CHRIS CRAFT COMMANDER FORUM ® .......A photo-intensive technical reference file and ongoing newsletter regarding the original fiberglass Chris Craft Commander. Our mission at this not-for-profit non-commercial web site is to "have fun and share information" for your individual personal use. Our main reference feature is the ever expanding MASTER INDEX Files which contain exhaustive photo and technical information on the Chris Craft Commander line (like these 38' Commander brochure scans) , (an awesome collection of Chris Craft 427 tuning and specification information), and a few words about how to use the information in the forum, etc. Be sure to look at the information about the 2009 Chris Craft Commander Rendezvous, second year in a row on Lake Erie!! If you're a Commander fan, this will be an event you won't want to miss.

We extend to you a cordial "WELCOME ABOARD !"

This forum is registered as chriscraftcommander.com

 Return to index  

Oil and ATF designations (and recommendations)

July 5 2006 at 8:35 AM
Paul  (no login)


The oil debate seems to never end, even after some of the oil classifications originally specified for our old boats became obsolete over 20 years ago. Recently we had some questions about ATF too, and this thread deals with both.

Our Chris Craft motors are recommended by the factory to use S.A.E. #30 or 10W30 conforming to API service classification MS. That, my friends, is an obsolete classification for an obsolete oil. Things have changed (a lot).

Here are a few words I discovered recently that clarify what the original “MS” designation was, and also some information that will help justify moving to newer (superior) products. These days, I seriously doubt if you could even find an oil listed under the MS classification, and if you did, I wouldn’t want to use it!

As some may recall, I’ve been a big proponent of using synthetic oil in cars and boats, due to the additional protection I believe they offer. Some of the many benefits are: Superior cold flow in order to get good oil into tight spaces almost instantly upon starting; superior film strength from engineered molecules; superior heat resistance to protect when an impeller may fail and your expensive marine motors may get hotter than you intended; superior friction reduction. There are many other benefits, but these are the basics. For many years now, I’ve used Mobil-1 15W50 in my 427 powered Chris Craft, and I’ve also used the same product in several European high performance cars, all with very good results.

Upon researching the subject matter further, the best oil I can imagine using in an inboard boat is the Amsoil Synthetic Heavy-Duty Diesel & Marine Motor Oil (AME) SAE 15W-40
Here’s a photo of what the container looks like

Here’s what the specs look like (if you can find a better oil for a marine application, buy it!)
http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/ame.aspx

And now for the informative info I discovered while actually trying to look up the old “MS” oil designation originally specified for Chris Craft marine motors.

Enjoy!

Paul





Multiviscosity oils, such as “20W–50,” must satisfy both the low temperature cranking and pumping test for the grade indicated first, and the 100°C test for the second grade. Such an oil would also pass the tests for all the grades in between.
Service classification

The original grades were based only on viscosity. In 1947, three service classifications were added:
• Regular, which was straight mineral oil
• Premium, which had added anti-oxidants
• Heavy Duty, with anti-oxidants and detergents

Both engines and the technology of lubrication became increasingly more sophisticated, so these classifications were replaced in 1952 with:
• ML, MM, and MS classifications, in order of increasing quality, for oil for gasoline engines

• DG, DM, and DS, in order of increasing quality, for diesel engines

After a number of revisions, those classifications were replaced by an entirely new, more easily extended system in 1983.



For gasoline engines, service classifications start with SA and proceed through (so far) SJ. Classifications SA through SF are considered obsolete, except that SE and SF are needed for certain smog systems which can be poisoned by additives present in later classifications. SA has no requirements at all; while the others are for earlier generations of engine (SC, 1964; SD, 1968; SE, 1972; SF, 1980; SG, 1989; SH, ; SJ, 1996). SJ is suited to a 1996 engine.

A similar set of classifications covers diesel engines. CA, CB, and CC are obsolete; CD, CD-II, and CE are in current use.



FIFTY YEARS AGO, selecting fluids for automotive service was pretty simple. Motor oil was rated as ML, MM or MS, for motor light, moderate or severe, respectively. The earliest automatic transmissions operated on motor oil. For brake fluid, gear oil and power steering fluid, we were pretty much limited to one choice each.

