Seeing that we have a "petroleum lubrication specialist" I am very curious what was on your plate for the "StaRV II, '94 28' Breakaway, 6.5L TD"

Many of us have purchased our coaches and have said something like... "I have to change my oils and give it a tune up." What are "your plans" Rusty? I have a feeling that your "2 Not-spoiled Golden Retrievers" would not like to be sitting on the side of the road. The more details the better.

I plan on going thru my Coach (gaso) again this spring from front to back changing, flushing, repacking and anti siezing everything and would value your recommendations for oil & grease types, additives and flushing agents etc...

------------------


1991 Barth Regal
460 EFI C6 Transmission
33' Oshkosh/John Deere Chassis

[This message has been edited by Bill (edited February 09, 2006).]

The first order of business was the engine oil, which was due. New tires on the rear (the old ones had dryrot, which Conrad pointed out even before I looked at the coach the first time). Those are done.

Next comes fixing some minor electrical issues. First, replace the house batteries with golf cart batteries (derusting and acid treating the battery compartment is done - next three coats of cold galvanizing spray, 2 coats epoxy, when cured, the batteries go back in). Then clean some connectors and spray with Sof-Seal, repair a couple of switches.

Next (not urgent), drain transmission fluid, replace with Mobil synthetic ATF. Then drain and flush cooling system, refill with DexCool ("100K" interval, but I change every three years) and distilled water. Drain and refill differential with synthetic gear oil. And finally, change genset oil with synthetic.

A comment about synthetic oils. They're worth the price for transmissions, as the change intervals can be doubled; the same for the differential. The genset gets synthetics because it sits idle a lot; IMHO, synthetics are less beneficial for engines run regularly compared to those that don't. Diesel engines get little benefit from synthetics because the additive package becomes depleted before any benefits from synthetic base stock might appear.

Anyway,

Motor oil: Shell Rotella T 15W/40 (Wix Oil Filter) or Mobil Delvac 1300 15W/40
ATF: Mobil Dexron III Synthetic
Differential Oil: Mobil Delvac synthetic or Kendall SHP
Genset: Mobil 1 or other synthetic of correct SAE grade
Wheel Bearing Grease: Mobil 1 or Kendall Synthetic (Bearings were just repacked, so this'll be done at next interval).
General-purpose Oil (Door hinges, etc.): Super Lube Oil (Synthetic)
General-purpose Grease (Retractible steps, etc.): Super Lube Grease (Synthetic base stock)


Down-the-road upgrades - Kennedy Diesel: High Capacity Cooling upgrade ($340, about 6 hrs. time), Intercooler ($1,300, about 6 hrs. time) Neither increases performance markedly, but both increase longevity (EGT with the intercooler should drop by about 200+ degrees.)

As for a VOR problem for Maggie and Casey, my Two Golden Retrievers Who Are Not Spoiled, the SOB has had an alternator replaced on the road (at an Advance Auto parking lot in TN - early AM, so weather was nice), bad tires (again, nice weather in a national forest awaiting service truck), and fuel pump (oddly enough at the same Advance auto in TN) -the dogs lolled in airconditioned comfort while I wallowed around under the SOB in 105F weather...


------------------
Rusty

StaRV II, '94 28' Breakaway, 6.5L TD
2 Not-spoiled Golden Retrievers.

Hey Rusty--what is your opinion on the Amsoil products? When I bought my 85 Regal last year, Jon Borke had Amsoil stuff in everything, even the anti freeze.

What about the hydraulic brakes? I plan on flushing and refilling with a dot 5. Do you have a personal recommendation for the flush and fill?

I intend flushing the system, but it seems to have DOT 4, and a recent change, but yes, a flush and refill is on the distant horizon.

I think DOT 4 is more than adequate for my use, subject to getting a better grasp of the characteristics of DOT 5. I might spring for DOT 4 synthetics, as some have a higher boiling point than straight DOT 4, but I suspect that'd be the most adventurous I'd go.

This is a fairly lucid and credible discussion: http://www.xs11.com/tips/maintenance/maint1.shtml

Air entrainment (such as when filling the reservoir, or if the container has been agitated, like riding it a car on a rouugh road or dropped) appears to be a serious issue with DOT 5 due in part to its higher viscosity. A DOT 5 is not miscible with DOT 4, meaning that the two would each have its own sovereign territory in a system - not appealing.

I just don't need those problems.

------------------
Rusty

StaRV II, '94 28' Breakaway, 6.5L TD
2 Not-spoiled Golden Retrievers.

[This message has been edited by Rusty (edited February 09, 2006).]

