300+ rebuild

[Geoff Weeks]

You can disagree with Eaton, that is fine, I went to the source to make sure I gave the correct info.

further more it is a used box, so you have no idea what it was filled with.

Eaton doesn't mention a need to "flush" if a different or unknown lubricant is being replaced by something else.

 Synthetic has better heat qualities than SAE 50 which has better than GL-1. Each is a step up.

 In this application, which is so far down the scale from the transmissions rating, SAE 50 would be fine. Even GL according to Eaton would be ok, but I would not recommend it. They list it as acceptable in other parts of the world (in the same transmissions)! 

Edited Sunday at 01:19 PM by Geoff Weeks

[Freightrain]

I thought I saw specs that say it was okay to use. I also understand that changing now would likely not be a good idea.  But, the fact that this transmission was never shifted would alter that fact slightly.  The discs are still permeated with synthetic oil.  So I guess I will change my bucket out.

[Geoff Weeks]

I wouldn't give SAE 50 a minute of thought before filling the trans with it. Your call. SAE 50 is listed as approved. 

Any used transmission syncro is going to "be saturated" with what ever was run before, It will not make a difference, but as I say, your money, your call.

[BottleHauler84]

57 minutes ago, Geoff Weeks said:

You can disagree with Eaton, that is fine, I went to the source to make sure I gave the correct info.

further more it is a used box, so you have no idea what it was filled with.

Eaton doesn't mention a need to "flush" if a different or unknown lubricant is being replaced by something else.

 Synthetic has better heat qualities than SAE 50 which has better than GL-1. Each is a step up.

 In this application, which is so far down the scale from the transmissions rating, SAE 50 would be fine. Even GL according to Eaton would be ok, but I would not recommend it. They list it as acceptable in other parts of the world (in the same transmissions)! 

I know you like to argue with people,  and its ok because most dont take it personally...including me. I respect your knowledge. 

Will you point me to the section of your information that deals with drains and refills? I was referring to what Eaton currently recommends (PS-386), and the idea that you dont mix mineral based oils with synthetics. It never has and still isn't a good idea. Will it work, yeah im sure it will. Along with 80w90 gear oil, 50w engine oil,  iso32 hydraulic oil, vegetable oil, maybe just put a grease zerk on it and fill it with grease. 

Why not just put back in it what eaton calls for?

[Geoff Weeks]

19 minutes ago, BottleHauler84 said:

Why not just put back in it what eaton calls for?

Eaton calls for many choices, it is right there in their manual. I am not recommending something that Eaton does not. Larry wasn't happy about paying the expense for synthetic and according to Eaton it isn't required.

 I found no info saying flushing was required at any point in the manuals I read when changing lube, if it isn't there (it may be and I missed it?) I can't point to it. If you can point to where it is required, I will accept that.  

When you made the the statement that syn was required it was something I had not heard or read, so I went to the source to see if my understanding was incorrect, it was not. So I linked the source material for all to read. 

IF you want extended drain intervals and you want Eaton to warranty it, then and only then does Eaton require its use for warranty purposes.  

On a used transmission none of those apply. All the oil I listed are approved by Eaton for their HD manual transmissions. 

By your reasoning deleting the oil cooler would also void any factory warranty. But they are not required below 350hp, although you pointed him to the delete plate. By the title of this thread, he is well below that.

Transmission lube has an easy job compared to other boxes, no combustion gases, no hypoid or amboid gearing, little chance of moisture accumulating, just spur gearing, roller bearings and one double ended syncro. 

Edited Sunday at 02:24 PM by Geoff Weeks

[Freightrain]

Just my .02 worth of knowledge and synchros (in car transmissions).  The old brass blocker rings worked better with mineral oil.  Synthetic was too slippery and it would rake gears.  Most new automotive transmissions use a version of ATF and with fiber blocker rings it shifts fine.

I don't know what Eaton uses for synchros today?  I think the old boxes were brass when it used mineral oil.

