600w............enough is enough!

[Uncle Bob]

I wish.........


Hardly a week goes by that we don’t have at least one thread inquiring about 600w lubricant in some form or other. The variety of responses, while well intentioned, are usually not very clear because of a mix of often repeated misinformation, and some fact or sufficiently close to fact. Many attempts by several on these boards to give accurate info are often overwhelmed by a variety distractions particularly injecting the use of “magic in a bottle” additives, but not restricted to that. So, here’s my attempt to help by sharing a couple of legitimate standards in the lubrication industry that SHOULD (but, sadly, likely won’t) set an accurate baseline.


The first is something called a Data Sheet. These are publications by the lubricant producers that spell out technical data as well as typical application information. In this particular case, 600w (or more completely, 600w Steam Cylinder Lubricant) is a trade name owned by Mobil Oil, today known as Exxon Mobil Corp. This product (in evolving formulations) has been in existence for over 100 years, thus it’s reference as a lubricant for vehicles 80 years old. For those interested you can make a copy of Mobil’s data sheet here: http://catalog.mooreballiewoil.com/Asset/pds-76.pdf Just right click with your mouse on the document and click “print”. The data sheet gives all manner of information (too much some would say), but it clearly answers the frequently asked question regarding viscosity grade. This particular product is what’s known as an industrial oil, as opposed, for example, to an automotive oil. As such they use a different nomenclature for viscosity grade (think of it as a different language wherein there are different appearing terms that mean the same thing or close depending on context). This particular product is especially confusing for the partially informed because of the 600, and especially, the “w”. When automotive guys see a number value in the nomenclature they immediately think “viscosity”. However, in this case, that 600 doesn’t equate to any currently used viscosity nomenclature. Then there’s the “w”……………………………WARNING; RANT WITHIN A RANT……….Real lubrication authorities will NEVER use the term “weight” in reference to viscosity grade………….NEVER (well, unless they stoop to pandering to improper colloquialism for the sake of communication). You’ll never see the term “weight” on an official oil company data sheet in reference to viscosity. When you see a “w” in any product name or viscosity designation it means something else……………..NOT weight. (Any of you familiar with concrete products will recognize a similar reaction when the ill informed refer to concrete as cement……..or in your area of expertise something similar).

Which brings us to the second reference document. Go to the picture below, click on it to enlarge, it is a Viscosity Equivalent Chart. This is useful in comparing the different “languages” of viscosity grading where in you can see the equivalent viscosity grade of an automotive gear lube (for example) when compared to an industrial viscosity grade. So, to work from the 600w data sheet, it self identifies as an ISO 460 grade, which lines up with an SAE 140 gear lube. Now, some confusion may occur to the observant. An ISO 680 (more viscous than an ISO 460) also translates to an SAE gear lube 140. This occurs because the SAE gear lube specification encompasses a wider range of viscosity measurement than each of the ISO grades. Think of it as an ISO 460 is a “light” 140, and an ISO 680 is a “heavy” 140 (this is me pandering to colloquialism). So, which is “right”. Technically they both are, but that’s where operating conditions form the context. Those that believe “more is better” will go to the high end. Those that are aware of operating conditions might correctly understand that, as an example, in a cooler climate the more viscous product will cause unnecessary fluid friction and reduced lubrication performance.


So, does using the term “600w” mean that only the Mobil product would be correct for the stated application. No, not really. With accurate understanding of lubricant data there are alternate cross references. Most industrial oil producer/marketers have a “steam cylinder” oil, probably very similar to the Mobil formulation. And as some have learned empirically, there are other brand/types of lubes that perform in automotive applications just as well. Which is not to say that ONLY comparing viscosity grades is adequate to determine a suitable substitute. There are other considerations, most notably additive chemistry, but again, the data sheet will often be your best friend there in conjunction with a little education.



This posting isn’t intended to be all encompassing, as stated in the first paragraph it sets a baseline of accuracy from which to expand if necessary. At which point I will bite my cynical tongue and not say what I’m thinking about that.

[Dave in Boise]

well written.. thank you very much!

- Dave in Boise

[Purdy Swoft]

People go to great expense and trouble trying to find the perfect gear lube. A few weeks ago somebody from Snyders said that they sold 140 and that Bratton sold the same because they sold it to them. That said why pay shipping from a model A vendor or buy five gallon quanities when 140 can usually be purchased locally and works as well as any other. I used 90 weight gear oil in the sixties and seventies and i'm not so sure that it didn't work better.

[marc hildebrant]

Uncle Bob,

So.....what do you run in your Model A transmission ?

