Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2008-01-1710

Lubricant Optimisation for Synchromesh

Manual Transmission of Utility Vehicles
M. Abraham and R. Ramaprabhu
Mahindra and Mahindra

S. D. Evans
Lubrizol Limited

2008 SAE International Powertrains,

Fuels and Lubricants Congress
Shanghai, China
June 23-25, 2008

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-0790 Web: www.sae.org
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

By mandate of the Engineering Meetings Board, this paper has been approved for SAE publication upon
completion of a peer review process by a minimum of three (3) industry experts under the supervision of
the session organizer.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel: 724-772-4028
Fax: 724-776-3036

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2008 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018
Lubricant Optimisation for Synchromesh Manual
Transmission of Utility Vehicles
Copyright © 2008 SAE International
ABSTRACT
In general the mechanical design and function of
synchronized manual transmissions has remained
relatively constant over the years, with incremental
improvements in components, gears, bearings, seals,
synchronizers and fluids continuing to advance the
quality of the overall product.
Marketplace demands generally drive improvements
which are primarily aimed at durability and shift
quality. Recently, however, advances in control and
actuation technology have led to a new generation of
automated manual transmissions. As a result,
compatibility with electronic and valve components is
becoming increasingly important. The synchronizers
and fluid are two components that can affect the
overall transmission performance experienced by the
end user.
Historically, there has been a variety of synchronizer
materials, primarily brass for smaller vehicles such as
passenger cars and molybdenum-based products for
larger commercial vehicles. Recently sinter
compositions, carbon and also phenolic materials
have been used although mostly in Japan. Each
composition affords the designer different wear and
durability properties(1). For example, although sinter
is a copper-based alloy like brass the fluid does not
always respond to each in the same way. Thus, there
is a need to revise the fluid composition to obtain the
optimum performance with the synchronizer material
being used.
This paper studies the effect of fluids on the friction
performance of the brass synchronizer materials
used by one of India’s leading original equipment
manufacturers (OEM), Mahindra and Mahindra,
during bench and vehicle testing. This paper also
includes a range of key laboratory tests that provide a
relative assessment of product performance.
2008-01-1710
M. Abraham and R. Ramaprabhu
Mahindra and Mahindra
S. D. Evans
Lubrizol Limited
INTRODUCTION
Effective lubricant design is essential for the efficient
operation of the modern manual transmission in
today’s passenger cars and commercial vehicles.
Seven driveline oils, shown in Table 1 below, were
evaluated in a controlled program. Of these seven
oils there were two reference products: a
commercially available gear oil meeting API GL-4
classification and an automatic transmission fluid
(ATF) meeting the type A suffix A performance level
(TASA).
Two of the oils tested were based on identical
additive technology; only the viscosity grade and
base oil types were varied. The final three products
included two custom-designed manual transmission
fluids (MTFs), one used extensively in commercial
vehicle applications, one used in passenger cars and
the third an API GL-4 boosted with a friction modifier.
Table 1 Details of oils evaluated
To achieve maximum benefit from the lubricant
gearbox system it is essential that the rheological and
chemical properties of the fluid are in balance with
the operating environment. Therefore sections on
oxidation, shear stability, corrosion and friction
properties are included.
Lubricants used in the past, such as those classified
as being API GL-4 products can not satisfy the multi-
faceted demands of customers and OEMs.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018
Table 2 illustrates the typical performance of three
types of lubricant that could be used in manual
transmissions and compares them to a MTF. These
include an engine oil, an ATF and a conventional API
GL-4 oil. The last column outlines some of the current
demands for optimum lubricant gearbox operation.
Table 2 Comparison of lubricants used in manual
transmission applications
Explanation: + = Better, O = Acceptable, - Worse
The trend for today’s manual transmissions is to
combine the good qualities of an ATF, such as low
temperature performance and thermal stability, with
optimized friction demands to match the synchronizer
design.
Dedicated MTFs are so important that the Volvo
Corporation, for example forbids using standard API
GL-4 technology in their manual transmissions
instead favoring dedicated MTF fluids for both factory
and service fill. This illustrates a general industry
trend, particularly for top-tier fluids. More compact
transmission designs and component weight
reductions place greater emphasis on the lubricant’s
load carrying and pitting resistance. Aerodynamic
styling and noise legislation have reduced airflow
over the transmission resulting in higher transmission
operating temperatures.
End user needs(2-3) are also reflected in modern fluids.
Improved gear shifting characteristics and reduced
maintenance costs are two factors that benefit the
vehicle driver. Increasingly important is fuel economy,
which benefits both the end user and the
environment. Government legislation requires
continuous fuel economy improvement and the use of
multigrade gear lubricants(4) helps achieve this.
Of course not all multigrades perform in the same
way. In many cases lower viscosity fluids improve
fuel consumption, although durability concerns have
to be addressed by optimum additive packages.
MTF PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS
The key performance parameters are addressed by a
combination of base fluid, viscosity modifier (VM) and
additive package optimization.
Low-temperature Shiftability
Drivers want smooth easy gear shifts under all driving
conditions but at low temperatures, oil viscosity can
increase dramatically leading to poor engagement.
Factors affecting low temperature shiftability include:-
• Low temperature fluidity of base fluid
• Correct use of pour point depressants
• Correct friction modifier selection
To assure effective lubrication over the wide
temperature range experienced during vehicle
operation, multi-grade gear oils are used. The grades
commonly used today in Asia are SAE 80W-90 whilst
in Europe SAE 75W-80 oils the most common for
commercial vehicles with SAE 75W oils becoming
more commonplace in passenger car manual
transmissions.
Such grades, provided they have been designed
correctly, offer the advantage of component
protection at high operating temperatures, whilst
making gear engagement easier at low temperatures,
which end users readily appreciate and is shown in
Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 Transmission lubricants engagement force
characteristics
Throughout Asia the minimum temperature rarely
falls below - 20ºC, so improving the viscometrics
much below this point may not lead to realisable
benefits in terms of engagement force reduction.
Viscometric Profile
Figure 2 shows a typical range of viscosity grades
that are available to the oil marketer today and
although various grades of lubricant can be used as
MTFs, SAE 80W-90, SAE 80W and SAE 75W-80 are
most common. In the USA, however SAE 50 grade
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