While chemical engineering and fluid technology improved steadily over the decades, fluid selection stayed pretty basic through the 1970s. A couple of new types of ATF were developed, brake fluid specifications-DOT 3 and DOT 4, for example-emerged and the "S" and "C" service classifications for motor oil showed steady improvement in lubricants. Then in the 1980s and '90s, fluid diversity erupted.

Today, the automotive service industry is faced with a daunting variety of fluids. One type certainly does not fit all applications. This article summarizes some of the most common fluids and the unique OEM specifications that have appeared over the last 10 to 15 years and that are in use today.

Motor oils are classified by Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) viscosity ratings and American Petroleum Institute (API) service classifications. The viscosity rating indicates how easily an oil flows at a specific temperature. The lower the number, the more easily it flows. Oils tested for viscosity at low temperatures have a "W" (for winter) after the number; oils tested at high temperature have no letter after the viscosity number. Most oils sold today are tested and classified for viscosity at both high and low temperatures.

These multiviscosity oils have designations such as 5W-30 or 20W-50.
API service classifications were introduced in the late 1960s to indicate oil resistance to wear, oxidation, corrosion and deposit formation, as well as its overall ability to lubricate. Oils for gasoline engines have service classifications beginning with an "S" (for Service) and followed by a letter "A" through "L" to indicate increasing performance levels. Oils for diesel engines have service classifications beginning with "C" (for Commercial) and followed by a letter "A" through "I."
When the "S" and "C" service classifications were introduced, they were a logical way to define motor oil performance requirements and the evolution of those requirements. The system went along pretty well for about 20 years-through the 1980s-and then diversity set in.

Besides a service classification, some oils for the past dozen years also are designated as "energy-conserving" or "energy-conserving II." These oils reduce engine friction and improve fuel economy. Energy-conserving oils have more faction-reducing additives and relatively low viscosities.

Since 1993, oil quality also is identified by the API "starburst" symbol. To earn the starburst, oils must meet the energy-conserving II requirements of the International Lubricant Standardization & Approval Committee (ILSAC) and be certified as the correct oil for gasoline engines in cars and light trucks. Therefore, only multiviscosity oils qualify. Oils that qualify for the starburst symbol also may carry ILSAC classifications GF-1, GF-2 or GF-3, which indicate the energy-conserving qualities.

The energy-conserving properties of multiviscosity oils have been the driving force in oil development, but strict emissions regulations also have kept engineers busy. Current regulations have lowered allowable hydrocarbon (HC) emissions to almost immeasurable levels. HC tailpipe emissions are primarily unbumed gasoline. Reducing HC emissions means that engineers must eliminate anyplace in the combustion chamber and cylinder where a molecule of gasoline might hide.

Piston-to-cylinder clearances have been reduced to .001 inch or less. Piston ring gaps have been reduced, and piston skirts have been coated with friction-reducing synthetic materials. Motor oil for modem engines must have low viscosity at startup to get the oil into those tight clearances fast. Thus, many carmakers recommend 5W-30 oil as the preferred viscosity. If your customers question these recommendations, explain the engineering background. High-viscosity oil in a late-model engine may do more harm than good.
--------------------------------------------

Automatic Transmission Fluid (This is included because many of our old boats were specified to use ATF designations that are no longer available, such as the "TYPE-A" recommended by Chris Craft).

The first automatic transmissions of 65 years ago operated on motor oil that was dyed red to help identify leaks. Automatic transmission fluid (ATF) has since evolved into one of the most complex lubricants in the oil industry.

When engineers design an automatic transmission, they consider the frictional properties of the ATF. All ATF types fall into two groups-(hose that contain friction modifiers and those that don't. Friction-modified ATF reacts to lower the coefficient of static friction as a clutch or band locks up. This creates a very smooth shift. Unmodified ATF provides a higher coefficient of friction as the clutch or band locks up and creates a firmer shift.

The first friction-modified ATF was Type A, introduced as a GM spec in the mid-'50 s. It evolved to Type A, Suffix A and eventually to Dexron fluid, introduced by GM in 1967. The first unmodified ATF was Type F, introduced by Ford in 1959 and used in all Ford transmissions through 1976 (and severed after that date).