Marc

[Terry, NJ]

One of the problems as I see it, Is the newbies (Me for one) tend to look upon our vintage iron as a real and precious antique that must be pampered. Hell when these cars were new, no one thought they were anything but cheap and fairly reliable transportation. Not to mention the lack of finances during the depression and the rationing of oil during the war. Maintenance was sketchy at best in most cases. But now they're old and venerable. It's only natural that we'd want the best of care for them. Not being around in 1930 it's hard to keep it in mind that the worst of today's lubricants is better then the best of the 20s and 30s and 40s. And we want to believe! Many of us are suckers for anything "new and Improved" and with today's improvements in oil technology, we can get "Magic in a bottle". Of course it's rarely as "magical" as the advertising would have us believe. Steam Cylinder Oil? what's that about? Sounds like something they used on the Mississippi steam boats of a century ago! 600W ? It's got to be more like peanut butter, than oil! Surely one of the "Magical" concoctions has got to be better. So we ask, and ask, and ask! Not realizing that we could probably just throw the junk that our grandfathers threw in there and it would be fine!
Terry

[marc hildebrant]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

In Longmont/Colorado they have an old time farm equipment show every year. The person running the Steam Tractor (burned wood) told me that he used Steam Cylinder Oil to lubricate the cylinders. I saw the oil and it was thick on a hot Colorado day.

Very large machine too!

Marc

[Kevin in NJ]

Some of the other considerations that are dear Uncle was talking about.

For example there are some oils made for gears that have a shearing action like most modern cars. Steam cylinder oils are designed for high pressure applications like straight cut gears. Keep in mind that the A is all straight cut gears that need a sticky oil that does not squish out easy.

Notice that many of the axle tubes do not have a rust problems and you have to work at cleaning the oils from the inside of the tubes. This is an important property to prevent the daily condensate some areas will get from causing rust on the parts. The original type oils just kind of get around and stick forever coating the housing.

It is interesting that the 'correct' 680 series oil has the same smell as the original type oil drained out of the rear and tranny. I know this sounds strange, but there are things you notice. Just like most of use wonder what happened to the gas smell when we put gas in our cars, the new stuff just does not smell right.

[Patrick L.]

It looks to me from the chart that ISO 680 is 190 wgt and ISO 460 is 140 wgt. [or should I say viscosity]. I've used 140 and 250 and really don't see much difference between the 2. I've also used 90 and prefer the heavier, but, I believe any would be fine. The only oil I couldn't use was the Lucas, it turned to foam and became un-shiftable.

[Mike V. Florida]

Wait two weeks and the question will be back. It is just the way it is!

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by marc hildebrant

Uncle Bob,

So.....what do you run in your Model A transmission ?

Marc

As a matter of convenience I use readily available 85w/140 gear lube, usually Chevron. Technically it's way overkill performance wise, but it's the recommended viscosity range and available in handy quarts. Some worry about the EP additive (sulfur-phosphorus compound), but there's little yellow metal in Model A gear boxes, and the EP isn't very reactive at the typical temps we see. EDIT: there are any number of other lubricants I would use were it not for the convenience factor. Most of the reasonable alternatives are not typically packaged in small usage containers nor readily available in standard retail venues.

Terry, I'm not sure where you would get a "peanut butter" consistency analogy from the data I presented. Perhaps it's your attempt at humor? Viscosity is measured in relatively sophisticated equipment to procedures tightly controlled for repeatability. No comparison to the results from a calibrated eyeball. As for "why a steam cylinder oil?"; the observation that lubricant technology was in it's infancy in the day is appropriate. Steam cylinder oils developed in the 19th century (such as 600w) used what was known at the time. In that case, the "w" likely represented whale oil, which over 100 years ago was learned to have natural adhesion in wet environments. We've learned in the progress of discovery that the molecular structure of whale oil contained polar molecules that would adhere in wet environs (similar to a magnet adhering to steel/iron). This enhanced the lubrication process. I would suppose that the Ford designer/engineers used a technology they believed would benefit the application and the polar nature of a steam cylinder oil would give added protection. Since the ban on whale oil other organic compounds were developed that had similar physical, polar, properties as a replacement.

Gear oils, industrial oils, motor oils, almost all compounded lubricants contain rust and oxidation inhibitors. Oils without at least those two additives are not readily available to the general consumer unless you're talking about straight mineral oils (often food grade) or small machinery oil e.g. sewing machine lube.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by Mike V. Florida

Wait two weeks and the question will be back. It is just the way it is!

LOL.........I doubt it will take that long Mike.....

[mrtexas]

Here is my 2ct worth. I bought 5 gallons of both 460 and 680 steam cylinder oil. A local Model A supplier sold what I didn't use.

680 will work in warm weather and make shifting a breeze, double clutching hardly needed. Forget about it in the cool weather we get in Texas in winter, shifting is difficult. With real cold weather 680 freezes up and you won't be able to shift at all. Use 460 in cold weather. Or better yet, use a more modern oil. Steam cylinder oil is very old fashioned!