products are still preferred. Exceptions exist, most having to last much longer in what has become a
noticeably for VW who require SAE 75W grades in tougher environment Therefore it becomes
their synthetic fluid specification TL 521 71 used in increasingly important for the lubricant to maintain its
their six-speed manual gearbox fluids. original viscosity profile.
Narrow Wide range
Kinematic viscosity
range
As a consequence, it has become very important for
at 100°C mm2/s 30 SAE SAE
80W-140 75W-140 the lubricant to resist degradation and to prevent the
SAE build up of sludge and deposits in the transmission.
20 85W-90 SAE
75W-90
SAE Sludge and deposits prevent oil flow to critical
75W-80
10 components. Oxidative degradation leads to oil

Temperature °C for
-12
M thickening which when coupled with deposits on the
metal surfaces results in reduced heat transfer and
Brookfield viscosity
of 150,000 mPas max
-26
T transmission efficiency. Oil oxidation products are
often highly acidic and can corrode metal surfaces. It

-40
F is important to be aware that carbonaceous deposits
can build up on the oil seal lip, giving rise to leakage
Figure 2 SAE viscosity grade typical characteristics and possible chemical attack of the seal lip surface.

The heavier grades illustrated above such as SAE
75W-140 are predominantly used for rear axle fluids.
The oils evaluated in this paper had a range of
viscosity profiles and all are commercially available in
India today. The details are shown in Table 3 below.
There are a variety of testing methods to assess
lubricant oxidative and thermal stability, including the
CEC L-48-A-00(B), ASTM L60-1 and the ISOT. A
summary of these test methods is given in Table 4.
Table 4 Comparison of oxidation tests

Designation CEC L-48-A-00(B) ASTM L60-1 ISOT JIS-K25141

Table 3 Viscosity profiles of evaluated oils
Test apparatus Glass beaker Steel case with Glass beaker
glass front
Metals present None Iron and Iron and copper
Method of Air Gears at 1725 Glass impeller
agitation rpm-1 blades at 1300
rpm-1
Duration 192 50 96
(hours) 2
Temperature ºC 150 – 180 163 1352

