RoadsterRich Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 I had been told that my car uses 600 Weight oil in the transmission and differential. Being that I am getting close to it actually moving, I just took a moment and read the owners manuals, and the factory service supplments I own. I found the following information:Owners Manual 1st Edition - July 1929Transmission: Use a heavy SAE Viscosity No.50 or a light No.60Differential: Use a high grade gear oilOwners Manual 2nd Edition - September 1929Transmission: Consult the nearest Chrysler DistributorDifferential: Use a high grade gear oilAugust 1932 Chrysler Service Bulletin:Tranmission: Use 160 above 32, use SZ below 32Differential: Use 160 above 32, use SZ below 32Okay... this does not match up with the 'use 600 weight oil' I've been told. This does also not match up with the literature I've read either...Questions...1) Why the change from the first to the second edition regarding transmission lubrication?2) Why the change from the owners manual to the 160 in the service bulletin?3) What would be modern equivalents of these oils?Thanks,Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stude8 Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 I used Valvoline 80 - 140 multi grade in the 1930 President axle and it ran just fine on several 100 plus mile trips. The only concerns to worry about I am told are some axles used Bronze or Brass bushings that are sensitive to Sulphur content in oils. Maybe going to customer service for the vendor will have knowledge of what they can recommend as correct formula for the application. I used SAE 80 in the Warner 3 speed trans (Straight cut gears, no synchros) and only had problems in October on a cold morning double clutching took a little care until the gear oil warmed up and thinned out a bit. Sude8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ply33 Posted April 7, 2003 Share Posted April 7, 2003 Two guesses on the variation in information (and I stress that these are guesses).1) Field reports coming back to the factory might have indicated a different lubricant than originally specified was needed.2) Formal oil and gear lubricant classifications were just getting started around that time. It could be that the definitions changed and the factory recommendations changed to reflect newer classifications.As I said, just guessing. I personally would lean toward the most recent factory recommendation which sounds like it is from the 1932 factory service bulletin.I have put about 50,000 miles on my 1933. I have used 90 wt. gear lubricant used some of the times, other times 140 wt. I prefer the heavier weight as it shifts easier (less apt to miss the correct speed when double clutching). During restoration (at about 40,000 miles of my driving) I found nothing in the rear axle or transmission that indicated a problem with lubrication.From what I have read, the issue with hypoid lubricants and older axles/transmissions is no longer a problem. Apparently the additives currently used to give the high pressure characteristics needed for hypoid use are different than they were in the 1950s and 1960s, and the new additives are not harmful to the older bearing materials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now