[mrtexas]

I scheduled production of lube oils at a large Gulf Coast refinery for a couple years as a Chemical Engineer.

Another bit of trivia. Viscosity is a measure of a liquid's resistance to flow. The unit of measure are cSt or SUS. For lube oils in the metric system, the temperature of measurement is 40C(104F) and 100C(212F).

The primary measurement of lube oil quality, viscosity index, has to do with how the viscosity changes between 40C and 100C. The best lubricants change the least in viscosity with temperature. You don't want your lube oil to thin too much at high temperatures or stiffen up too much at low temperatures.

cSt stands for centi-Stokes and is a metric system unit

SUS stands for Saybolt Universal Seconds Viscosity can be measured by filling up a standard sized tube with a measured hole in the bottom of it at a specific temperature. SUS is the number of seconds it takes to empty the tube.

[BILL WILLIAMSON]

The Dog says,
When someone asks about gear oils in the future, just DON'T answer them!! Then, maybe, they'll learn to use the "SEARCH" feature & amuse themselves for HOURS!! Same for motor oil questions. Bill W.

[1931 flamingo]

I don't know, it just amazes (bothers) me that everyone wants to re-invent the wheel. Reliable suppliers to this hobby have gone out and given us 600W (I don't care about it's chemical make up, viscosity, characteristics, etc) in a convenient, easy to use bottle that's relatively inexpensive. Use it. MOST of us probably don't drive more than 1000-2000 miles a year. If you'd changed and put "some kind" of fresh gear oil in your trans and rear end, the lubricating qualities are going to outlast probably all of us. Sorry for the rant. As Bill says the "search" function is a valuable resource.
Paul in CT

[ctlikon0712]

Uncle Bob and mrtexas, thank you. I really got allot out of this.
I makes me think of the wildling girl in Game of Thrones.
"You know nothing John Snow!"

[Mitch//pa]

Originally Posted by 1931 flamingo

I don't know, it just amazes (bothers) me that everyone wants to re-invent the wheel. Reliable suppliers to this hobby have gone out and given us 600W (I don't care about it's chemical make up, viscosity, characteristics, etc) in a convenient, easy to use bottle that's relatively inexpensive. Use it. MOST of us probably don't drive more than 1000-2000 miles a year. If you'd changed and put "some kind" of fresh gear oil in your trans and rear end, the lubricating qualities are going to outlast probably all of us. Sorry for the rant. As Bill says the "search" function is a valuable resource.
Paul in CT

i agree and could also care less about the mumbo jumbo that gets dug up on this topic .. enough is enough

[Dusty]

OK, let me get this straight, 600W does not mean 600 weight


Lookin for the drain plug on my transmisson in WV
dusty

[Purdy Swoft]

No real problem here . 600W and oil threads just give us a chance to discuss it again, many still don't know the facts.

[redmodelt]

I was told the W was there because it was sold by weight not volume. So instead of buying a pint you bought a pound.

[Tom Wesenberg]

I think the "W" stand for "whatever"........ho hum....say good-night Gracey

[ctlikon0712]

I think it’s an interesting subject..... About like whitewalls!

[BILL WILLIAMSON]

Someone mentioned, "the new guys who don't know"----WELL! after they read pages & pages, they still won't know---OR they're waiting for someone to suggest the same thing the guy's ALREADY using, or plans to use!!
OH WELL, it keeps him off the street & out of trouble.
Bill W.

[BILL WILLIAMSON]

Originally Posted by ctlikon0712

I think it’s an interesting subject..... About like whitewalls!

GEEZ! CT, did you have to mention that? I'm just hopin' my "painted out" used spare tire doesn't "BLOOM OUT"!! The Dog just suggested I carry a MAGIC MARKER, just in case!! Who's he think he is? His BLACK & WHITE is akin to a whitewall tire! (He said, "But what about my "PUZZLE PART" spot on my starboard side????)
Bill W.

[Fred K-OR]

Originally Posted by ctlikon0712

I think it’s an interesting subject..... About like whitewalls!

Could also talk about what kind of oil to use in the engine. This ought to add a few more posts.

P.S. I like my ww on my 29 std coupe-----

[steve s]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Pondering how the W-weight "colloquialism" ever got started--I know it's all wrong, but it's just so darned handy that I use it myself--just rolls off the tongue so much easier than "ISO" or "SAE" or "viscosity".

My hypothesis is that it started with the advent of multigrade oils, where the "W" was used to display the oil's equivalency under winter test conditions, as in 10W-40, which tests like SAE 40 oil when hot but like SAE 10 oil when cold. People then made the understandable but erroneous leap from "W" for winter to "W" for weight. The "W" in Mobil's product in an entirely coincidental and equally uninformed way fed into this usage.

Does anyone remember the days before multigrade oils and if the oil viscosities we now refer to as, for example, "straight 30 weight" were then referred to in terms of weights? Or, was it referred to as SAE 30, or 30 grade, or 30 viscosity or somesuch?