I just read this and now think that ill just refill with a dot 4. Below is the condensed article with the writers name. He was commisioned by BMW and this was his tech piece on the subject.

Brake Fluid Facts
by Steve Wall

As a former materials engineering supervisor at a major automotive brake system supplier, I feel both qualified and obligated to inject some material science facts into the murky debate about DOT 5 verses DOT 3-4 brake fluids. The important technical issues governing the use of a particular specification brake fluid are as follows:

Fluid compatibility with the brake system rubber, plastic and metal components.
Water absorption and corrosion.
Fluid boiling point and other physical characteristics.
Brake system contamination and sludging.
Additionally, some technical comments will be made about the new brake fluid formulations appearing on the scene.

First of all, it's important to understand the chemical nature of brake fluid. DOT 3 brake fluids are mixtures of glycols and glycol ethers. DOT 4 contains borate esters in addition to what is contained in DOT 3. These brake fluids are somewhat similar to automotive anti-freeze (ethylene glycol) and are not, as Dr. Curve implies, a petroleum fluid. DOT 5 is silicone chemistry.

Fluid Compatibility
Brake system materials must be compatible with the system fluid. Compatibility is determined by chemistry, and no amount of advertising, wishful thinking or rationalizing can change the science of chemical compatibility. Both DOT 3-4 and DOT 5 fluids are compatible with most brake system materials except in the case some silicone rubber external components such as caliper piston boots, which are attacked by silicon fluids and greases.

Water absorption and corrosion
The big bugaboo with DOT 3-4 fluids always cited by silicone fluid advocates is water absorption. DOT 3-4 glycol based fluids, just like ethylene glycol antifreezes, are readily miscible with water. Long term brake system water content tends to reach a maximum of about 3%, which is readily handled by the corrosion inhibitors in the brake fluid formulation. Since the inhibitors are gradually depleted as they do their job, glycol brake fluid, just like anti-freeze, needs to be changed periodically. Follow BMW's recommendations. DOT 5 fluids, not being water miscible, must rely on the silicone (with some corrosion inhibitors) as a barrier film to control corrosion. Water is not absorbed by silicone as in the case of DOT 3-4 fluids, and will remain as a separate globule sinking to the lowest point in the brake system, since it is more dense.

Fluid boiling point
DOT 4 glycol based fluid has a higher boiling point (446F) than DOT 3 (401F), and both fluids will exhibit a reduced boiling point as water content increases. DOT 5 in its pure state offers a higher boiling point (500F) however if water got into the system, and a big globule found its way into a caliper, the water would start to boil at 212F causing a vapor lock condition [possible brake failure -ed.]. By contrast, DOT 3 fluid with 3% water content would still exhibit a boiling point of 300F. Silicone fluids also exhibit a 3 times greater propensity to dissolve air and other gasses which can lead to a "spongy pedal" and reduced braking at high altitudes.

DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids are mutually compatible, the major disadvantage of such a mix being a lowered boiling point. In an emergency, it'll do. Silicone fluid will not mix, but will float on top. From a lubricity standpoint, neither fluids are outstanding, though silicones will exhibit a more stable viscosity index in extreme temperatures, which is why the US Army likes silicone fluids. Since few of us ride at temperatures very much below freezing, let alone at 40 below zero, silicone's low temperature advantage won't be apparent. Neither fluids will reduce stopping distances.

With the advent of ABS systems, the limitations of existing brake fluids have been recognized and the brake fluid manufacturers have been working on formulations with enhanced properties. However, the chosen direction has not been silicone. The only major user of silicone is the US Army. It has recently asked the SAE about a procedure for converting from silicon back to DOT 3-4. If they ever decide to switch, silicone brake fluid will go the way of leaded gas.

Brake system contamination
The single most common brake system failure caused by a contaminant is swelling of the rubber components (piston seals etc.) due to the introduction of petroleum based products (motor oil, power steering fluid, mineral oil etc.) A small amount is enough to do major damage. Flushing with mineral spirits is enough to cause a complete system failure in a short time. I suspect this is what has happened when some BMW owners changed to DOT 5 (and then assumed that silicone caused the problem). Flushing with alcohol also causes problems. BMW brake systems should be flushed only with DOT 3 or 4.

If silicone is introduced into an older brake system, the silicone will latch unto the sludge generated by gradual component deterioration and create a gelatin like goop which will attract more crud and eventually plug up metering orifices or cause pistons to stick. If you have already changed to DOT 5, don't compound your initial mistake and change back. Silicone is very tenacious stuff and you will never get it all out of your system. Just change the fluid regularly. For those who race using silicone fluid, I recommend that you crack the bleed screws before each racing session to insure that there is no water in the calipers.