Air flow rate 5 1.1 None

(l/h)
Total oil during 0.1 0.12 0.25
Thermal and Oxidative Stability test (litres)
Air/oil volume 9600 458 -3
ratio
Thermal and oxidative stability have become more 1. ISOT Indiana Stirring Oxidation Test (Also known as JIS-K2514)
important factors to consider when designing fluid for 2. Temperatures are not specified in these procedures 3.
both trucks and passenger cars. This emphasis is Only fresh air enters the beaker by natural aspiration and is not
growing and has become more important as drain quantifiable
intervals have increased.
Bench oxidation test performance comparisons of the
In parallel there has been a steadily increasing trend seven transmission fluids evaluated in this paper are
for engine power outputs in vehicles engine power shown in Table 5. These were all run in accordance
outputs of utility vehicles. The same trend is also with the DKA oxidation test, known in the industry as
seen, although less dramatically in gasoline powered the CEC L-48-A-00(B) test.
vehicles. Following the upward trends has been an
increase in Nm/kg power-to-weight ratios. Increasing Unfortunately during the testing the oil identified as
power throughout means the oil has to be capable of SGX created excessive foaming and was removed
handling higher temperatures. from the test. The phenomenon is thought to be as a
result of the high air flow rate used in this test and an
The higher output engine power has led to design inefficient foam inhibition system being used.
alterations in vehicle transmissions, especially growth
in torque handling capacity. Table 5 DKA oxidation results 150ºC 192 hours

When the overall trend is considered it is imperative

high-performance fluid technology to handle the
increased power throughput.

Other vehicle design changes, such as aerodynamic

improvements and noise reduction have led to
greater thermal and oxidative stress(5). Similarly any
requirement to extend drain intervals leads to oils
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

The data clearly shows that depending on the Table 6 – Corrosion performance
formulation used the products deliver very different
results. The key data in the above table is the
viscosity increase, the aspect or cleanliness of the
test tubes and blotter spot (often referred to as
dispersancy).

These results show that API GL-5 lubricants have a

tendency to be less oxidative and thermal stable
compared to MTF or ATF technologies. This also is
the case for API GL-4 only products because they are
derived from 50% treatment levels of API GL-5
products. In all cases the products provided 100%
dispersancy at the end of test; however the actual
cleanliness of the hardware used varies as clearly
illustrated in Figure 3 below.
These results show that in most cases when the
products were tested at the lower temperature of
121ºC they provided acceptable copper corrosion
protection. The exception was the two API GL-4
based products which have a rating above 1A.
Performing these tests at 150ºC shows how using
standard API GL-4 can dramatically impact the
corrosion of components. This is also the case with
the VW 1425 procedure where ratings of 2 are only
seen with the API GL-4 based technology.
Shear Stability

As lubricants have evolved to provide improved

shiftability along with a balance of efficiency with
longer drain periods, the viscosity profile of these
lubricants has become more important. When a
lubricant is designed to be more efficient lower
viscosity products are developed, however this in turn
can lead to changes in the load carrying
performance.

In real-world use lubricants undergo high shearing

Figure 3 End of test images from DKA testing
This testing can be used to correlate with gearbox
component cleanliness and the associated benefits of
this level of thermal and oxidative performance.
Corrosion Protection
Corrosion protection particular for copper (yellow
metal) is a critical manual transmission performance
need. This need resulted from the use of brass and
sinter synchronizer materials both of which are
copper alloys. In addition, the increased use of
electronics and sensitive control and actuating
components in newer generation of automated
rates in the transmission, which in turn can further
reduce the viscosity of the product. This compounds
the potential issues highlighted above and as a result
when designing a MTF it is essential to minimize the
possibility of the fluid changing its viscosity profile. In
order to do this, the viscosity modifier must be
carefully and correctly selected. The industry method
for checking the shear stability of products is known
as the KRL shear test and is designated as CEC L-
45-A-99. The standard test is run for 20 hours and
the percentage shear of the oil is reported. The
comparative data from the seven oils is shown below
in Figure 4.
20

