 4 qts. of mobil1 with possitive results, but my real question would be more about the tranny, i got redline d4 in it right now, but my shifts are not that smooth when cold, after the oil heats up (30-60min driving) it seemes to get much better, I was thinking of adding a qt. (30%) of lucas, anyone tryed that already?

 

[SHO#7]

First off, Welcome.


If Lucas manual transmission fluid is thick, it will only take longer to thin out. I use Mobil One ATF in mine. There are debates on debates of what to use. I also, do not add additives to my car. I use high quality motor oil ( Mobil One also ) with good filters, and change it often. I have no problems.

I add nothing to my transmission.

And just what are your good results from using it in the motor. I do not understand how you are sure that it is good for the engine. Do you get your oil analized? Or do you mean there were no negative effects.

Mike

 

[LOUDSHO92]

Hey welcome.

Check out www.shocal.com

 

[shojuan]

Hey there guys, does anyone uses or tryed adding lucas oils to their motors, transmissions (mtx)? Its going to be my second oil change with lucas oil stabilizer added to 4 qts. of mobil1 with possitive results, but my real question would be more about the tranny, i got redline d4 in it right now, but my shifts are not that smooth when cold, after the oil heats up (30-60min driving) it seemes to get much better, I was thinking of adding a qt. (30%) of lucas, anyone tryed that already?

You don't have the older all brass blocking rings that my 89 has so this might not work for you. I had really crappy shifting with D4. I took half of it out and made up the missing 50% with 40% MTL and 10% MT-90 (I only had that much MTL). It shifts great with that mix. Before mucking with lucas, I would try replacing half of the D4 with MT-90 (thicker), or MTL (not quite as thick). I think that the fiber lining of the newer blocking rings provides some of the friction that a fluid such as MTL or MT-90 would provide for in a car with all brass blocking rings. So D4 might work ok in a car with brand new fiber lined rings. Perhaps the fiber lining wears down and the blocking ring inferface becomes more slippery. Yanking out some of the lower friction ATF type fluid (D4) and replacing with some higher friction stuff would help make up for that. Just a hypothesis. Lots of folks have had success with a wide assortment of tranny fluids and are relatively happy with their shifter. Lots of folks have had bad luck too.

Other fluids I'd put on my list to try: Royal Purple (Max shift?) synthetic, mobil 1 ATF, GM Syncromesh. All you need is a fluid that shifts nice. Once you get something in there that works stick with it as long as it works for you.

 

[Cal93sho]

well SHO#7, my post was more like a question that a suggestion, i dont get my oil analized by a lab or anything like that, but i was using lucas in my truck for the past six month or so and when it gets close to changing the oil (2500-3000miles) you can really see that the oil is lighter then before i started adding stabilizer, and another thing is when you touch it with your fingers, it still has velosity to it, im not going to say that all oils are bad unless you add stabilizer to it, but you will never know if it works until you try it yourself. Thanks for the welcome guys.

 

[SHO#7]

Sorry if my post made me sound like an A**. That is not what I was going for. I just could not find a better way to phrase it. IMHO I do not like anything added to the engine oil, or transmission for that matter. I was just curious of your findings.

Mike

 

[TankII]

Phew! When I first saw this thread, I though someone was putting Lucas electical components in their SHO!



BTW, the only additive that seems to work surprisingly well in formal testing I was was involved in was STP Oil Treatment (Blue canister). Granted, this was in '90. We did test the available PTFE treatments as well with mostly negative results.

Get better oil, you get better suspension and friction modifier components anyway, in a chemically balanced combination. For less than the cost of the additive and a cheap oil change.

TankII

 

[DVJ38]

Phew! When I first saw this thread, I though someone was putting Lucas electical components in their SHO!



BTW, the only additive that seems to work surprisingly well in formal testing I was was involved in was STP Oil Treatment (Blue canister). Granted, this was in '90. We did test the available PTFE treatments as well with mostly negative results.

Get better oil, you get better suspension and friction modifier components anyway, in a chemically balanced combination. For less than the cost of the additive and a cheap oil change.