New developments
Since DOT 4 fluids were developed, it was recognized that borate ester based fluids offered the potential for boiling points beyond the 446F requirement, thus came the Super DOT 4 fluids - some covered by the DOT 5.1 designation - which exhibit a minimum dry boiling point of 500F (same as silicone, but different chemistry).

Additionally, a new fluid type based on silicon ester chemistry (not the same as silicon) has been developed that exhibits a minimum dry boiling point of 590F. It is miscible with DOT 3-4 fluids but has yet to see commercial usage.

Great Minds think alike!

------------------
Rusty

StaRV II, '94 28' Breakaway, 6.5L TD
2 Not-spoiled Golden Retrievers.

O.K. Rusty, this string provides very useful information. thank you.

So, if I'm going to park my Barth for a few months at a time and only use it a week or so now and then, would the synthetic lubricant be a a better choice for the Chevy 350 engine? Also, what do you think of engine treatments such as "slick 50" or other teflon-type additives for gasoline engines?
thanks, geoffrey

Geoffrey,

For a gaso engine that's parked and used only occasionally, synthethics are worth the extra cost; I used them in my SOB (Chev 350 also) because it would be parked for a month or two (except for the monthly exercise it got), then taken on trips of 1K to 3K miles.

The main benefit of Slick 50 is that it doesn't do any detectible damage. At the behest of one of my customers (auto repair shop), I tried it. There was no discernible difference in mileage (and I keep careful records) nor any other measure of performance.

------------------
Rusty

StaRV II, '94 28' Breakaway, 6.5L TD
2 Not-spoiled Golden Retrievers.

quote:

Originally posted by humbojb:
Hey Rusty--what is your opinion on the Amsoil products? When I bought my 85 Regal last year, Jon Borke had Amsoil stuff in everything, even the anti freeze.

I missed this post earlier - I'm not familiar with Amsoil (and can't get specific ASTM tests on it), so I can't comment. I am familiar with Shell Rotella T, Chevron Delo 400, and Mobil Delvac 1300 (since I competed against the letter 2 for years), and they are all excellent - religious adherence to change intervals is as important as using a top-quality oil.

As I've mentioned in the past, synthetics are, IMHO, wasted on diesels.

BTW, Shell's names for lubricants are the latin names of clams...Rotella, Rimula, Tornus, Delima, etc., and the logo itself is Pectin Maximus.



------------------
Rusty

StaRV II, '94 28' Breakaway, 6.5L TD
2 Not-spoiled Golden Retrievers.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
...As I've mentioned in the past, synthetics are, IMHO, wasted on diesels...

What years did you work for Shell? In the last few years Diesel has gone to lower sulfur content and the Opacity of the diesel motors today are a lot lower then even a few short years ago.

The question I have is...Do you think with the lower sulfur content and the more fuel efficient electronic diesels out there today could the synthetics be ok for todays "cleaner (being relative)" burning engines?

At what point does the synthetics loose it's lubricity to supply better protection? Could the newer, lower sulfur fuel be ok for an older engine with the synthetics? Did you know that they have started adding EGR valves to the big diesels in the last 2 years? They even have speed sensors built into turbos now.

I remember way back (5-8 years ago) that diesels would belch black smoke while pulling hills and now all you see is the heat waves coming from the exhaust. Seems like forever ago!

Shell Rotella T 15w40 is my 1st choice. I like the NAPA/WIX filters and use only FPPF Products for fuel additives."Fuel Power" from FPPF is a great way to remove moisture from the tanks between services.

I have always believed, like you, that synthetics are wasted on diesels too. But within the last few years several fleets that we deal with will only use synthetics. They have cited the lower sulfur content as the reason for going synthetics.

FedEx, Mobil, Sunoco, USF Redstar to name a few...

quote:

Originally posted by Bill:
What years did you work for Shell? In the last few years Diesel has gone to lower sulfur content and the Opacity of the diesel motors today are a lot lower then even a few short years ago.

The question I have is...Do you think with the lower sulfur content and the more fuel efficient electronic diesels out there today could the synthetics be ok for todays "cleaner (being relative)" burning engines?

I worked for Shell in the late 60s through the early 70s, and until '94 in the Navy and Naval Reserve as a Fuels and Lube Tech Officer.

A lot have things have changed (Caterpillar used to thrive on high-sulfur fuels - sulfur's a decent lube in its own right). Lowering the sulfur in the fuel means less sulfur in combustion/blowby products in the crankcase. Sulfur compounds combined with water produced sulfuric acid - not good.