manual gearboxes has led to a renewed interest in 18

ensuring that they do not corrode due to the 16

% shear or KV @ 100C at EOT (cSt)

lubricating fluid. Some of the established tests look at 14

actual mechanical parts e.g. the VW corrosion test 12

where a bearing section is rated look at mechanical 10

parts. Traditional corrosion methods, such as the 8

6
ASTM D130 or copper strip test, also provide useful
4
insights into product performance.
2

0
The anti-corrosion performance properties of the Ref SGX T A B S D
% shear at EOT 3.64 8.09 18.31 4.21 6.46 12.96 11.91
seven lubricants evaluated in this work are shown EOT KV @ 100°C 13.49 13.97 5.98 13.2 14.47 12.43 12.06

below for both steel and copper (the VW 1425

method) and ASTM D130 at a standard temperature Figure 4 Comparisons of KRL shear data
of 121°C and an elevated temperature of 150°C.
The data in Figure 4 shows how the shear stability
values vary significantly. Interestingly the ATF
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018
product shears by more than double that of the next
highest product, oil SGX. The already low viscosity of
the ATF coupled with a high shear value, ultimately
could lead to field concerns with the formulation,
primarily because it would operate more in a
boundary lubrication condition whilst also having
lower antiwear protection compared to API GL-4 and
MTF products. The data also indicates only oils SGX
and B comply with SAE J306 guidelines.
Synchromesh Performance
In 1975 synchronized manual transmissions began to
dominate European trucks. Passenger car manual
transmissions preceded this trend. Figure 5 shows
the increase in trucks over time, until reaching their
dominance today.
Fitment of Synchromesh Manual Transmissions
100
90
%
80
70
60
50
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Figure 5 Fitment of synchromesh manual
transmissions into trucks
Although synchronizers are dominant in manual
transmissions in Europe and India, it is incorrect to
say that synchronizers are not used in the USA. In
fact use is increasing, although non-synchronized
transmissions still dominate class eight trucks and
above.
Probably the most critical feature of the modern
manual transmission fluid is correct frictional
behaviour. Fluids must satisfy the frictional
requirements of often diverse synchromesh materials
such as brass, sintered material, molybdenum, or
synthetic-based friction linings(6). A diagram of the
synchromesh components is given in Figure 6.
Synchronizer
blocker rings
Figure 6 Synchromesh components
In a manual transmissions synchronization system,
the synchronizer blocker ring is of special importance
for the shift behaviour. The synchronizer blocker ring
synchronizes two transmission parts rotating at
different speeds in the shortest time possible and with
little effort.
It is important to understand the gear shifting process
when evaluating manual transmission fluids for their
effect on synchronizers and gear shift quality.
When shifting gears, the driver transmits an axial
force over the shift lever, the shift linkage and the
shift fork to the sleeve. As the sleeve moves, the
synchronizer ring is forced by spring-loaded struts
onto the mating cone surface of the gear. This shift
phase is called pre-synchronizing.
The shift force increases during this phase as well as
the simultaneous start of synchronizing of speeds.
The exerted axial force to the sleeve then overcomes
the spring-loaded struts. Sleeve teeth and
synchronizer teeth contact each other on their
chamfers.
As the developed cone torque is greater than the
torque of the chamfer teeth the sleeve cannot pass
2005 through the synchro ring.
During this phase there is no further axial movement
of the sleeve. The time period until reaching
synchronization speed is called the synchronization
time.
After reaching the synchronization speed between
the sleeve, the synchronizer ring and gear, the cone
torque approaches zero and allows the sleeve splines
to pass through the synchronizer ring teeth.
When the sleeve teeth contact the chamfer of the
gear, a second force increase occurs. This is called
the second bump. The frictional connection between
the gear and the synchronizer ring cones must be
released when shifting into the gear.
This is the locking stage. The shifting operation is
complete, normally having taken a total of less than
half a second. The shift time and shift force are in a
direct relationship.
The basic function of the synchronizer ring is to
create frictional torque on the cone and an indexing
torque on the teeth(7).
The use of correctly designed fluids, with the correct
frictional properties with the synchronizer material
used on the blocker ring has a major impact on the
quality of the shift feel and the durability of the gear
change system.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