Steve

[Smurkey]

Can we also put a period at the end of the "Marvel Mystery Oil" sentence...? It has been a couple of days since a three-page post on that subject.

[Don/WI]

For the folks that think that some subjects are brought to the front too often, why don't you just skip over them. It really is quite simple. Then you won't be so upset. It does not take up any room on your computer. All you need to do is scroll past the "unwanted" subjects. I have been reading this web-site since it started and personally learned some good information from this post. Didn't disturb me at all. As tom said, "Good night Gracie". Don/WI

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by steve s

Pondering how the W-weight "colloquialism" ever got started--I know it's all wrong, but it's just so darned handy that I use it myself--just rolls off the tongue so much easier than "ISO" or "SAE" or "viscosity".

............
Steve

How right you are Steve. But that's the nature of a colloquialism, the repetition breeds familiarity and familiarity is comfort. But having made the same observation as you I've often wondered how those who adhere to that phrasing can be comfortable with saying "10 weight 30"..........sounds clunky doesn't it?

Reminds me of non lubrication examples. There are those who don't understand the difference between the words your and you're. Because they sound very similar in pronunciation, many will use the possessive form (your) when they should be using the contraction (you're). For the blissfully uninformed there's nothing there to distinguish so no confusion. For those who do know the difference each time they see the wrong word used in a sentence their brain does a millisecond or two fart as their mind has to do a translation to understand what the writer really meant. Of course if you know the difference and point it out you're immediately labeled a grammar or spelling nazi. Those who don't care about the accuracy of word usage/language gang up for a variety of personal reasons. Look at this thread, and others of a similar nature, roughly half are compelled for some reason to denigrate to some degree the attempt to expand understanding, others appreciate it. Human nature in action.......

As for the question of origins of word usage, it's tough to tell, speculation is what we're left with. As implied in my original post I believe it came from our use of "heavy" or "light" to attempt to draw a verbal picture to distinguish a more viscous fluid from a less viscous one (perhaps stemming from a potentially unfair characterization that a heavy person moves more slowly than a lighter person). I'm an old fart but my time in the lubrication world didn't predate multi-grade oils. However, those who were old timers when I was a whipper snapper readily used the weight terminology so my guess would be its use predated multi-grade oils. As an added influence the comment above by redmodelt may have some merit. Traditionally greases have been sold by the pound rather than by liquid measure. And for reasons unknown to me, gear lubes have historically been classified within lubricant manufacturer categories as greases, even though they may be no more viscous than some lubricants classified as oils. There had to be some logic at some time, I just haven't explored what that may have been. Nomenclatures have a purpose (sometimes more than one). In petroleum a "bucket" of oil is called a 5 gallon pail, but put grease in the same container and it's a 35 pound pail. Then to really mess with your head a "barrel" is 42 gallons, a "drum" is 55. But then that nifty container that some here have seen used as a shop garbage can is known as a "1/4 barrel" if filled with 15 gallons of oil or " 120 #" when filled with grease. Of course if you multiply that 15 gallons by 4 you get neither 42 nor 55 gallons.

[Purdy Swoft]

Thanks Uncle Bob for the 600w info and the english refresher, it doesn't hurt a bit !!!

[Hotrodmyk]

OK, I have read thread after thread on this subject. Lots of experts and opinions. My question: had anyone experienced a failure by using modern lube such as 85 - 140?

[steve s]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

.......

As for the question of origins of word usage, it's tough to tell, speculation is what we're left with. As implied in my original post I believe it came from our use of "heavy" or "light" to attempt to draw a verbal picture to distinguish a more viscous fluid from a less viscous one ....

There is even a perverse technical error with this notion, too: The commonly cited kinematic viscosities (e.g., stokes, SUS) are defined as the absolute or dynamic viscosity (e.g., pascal-seconds, poise) divided by the density. Thus, for two fluids having the same absolute viscosity, the "heavier" one [insert rant about colloquial confusion of "weight" and "density"] would actually have the lower kinematic viscosity.

... more than anyone wanted to know, but, as long as we're getting stuff on the record, there it is.

Steve

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by steve s

... more than anyone wanted to know, but, as long as we're getting stuff on the record, there it is.

Steve

Yeah, but look at how much fun it is to get your geek on............

[Mike V. Florida]

Originally Posted by Hotrodmyk

OK, I have read thread after thread on this subject. Lots of experts and opinions. My question: had anyone experienced a failure by using modern lube such as 85 - 140?

No!

Nobody has had a failure from straight weight oil, synthetic or even detergent oil. No failures from corn head grease, penrite, or STP.

No failures from MMO or Deisel in the fuel.

This is what makes for all the responses to these questions. If using something would always cause a failure it could be eliminated, else it is just a personal opinion.