But sulfur's not the only byproduct of combustion...

quote:

At what point does the synthetics loose it's lubricity to supply better protection? Could the newer, lower sulfur fuel be ok for an older engine with the synthetics? Did you know that they have started adding EGR valves to the big diesels in the last 2 years? They even have speed sensors built into turbos now.

Synthetics cetainly won't hurt. I need to elaborate a bit on what the term "synthetic" means, because "synthetics" aren't really "synthetic". A usual mineral base stock is composed of a variety of molecules, and some tagalongs like sulfur, chlorine, etc. Synthetics are base stocks reformed to remove contaminants and undesireable hydrocarbon molecules. In short, it's homogeneous - only certain molecules are allowed to be present.

These properties do two things for the base stock:

1. No contaminants to participate in breaking down the oil or additive package, leading to a more-stable lube, and

2. A base stock with absolutely predictable characteristics.

The first synthetics were formulated for turbojet engines.

Loss of lubricity isn't the problem with most base stocks - breakdown of constituents is, because that's manifested in sludge, varnish, ringbelt and valve deposits, etc.

Synthetics are far more stable in that respect, but keeping the base stock from breaking down is only one function of the additive package.

quote:

I remember way back (5-8 years ago) that diesels would belch black smoke while pulling hills and now all you see is the heat waves coming from the exhaust. Seems like forever ago!

More important than the low sulfur fuel (the black smoke isn't caused by sulfur) are advances in turbo technology (lighter, faster-responding turbines and compressors) and computers. Fuel-air mixes are now tightly controlled by the computer, and economy is increased while particulates emission has decreased. Basic engine design and manufacturing techniques have also improved. And the low-sulfur fuel has some other favorable chracteristics besides low sulfur.

quote:

Shell Rotella T 15w40 is my 1st choice. I like the NAPA/WIX filters and use only FPPF Products for fuel additives."Fuel Power" from FPPF is a great way to remove moisture from the tanks between services.

I have always believed, like you, that synthetics are wasted on diesels too. But within the last few years several fleets that we deal with will only use synthetics. They have cited the lower sulfur content as the reason for going synthetics.

While the use of synthetics certainly won't hurt anything, I'm still of the opinion that the additive package will be exhausted before the base stock becomes an issue.

I note that the engine manufacturers have extended change intervals only slightly, and synthetics don't seemed to have impressed them to the point where they are given any advantage.

Here are some change interval numbers from my customers back in the 70s, with the "old" engine designs, high-sulfur fuel, and "last century's" motor oil:

1. Major OTR Freight line: Rotella 30, extra 6-qt fill-on-demand tank on rear of cab, Cummins 250 NA - 48,000 miles (They experimented with 96,000 miles, but on teardown, measured some slight wear and varnish buildup)

2. Major OTR freight line: Rotella 30, Cummins 225 and 250 NA - 24,000 miles

3. Major OTR truck line: Rotella 30, 6V71 (@318 HP), 12V71 - 24,000 miles on linehaul. Local cartage 4V71 - 8,000 miles.

quote:

FedEx, Mobil, Sunoco, USF Redstar to name a few...

------------------
Rusty

StaRV II, '94 28' Breakaway, 6.5L TD
2 Not-spoiled Golden Retrievers.

[This message has been edited by Rusty (edited February 14, 2006).]

Rusty, I am sure I posted the info about using a blotter to track the depletion of detergent. I would expect this to be the first of the additive package to give out possibly followed closely by metal passivators. For an engine with nearly no wear and generally not idled but driven syns might have value. I would do the blotter test for sure in any case. Simply put a drop of oil from the dipstick on a sheet of blotter, construction, paper and check later for movement of the oil. If the dirt moves the detergent is still at work. Follow this from the oil change and you will see a distinctive time to change the oil.
Tim
class of '68 Wood River Shell Research Lab.

Yeah, we used to give away the special filter paper to do the dispersion test - it was better than nothing....and actually pretty good considering the primitive nature.

Nowadays, oil can be tested for a variety of characteristics pretty cheaply (IIRC, the local Cat dealer charges about $35 - in additon to the usual pentane and benzene insolubles, it reports the presence of base metals and other elements). I doubt the filter paper is still in use.

------------------
Rusty

StaRV II, '94 28' Breakaway, 6.5L TD
2 Not-spoiled Golden Retrievers.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
Geoffrey,


The main benefit of Slick 50 is that it doesn't do any detectible damage. At the behest of one of my customers (auto repair shop), I tried it. There was no discernible difference in mileage (and I keep careful records) nor any other measure of performance.

I had similar experience with Slick 50. My jet boat had a digital tach and speedo. It also had oil and coolant temp indicators. A jet boat is like a water dyno, so any performace improvement will be evident. There was no change in any parameter. None.