Testing Synchronizer Performance Table 7 Brass material types used in today’s

transmissions
Each type of friction material has its own frictional
durability characteristic and coefficient of friction Type Zn Cu Al Co Fe Mn Ni Pb Si
response to a particular fluid. Cu Zn40 Al2 37.6 57.5 1.4 0.6 1.8 0.6 0.5
Cu Zn40 Al2 Mn2 36.3 58.5 1.6 2.5 0.2 0.9
For example paper-lined synchronizer rings can have Cu Zn23 Al6 Mn4 Fe3 23.6 64 5.5 2.5 4 0.4
Cu Zn28 Al4 Ni3 Co1 Si1 Mn 28.6 61 4 1 0.8 3 0.6 1
a higher friction coefficient than comparable metal
rings.
Although still predominantly copper-zinc, the inclusion
This can sometimes be reflected in a need for of aluminum, manganese and silicon give the
different cone angles. Equation 1 illustrates the material higher strength and hardness. The effect of
relationship between Forces, Cone Torque for having the aluminum content is that adhesive layers
synchronization and cone angle. of aluminum oxide are formed that lead to greater
corrosion resistance against any aggressive additive
breakdown products.

Equation 1.
Figure 7 shows an example of a section of a brass
synchronizer ring with the lands magnified.
Tc = Fa . μc . Rc > Ti
sinα

Tc = cone torque
Fa = axial force
μc= dynamic coefficient between ring and cone
Ti = index torque
Rc = mean cone radius
α = cone angle

The axial force (Fa) acts on the cone as well as on the

chamfers of the synchronizer ring. The mean cone
radius is often limited and in fact fixed by the
assembly space of the particular design. The cone
torque therefore is mainly influenced by the
relationship μc/sinα.
The implications of this are that a high μc will increase
the cone torque (Tc) which in turn results in a shorter
synchronization time and lower shift forces. One way
to optimize μc is through the MTF.
During the evaluation of the different formulations in
this paper both small-scale bench tests were used
along with in-vehicle evaluations. The synchronizer
material used in both types of testing was brass.
Figure 7 – Brass synchronizer ring with lands
magnified
Bench Testing Brass Components
The Variable Speed Friction Tester (VSFT) rig
performs similarly to the better known Low Velocity
Friction Apparatus (LVFA) and can be used to screen
the frictional performance of different fluids with
different frictional materials. The apparatus consists
of a small, rotating steel annulus loaded against a
disc of the desired friction material. Test lubricant
can be pumped into the system chamber.

Whilst the need for synchromesh durability testing is
recognized even to the extent of evaluating pre-aged
oils in synchronizers the purpose of the evaluations in
this paper was to establish the relative performance
of the formulations in bench screening and full vehicle
assessments.
Brass
One of the ways to combat wear in brass for example
is to alloy it with other metals such as manganese.
Table 7 shows various brass formulations used in
some of today’s transmissions.
The speed, load and temperature conditions can be
controlled to give the desired test conditions. The
apparatus can be used to run short, discrete tests to
measure simple frictional properties or longer, multi-
cycle programs to assess the friction durability of the
fluid and friction material combination. The rig is
particularly useful for rapid screening of the relative
performance of fluids, rather than absolute friction
values(8).
For the current evaluation the friction material was a
brass manufactured by Otto Fuchs Metalwerke, and
is composed of alloy 2210.08, (CuZn40Al2), which is
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

representative of that used by the OEM. An eight 0.1000

hour test was used for this evaluation where discrete

friction values were generated at three temperatures 00:00

Friction C o efficient
01:00

(30°, 90°,120°C) after each hour of the test by 02:00

03:00

running a friction sweep from high speed down to 0.0800 04:00

05:00
zero thus simulating a synchronization event. The 06:00
07:00
intervening hours were used to age the oil by running 08:00

the rig at constant conditions typical of a

transmission. 0.0600
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200

Linear Speed (m/s)

Ideally the friction curve generated should be

controlled and have a gradient close to zero except at
slower speeds where an increase in μ is anticipated. Figure 11 Oil A – similar to oil T with improvement
over reference and SGX
Additionally over the aging period the frictional
properties of the fluid should not vary or change by a
significant amount.
0.1200