 

I agree with not mixing fluids.  I take that as using 1/2 syn and 1/2 mineral persay.  Topping it off with one while it still has something else in it.  Mine is very dry right now so there would not be any "mixing" of fluids 

[Joey Mack]

The Eaton Synchro is a pair of steel rings that engage each on apon assembly. The friction material is on one rings inner diameter, and the outer diameter on the other ring. The friction material engages the range gear that is selecected. The range gears have a ground surface that the friction material rides on to maintain gear speed to match road speed, and engine sped during range shifting..  I prefer the Eaton synchro over Macks because of ease of installation and low cost, and if the back box is in reusable condition, no special tools are needed to repair it in chassis.  I have lost count on how many I have done.  

With all that I posted....  You need to see a picture of what I have described to get a real perspective...  

[Freightrain]

I looked online and it basically looks like the same basic set up as a car transmission has.  Cone shaped engagement.  It is the friction material that makes or breaks the engagement depending on what fluid is used.  Just like I mentioned in the post above.  They use material that works well with lighter fluids today compared to the 60-70s.

Newer car transmissions can't use thick gear lube due to small roller bearings and the clearances they work with.  The old loose fittings gears allowed thick gear oil.

This falls in the same kind of category.

[Geoff Weeks]

Larry, SAE 50 (synthetic or mineral) has the same viscosity range as 90 GL.  40 SAE is close to 80 GL  so no change in "thickness". Gear lube and engine oil are "rated" on different scales. 

EP additive package in GL increases "tackyness" in the lube so it tends to stay on the gears (and syncro) better, not an advantage with syncro's. An important thing in hypoid and amboid gearing. 

SAE 50 or 40 are approved by Eaton and I have used both. 

SAE oils have better heat tolerance then gear lube and are preferred for that reason. Synthetic oil has better heat tolerance than mineral based SAE oil. 

If you look though what Eaton has put out about lube for their heavy manuals, all three types of oil are approved  depending on market.  When run in the highest heat load conditions, over 1950 ft/lbs and/or extended drain, Eaton says that the top tier of oil has to be used if you want them to warranty it. You also have to keep the oil temp below their limit with and oil cooler. If you are running below those limits and follow "std" oil change protocol, they will warranty with mineral oil as well.

 In third world regions they still allow gear lube to be used.  Every step up in oil is better but not required for proper operation as long as oil temp is kept below X (I'd have to go back and re read to find the limit).     

In short, the syncro still works with all three types of oil. 

[Freightrain]

I couldn't take the green paint on the transmission so it is now black.

Much better!

I checked clutch brake adjustment and clutch height was setting really close already.  To help with building the linkage I used a bar on the clutch fork arm and measured 23* of travel from freeplay to clutch brake application.  I can use that information to work on the new linkage and make sure I have enough travel in everything.

I received my cooler block off plate and have it installed.

I also re clocked the air starter.  The inlet was on the bottom because it was on lower passenger side on 237.  Now it is flipped on the drivers side.  I didn't like the exhaust on the top so I pulled it off the engine and rotated the body 180*.  Now if it drools it won't make a mess.  Also, WTF, you have to remove the rear oil filter to get a starter changed out on these engine.  PITA.  I liked my passenger side starter.

Yesterday I took 1/2 day vacation so I could go buy some material at steel supplier to make up the lifting cradle.  I will be working on that this weekend so I can make plans to get motor set in the truck.

I finally got the correct steering knuckle parts, so I welded the old holes shut, painted and installed the steering box.

I was playing hell trying to hold this heavy bastard and start the bolts.  I gave up and turned the front bolt into a stud.  Now I could slip it in the hole and start the nut and then stand on the out of frame and wiggle the other bolts in the holes.

The joint comes up right about the same spot as the original column did in the floor.  I started measuring the old input shaft on the old box to see where I need to cut and start to fab up everything.  Should go relatively smooth.  😆 

[tjc transport]

Larry, i am sure you mentioned and i read it but cant remember. 

what trans are you going with. a 5 speed, or a multi range?

[Joey Mack]

It looks like an 8 LL

[Geoff Weeks]

Larry, you can take the 4 motor bolts out of the air starter, flipping the motor down low and re clock the drive. I don't know if that will give you enough wiggle room to get the motor out with the filter on, it will however give you a little more room on top to attach the large air hose.

Not sure where your steering gear come to in relation to the engine, so that may be a problem.

Edited 7 hours ago by Geoff Weeks

[Freightrain]

3 hours ago, tjc transport said:

Larry, i am sure you mentioned and i read it but cant remember. 

what trans are you going with. a 5 speed, or a multi range?

