• Sign Up! To view all forums and unlock additional cool features

    Welcome to the #1 Fiesta ST Forum and Fiesta ST community dedicated to Fiesta ST owners and enthusiasts. Register for an account, it's free and it's easy, so don't hesitate to join the Fiesta ST Forum today!

Redline MT-LV

Messages
31
Likes
11
Location
Bay Area
#1
Redline site says it meets Ford spec. BITOG forum agrees: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/5144795 Anybody else try it? What do you think?

Drained the factory fluid at 900 miles. Glad I did, pan full of glitter. Made a small dipstick out of wire and verified factory fill level before draining. Hard to read but appeared to be slightly overfilled from the 1" below fill hole spec. Redline readily available, $27 for 2 quarts over the counter. Pumped the entire 2 quarts, again hard to read but on the stick and not coming out of fill hole.

I want to like it. Have used Redline in my vehicles since the 80s, almost always night and day from factory fill. Ironically what I like about it is also what I don't like. Before the change would occasionally get the wrong gear. Wrote it off to cable shifter imprecision. With the Redline it's more of a direct connection, like I can feel the syncros through the lever, better but borderline notchy, like it's too thin. Might be why the Ravenol MTF-2 is popular, slightly thicker than Ford fluid. Before I dump it am considering mixing with MTL to increase the viscosity. Bottom line wouldn't recommend it as is.
 


Last edited:
Messages
291
Likes
69
Location
Mesa
#2
I run the MT-LV in mine. It is slightly thinner than the factory ford DCT fluid but I don't feel anything in the shifts that you are. I changed mine at 42 k miles so maybe the increased mileage and wear on mine makes a difference?
 


green_henry

Active member
Messages
607
Likes
277
Location
Pleasant Hill
#3
I have been running MT-LV for several months; prior to that, I was running Red Line DCTF. Both work well, and I switched to MT-LV because the DCTF didn't claim to meet the same Ford spec (WSS-M2C200-D2). It seems to work great, but I wish the gearbox was quieter during shifting -- just the nature of the beast, I guess.
 


babyivan

Senior Member
Messages
811
Likes
364
Location
Queens
#4
Taken from that BITOG thread:

"Many MT manufacturers have introduced fluid specifications for fluids with lower viscosities in the range of 6.0cSt@100C to 7.5cSt@100C, a viscosity in the same range as ATF fluids. These fluids were specified primarily to increase fuel mileage in order to raise fleet fuel mileage figures."

No surprise there, same as the engine oil... thinner for better MPG. But at what cost?? All the more reason to step up to the MTF-2, imo. For more protection. Same as engine oil, I use 5W30 (penz plat).
 


koozy

2000 Post Club
Messages
2,985
Likes
1,584
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
#5
it's silly to compare viscosity or give anecdotal opinions on viscosity at room temperature and assume how it will perform in the gearbox at operating temps.
 


babyivan

Senior Member
Messages
811
Likes
364
Location
Queens
#6
it's silly to compare viscosity or give anecdotal opinions on viscosity at room temperature and assume how it will perform in the gearbox at operating temps.
Of course, it's all conjecture. I am not an engineer/scientist/"oil guru".
 


koozy

2000 Post Club
Messages
2,985
Likes
1,584
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
#7
I was referring to how it pours out of the bottle and compares to used OE fluid coming out of the gear box.
 


babyivan

Senior Member
Messages
811
Likes
364
Location
Queens
#8
I was referring to how it pours out of the bottle and compares to used OE fluid coming out of the gear box.
Well, VOA shows that ravenol mtf-2 is in the low to mid 7 cst at 100c, while the OEM is at 6.1 cst at 100c. And the Ravenol has an incredibly good low pour point temp of -51. That's about as good as you can get in this class of oils, from what I read.
 


Quisp

1000 Post Club
Messages
1,043
Likes
309
Location
Davenport
#9
Taken from that BITOG thread:

"Many MT manufacturers have introduced fluid specifications for fluids with lower viscosities in the range of 6.0cSt@100C to 7.5cSt@100C, a viscosity in the same range as ATF fluids. These fluids were specified primarily to increase fuel mileage in order to raise fleet fuel mileage figures."

No surprise there, same as the engine oil... thinner for better MPG. But at what cost?? All the more reason to step up to the MTF-2, imo. For more protection. Same as engine oil, I use 5W30 (penz plat).
They hopefully made the gear contact faces more robust to handle it, much like a motorcycle with shared sump.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
 


babyivan

Senior Member
Messages
811
Likes
364
Location
Queens
#10
They hopefully made the gear contact faces more robust to handle it, much like a motorcycle with shared sump.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
They hopefully made the gear contact faces more robust to handle it, much like a motorcycle with shared sump.
The jump in viscosity is quite minor; for both the ravenol 2 and 5w30, as compared to stock specs.
Even if the jump in MTF was more significant, like Motul 300 (I believe it's in the 14.x range) would be perfectly fine to use, although cold weather shifting would be a chore until oil gets up to temp.
The most important factor with MTF is the additive/ep/anti-wear package it has; not only the right ones, but in the right amounts.
Remember, manual gearboxes are not under pressure, they don't have a pump that circulates oil.
Take a look at the MT-82 manual gearbox in the Mustang GT. It was originally spec'ed with "Honey", which is Ford's full synthetic MTF that is a 75W90, same like the Motul 300. They only changed the spec to DCTF due to cold shift complaints they were getting. Just about every older Ford vehicle either had "honey" as spec or back-spec'ed it in manual transmissions that originally called for ATF.
The use of DCTF is all about the fleet mileage standards these days, and cold weather shift smoothness; and in our cars, as has been hypothesized, to only need one oil on hand for various applications. Cost cutting.

As far as engine oil, well that's a no-brainer to me!
Our cars call for 5W30 outside of the U.S., so we know our cars can handle the added weight. The engine was designed with 5W30 in mind.
Ford's move to 5W20 across all platforms in the U.S. was done for CAFE standards, nothing else. It's a comprimise that they were willing to take.

2017 w/Recaros - bone stock
 


OP
G
Messages
31
Likes
11
Location
Bay Area
Thread Starter #11
Drained a quart of the MT-LV and replaced with MTL, same chemistry only thicker. Better, no longer can feel the gears mesh. Think I can live with this. Feels like straight MTL would probably work fine as well.
 


babyivan

Senior Member
Messages
811
Likes
364
Location
Queens
#12
Drained a quart of the MT-LV and replaced with MTL, same chemistry only thicker. Better, no longer can feel the gears mesh. Think I can live with this. Feels like straight MTL would probably work fine as well.
I'm personally not a fan of mixing oils, but if it works for you, that's all that matters.

2017 w/Recaros - bone stock
 


OP
G
Messages
31
Likes
11
Location
Bay Area
Thread Starter #13
Yeah, not really a fan myself, done in the name of science. Confirmed my feeling that the MT-LV is too thin for this application even if it supposedly meets spec.Tried 50:50 first thinking this would be the most you would want to mix the heavier oil. Initially thought I would also try 25:75 MTL to MT-LV for two data points but the way 50:50 feels would want to go heavier if any not lighter. This feels good enough think I can leave it in there without fear of damaging the trans.
 


Similar threads



Top