Representative frictional responses at 120°C for the

test oils are shown in Figures 8 to 14. 00:00

Friction C oefficien t
01:00
0.1000
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
0.1400 06:00
0.0800
07:00
08:00

0.1200 00:00
Friction C oefficient

01:00
02:00 0.0600
03:00 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200
0.1000 04:00
05:00
Linear Speed (m/s)
06:00
07:00
0.0800 08:00

Figure 12 Oil B – good frictional response initially

0.0600 however too variable with increasing in speed
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200

Linear Speed (m/s)

0.1200
Figure 8 Reference oil – poor result
00:00
Friction C oefficient

01:00
0.1000
02:00
0.1200
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
00:00 0.0800
07:00
Friction C oefficient

01:00
0.1000 08:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00 0.0600
06:00 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200
0.0800
07:00
Linear Speed (m/s)
08:00

0.0600
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 Figure 13 Oil S – excellent frictional response
Linear Speed (m/s)

Figure 9 Oil SGX - poor result

0.1200

00:00
0.1000
Friction C oefficient

01:00
0.1000
02:00
03:00

00:00 04:00
05:00
Friction C oefficient

01:00
02:00 06:00
0.0800
03:00 07:00

0.0800 04:00 08:00

05:00
06:00
07:00
0.0600
08:00
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200

Linear Speed (m/s)

0.0600
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200

Linear Speed (m/s)

Figure 14 Oil D – excellent frictional response

Figure 10 Oil T - improvement over reference and

SGX
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

From the seven individual frictional graphs, it is
evident that each formulation responded differently to
the brass friction material. Oil S and oil D provide the
best overall frictional performance, which is shown by
the repeatable frictional coefficient results relative to
the linear speeds being used. A summary of the
results is provided below in Table 8.
Table 8 Summary overview of frictional responses
o Each full test was repeated five times.
o A separate oil flushing procedure was used
between test oil changes to minimise the
possibility of different oils influencing each other.
o Testing was repeated at 5, 10, 15 and 20ºC to
evaluate the impact of temperature on shift force
o From the OEMs experience an engagement force
• 3 kg was considered unacceptable.

The data from the first and second gear shift effort
are shown in Figures 15 and 16:-
Clearly, oils S and D show much better frictional
response in this test, which is not unusual given that
both have been designed as dedicated MTF
products.

As not all brass materials are the same, it is correct to

say that the same friction response cannot always be
expected. For this reason, vehicle testing was
conducted because it meant that the actual
transmission performance could be seen.
Vehicle Testing

Part of the concern with manual transmission

performance in terms of gear shift engagement
relates to the first gear shifts during start up and initial
moving off. In order to assess this parameter cold
shift testing was conducted.

The test method used is briefly summarized below: Figure 15 Shift force effort 1st gear

o Prior to initiating the testing a K-type

thermocouple was fitted to the transmission to
monitor temperatures. Additionally, a shift force
meter was fitted to the gearshift level.

o The transmission of the vehicle was filled with

test oil.

o The vehicle was then started to homogenise the

oil in the transmission and the vehicle was run for
four km.

o Keeping the vehicle in neutral but with the engine

switched off, dry ice was packed around the
transmission exterior to lower the temperature to
0ºC.
Figure 16 Shift force effort 2nd gear
o The vehicle was then started and at idle using full
clutch movement the gear being tested was These figures not only show that the two MTF
engaged and disengaged. formulations provide the optimum shift quality but also
that as the temperature of the oil in the transmission
o The force applied for gear engagement and increases the shift force reduces.
disengagement is recorded for post-test analysis.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

It is apparent from this data that a change in the base products’ advantages have been clearly
oil type and viscometrics of a fluid can also influence demonstrated throughout this paper and are
the shift force requirement, as shown from the summarized in Table 10 below. They can be best
comparative data from oils A and B. Data from all the summarized as: modern manual transmission fluids
results has also been summarised in Table 9 below. now match those of the ATFs in terms of specialized
frictional behaviour, combined with oxidation and
Table 9 Summary of gear shift engagements thermal stability. They surpass ATFs in areas such as
wear protection and specialized synchromesh
frictional behaviour.