TankII

Our electronics are complicated enough for most people, thankgod he didn't try converting anything to lucus. I have no idea why you would even want to do that. I don't even know why they wanted to invent that new way of doing things, those idiots!

I use GTX high mileage with a motorcraft filter, changed every 3k. Although I do have a crankshaft problem, I've only had the car for 10k miles. If it is my fault, it is 100% due to the fact it boiled over. God that sucked. I think I will try a quart of lucus to prolong my engines life the next oil change, till I get the money for my 3.2 swap.

 

[khanartist]

I use Lucas Oil additive in my 95 MTX and have noticed that is doesn't burn as much as it used to and that the oil color stays clearer, as commented above. It's good stuff and I believe in it.

I don't think it's a gimmicky type stuff like Slick50 or DuraLube, it's the real deal, IMO.

 

[Cal93sho]

its good to know that there are some SHO owners who use that stuff, speacially with possitive results, and I reed somewhere that military and all government equipment use that also, so it must be good.

 

[SHeepsclOthing]

I will never use it on anything I plan on owning for long. It lacks anti-foaming agents. Its good if your main goal is to reduce oil consumption due to worm rings or maybe a slight start up knock that goes away after oil pressure builds. For those of you who may care about what I have to say, you can read up on it in this link. I would never use this stuff but I would especially NEVER! use it in my tranny or rear end http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/images/lucas/lucas.htm

 

[Cal93sho]

No offence sheepsclothing, but test that bob made was not that acurate, it was more like a comercial for that schaeffers oil that he probably sells, many people add lucas to their engines/transmissions including me with no foaming of anykind, and i would also like to know what speed he was running on those gears he made, i can see he used an electric motor and those spin at much faster rpms then reagular engines, and once again no offence to anyone, im just expressing my thoughts.

 

[Mac]

Haven't you seen those displays at Autozone for Lucas oil stabilizer? On one side is plain oil, on the other is 70% oil 30% Lucas iol stabilizer. By turning it with your hand, you can easily see the difference the stabilizer makes. It doesn't need to be turned fast for you to see this.

 

[khanartist]

I agree with Cal93sho here. I don't think The Lucas Company would manufacture and market a product that was no good. I would think that much research goes into the product and no doubt that there are some chemical engineers in the background there figuring everything out.

Also, Lucas is a product that is widely known an respected in the market. If the product was no good, word would get out; stores would stop carrying it; people wouldn't use it. It simply wouldn't continue to be used.

 

[SHeepsclOthing]

I agree with Cal93sho here. I don't think The Lucas Company would manufacture and market a product that was no good. I would think that much research goes into the product and no doubt that there are some chemical engineers in the background there figuring everything out.

Also, Lucas is a product that is widely known an respected in the market. If the product was no good, word would get out; stores would stop carrying it; people wouldn't use it. It simply wouldn't continue to be used.

All products have their Pros and Cons and the one I spoke of is certainly a con. Their goal was to reduce oil consumption, increase ring seal, reduce start up knock, ect. And they greatly succeeded in that, I will 100% agree with that. But the con being how it traps air easily. They marketed a prodcut that will do what it says. Its not labeled "Wonder product" that fixes everything. Ive always wondered how much damage it could be causing. I wish I had the funds to do a test between 2 engine, 2 transmissions and 2 rear ends. All new, 1 of each run with the recommended amounts of Lucas and the others run with what the manufacturer recommends. Test them all in the same conditions for X amount of time and then tear them all down and inspect for wear. Id expect to see the most wear in a transmission. Running it in an engine probably ISNT a bad idea especially if you have a windage tray. In an engine, not many moving parts are going to dip into the oil and cause enough disturbance to really get things churning. In a transmission and rear end, they get their lubrication from doing the opposite. They churn the oil to fling it around to soak everything. Thats why I would certainly never run it in my transmission or rear. I HAVE run the lucas in an engine of mine for 1 oil changes worth of driving. Only reason was to reduce the knock at start up. I was pleased, the product did what it was said to do. But I read about how it tends to trap the air and I have never used it again. It does make a good product to keep around if you are trying to keep bare metal parts from rusting that need to sit around for a while. I usually wipe down heads and pour some in the center sections of my turbos before I put them on the shelf.