18913a.  Go big or go home.  I was looking for a 12513 but this came up reasonably priced local to me.  Plus it is a real double over.

Geoff, I did just rotate the body over 180* by the four bolts of the housing.  I don't think I can clock it downward.  Steering box was my first concern.

[Joey Mack]

13 spd.. my second guess. 😁 im curious... if it had a 13 spd shift knob, could it be used as such ?  The Mack 2130/2180 is the same but the shift knob makes the difference.. years ago we called it a $65.00 upgrade to go to 18 spd.   That was the cost of the shift knob with the gray splitter lever...  if you took the shift knob apart, you could trim the red lever to work on the low side,    if I remember correctly,  seems like I have done that before somewhere.....  GW?  I expect a correction... 

[terry]

Yeah there was a lock out on the early 2130 you could grind off in the shifter to make a 2180 transmission. I don’t think you could do that with the fuller transmissions, Geoff will know.  terry

[Joey Mack]

Ok.. yep ,he will know.  He should be here soon.  I cant tell you how many times I shifted an Eaton 9spd Like a 10spd by accident, and it was fine..  Hell, what do I know?  😆

[Brocky]

38 minutes ago, Joey Mack said:

Ok.. yep ,he will know.  He should be here soon.  I cant tell you how many times I shifted an Eaton 9spd Like a 10spd by accident, and it was fine..  Hell, what do I know?  😆

I have used that low hole 1st on the high side of a 13 speed many times.. Then split it!! It actually splits what would be 5th on the low side into 2 separate speeds which you need at the time.

[tjc transport]

2 hours ago, Freightrain said:

18913a.  Go big or go home.  I was looking for a 12513 but this came up reasonably priced local to me.  Plus it is a real double over.

Geoff, I did just rotate the body over 180* by the four bolts of the housing.  I don't think I can clock it downward.  Steering box was my first concern.

me thinks you are going to love the 300+ with the 13 speed. 

nice thing is you can also skip gears when running empty or light

[Geoff Weeks]

Let be start by saying I have zero experience  with the newer RTLO series.

All the roadrangers I worked on were the older RT-RTO series. I haven't been inside one in almost 10 years now 😮.  I remember there being a reason the old series can't take a 13 and make it an 18 with just a knob change. 

 So I am going to disappoint just about everyone including myself and say I don't remember why.

42 minutes ago, Brocky said:

I have used that low hole 1st on the high side of a 13 speed many times.. Then split it!! It actually splits what would be 5th on the low side into 2 separate speeds which you need at the time.

There is no reason not to use highside low on a 9 spd or a 13 (or 18) where it becomes more risky is when you use the splitter gear. You are multiplying the input torque through the the front box, then passing though the splitter gearing, and it isn't designed for that. In direct the power flows straight through the back box.

 The reason it is not generally used in a 9 spd or others is it is a ratio in between 4th and 5th (or 3rd and 4th if you use the "low" terminology) and the step between that isn't a even step.  

 If you're climbing a grade it may be tempting to use "funny gear" as it used to be called (highside low) but the jump down is a bigger one then it is to low side high, and it means any further downshift will also be another un-even drop. The low range gears are larger and better able to take the torque input for long periods than high side low.

 Empty I also have used funny gear many times, 1-2-3 (or if you must, lo-1-2) flip to high and go back to 1st, it is a bigger jump than continuing on in low and the jump from there to the next gear up is  bigger jump than shifting as you "should". I only did it empty, not saying it is better or great but no harm will come. 

sorry not to remember better, a mind is a terrible thing to loose!

[Geoff Weeks]

always thought if adding an underdrive rear splitter box to an overdrive front, to make what Eaton finely did in the RTLO series.

Gives you two O/D ratios .86 and .74, direct is one stick position down splitter in direct.

Edited 30 minutes ago by Geoff Weeks

[Geoff Weeks]

It may be as simple as the 18 and 13 use different low (range) and OD ratios and if you got it to function, it would leave you with ratios that aren't really usable. 

A 15% splitter ratio for the 13 and 18% for the 18. So the 18 has a lower "low range" ratio so when in OD low it is close to low in the 13. If you take a normal 13 and add an O/D without changing the low range ratio you don't get the ratio spread you need to be usable.

Edited 5 minutes ago by Geoff Weeks