Table 10 Overall evaluation summary

From this data the summary of the 1st gear forces is

illustrated below in figure 17.

5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50
S hift force, kg

3.00
Min
2.50 Max
Delta
2.00

1.50 Explanation: + = Better, O = Acceptable, - Worse

1.00
The overall quality of a synchronized manual
0.50
transmission is a reflection of the performance of all
0.00
Reference SGX T A B S D its individual components. Beyond general durability
associated with gear, bearing, and seal life the shift
characteristics are very important to the end user.
st
Figure 17 1 gear summary data for all temperatures This aspect of performance relies heavily on the
and conditions interaction of the synchronizer assembly and
lubricant. Therefore it is important to optimize the
This supports the earlier data shown in Figure 15, material-lubricant combination for both wear and
demonstrating that the best formulations are the MTF friction.
products. They not only provide the overall lowest
shift force but also the lowest variability in the test, New and specialized additive technology has been
leading to the conclusion that the MTF products have developed in order to fulfill the unique requirements
more consistent performance. of today’s synchronized manual transmissions.

Conclusions Features of a MTF additive technology include:

From this paper, the diversity of requirements for • Optimized synchronizer friction performance
modern manual transmission fluids has been seen. • Excellent friction durability
• Reduced gear shift effort – especially at lower
Where once API GL-4 fluids were used, today’s ambient temperatures
transmissions demand more sophisticated and • High thermal and oxidative stability
distinctive lubricants tailored to satisfy specific • Optimized load carrying ability
frictional requirements of the synchromesh systems. • Improved anti-corrosion performance
With the OEM-preferred viscometric profiles also
changing and the requirements for improved MTF additive technology is neither an ATF nor a gear
component protection over extended drain periods oil but a new technology that can be tailored to meet
being demanded it is clear dedicated fluids are the OEM’s specifications, designs and materials. Of
needed. course all of these requirements can be met if the
fluid to be used in such developments is included as
Globally, specification requirements are changing and part of the design process and the necessary
have resulted in more fluids being tailor-made for partners work in an open and co-operative
individual transmission types and designs. The environment.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Friday, September 07, 2018

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the efforts of

the Lubrizol testing teams and Mahindra & Mahindra
Design and Vehicle Testing team.

REFERENCES
1. Influence of Additive Chemistry on Manual
Transmission Synchronizer Performance. B. M.
O’Connor, J. H. Van Mullekom, M. P. Gahagan,
R. Rank, W. Jahn. SAE paper 2002-01-1697.

2. Lubrizol Internal Communication; Future Driveline

Fluids for a Better World. M. P. Gahagan. Future
Directions. Environnent II. July 2002 Tokyo
Japan. CD ROM.

3. Ueber den Nutzen von

Mehrbereichsgetriebeoelen in Kraftfahrzeugen:
S. N. Peal, R. Graham, B. M. O’Connor. Vortrag
gehalten auf der Technischen Arbeitstagung
Hohenheim, am 29. Maerz 1995

4. Lubricants for Optimized Manual Gearbox

Performance. R. Graham, M. P. Gahagan, S. S.
Bigelow, R. W. Cain. 5th CEC International
Symposium, May 1997, Gothenburg.

5. Gear Lubricants Evaluation of High Temperature

Performance and Effect on Radical Lip Seal
Failures. R. Graham, R. A. Grill, J. J. Schwind.
V Tribology conference, 27th-29th November 1991,
Budapest.

6. Synchronizer Blocker Ring with Organic Lining.

Gunter Lanzerath and Helmut Patzer. SAE Paper
860384.

7. Manual Transmission Fluid to Satisfy Global

Market Needs - Part II. H. S. Hong, M. E. Huston,
Y. Kurihara, N. Kojima, M. P. Gahagan. 5th
Annual Fuels and Lubes Asia Conference
January 26th – 29th, 1999

8. Lubricant Technology for Dual Clutch

Transmissions. S. Hurley, C. D. Tipton, S. P.
Cook. SAE Paper 2006-01-3245