ATF choices stayed pretty simple through the '60s and '70s. At the end of the latter decade, however, variations in ATF were increasing. Dexron had evolved into Dexron-II, and Ford introduced Type CJ, a friction-modified ATF, in the late '70s. Ford also specified Types G and H fluid for specific transmissions. Types H and CJ didn't last very long, as Mercon was developed to reduce the number of fluids required for Ford products.

Mercon is a friction-modified fluid, similar to Dexron. Mercon specifically does not replace Type F or G fluids for transmissions requiring unmodified fluid. Mercon, however, is the preferred fluid for most 1983 and later Ford automatics, all Nissans and some Mazdas, Jeeps and Eagles. Dexron-II is a secondary recommendation or okay for topping up some transmissions. Today, Mercon-V is specified for some Ford transmissions, and Mercon-SP is used in some 2003 and later Ford trucks.

Be aware, though, that C4 and C3 transmissions through 1979 and 1980, respectively, require Type F. Also, Jatco transmissions in Courier trucks used Type F through 1982, and all FMXs required Type F until the last one was built in 1981. Starting to get confused? It gets worse.

Chrysler had long recommended Dexron-series fluids for its automatics, but it began specifying MOPAR ATF-Plus (Type 7176) for 1987 and later transmissions. This fluid evolved to ATF+3 and ATF+4. MOPAR ATF is friction-modified like Dexron but specifically formulated for the electronic control programs of Chrysler s transmission control modules (TCMs). The MOPAR fluids let the torque converter clutch work in a unique partial-lockup mode. Chrysler cautions that if the wrong ATF is installed, the TCM can't regulate partial-lockup slippage correctly. Result: converter clutch shudder.

The older fluid recommended by Mitsubishi and Hyundai, Diamond SP, was similar to Chrysler's ATF+3, but the Diamond SP2 is quite different.

Toyota is another carmaker noted for unique ATF requirements. Toyota calls for its own Type T or Type T-IV fluid in certain vehicles. Most notable among these are the all-wheel-drive Camrys and Corollas built in the late 1980s and early '90s. If you fill one of these transmissions with ATF other than the specified Toyota Type T, your customer will most likely have to buy a new trans in 5000 to 6000 miles.

Some disagreement currently surrounds the fourth generation of Dexron fluids. Dexron-III was introduced in 1995 to supersede previous Dexron varieties. GM considers Dexron-III a fill-for-life ATF for some late-model transmissions, and it has a couple of notable features. It greatly improves seal life and resists oxidation better than previous fluids. It also is formulated for the control programs of GM's transmission modules. It is, in fact, one of GM's attempts to eliminate torque converter lockup shudder.

GM says that Dexron-III is backwards-compatible with all GM automatics built since 1949. Other carmakers aren't so convinced. DaimlerChrysler continues to specify ATF-Plus and some proprietary Mercedes fluids for its vehicles. Many Asian carmakers continue to call for Dexron-II and specifically say not to use Dexron-III because of some reported shifting problems. Time and aftermarket economics will sort it out.
From simple Type A and Type F fluids of 40 years ago, ATF varieties have grown to no fewer than 15 specifications from 10 different car-building corporations. Don't try to memorize all of the details. Rely on your Chek-Chart specification guides from MOTOR to help you select the right fluid for your customers' vehicles.



 
 Respond to this message   
Responses

Contact the Chris Craft Commander Forum
chriscraftcommander@hotmail.com

©2005, ©2006, ©2007, ©2008, Chris-Craft Commander Forum, Inc., ®, chriscraftcommander.com. Information and intellectual property on this not-for-profit non-commercial site may be copied for individual personal use, but any other reproduction or use requires written approval. Any entity who mines this site for names, material, or their other commercial/financial benefit in any way is subject to copyright and intellectual property law; the integrity of this site will be aggressively protected. The material here is for indivudual personal use and is not to be sold. Chris Craft is a registered trademark of Chris-Craft. Neither Chris-Craft nor any subsidiaries of Chris-Craft shall bear any responsibility for the chriscraftcommander.com content, comments, or advertising. Chris Craft Commander Forum, Inc., is independent from Chris Craft (and the Chris Craft Commander Club) and is not affiliated with, sponsored or supported by those organizations in any way. Copyright/trademark/sales mark infringements are not intended, or implied. Don't click on the following link unless you want spam, it's a search engine link. AddMe.com, Search Engine Submission and SEO google37b5db87ae53b031.html