Switching my YZ to ATF?

[ossagp]

Oh,,Oil Formulations: Many if not most are driven by the engine and transmission makers. Many times when you look at a lable you will see whose specs it meets. Oil companies dont go to the expense of changing things without that. If it meets Allison, John Deere specs etc (and those companies have many that are differentiated by their own codes which will be listed as well) it was a formulation to meet a condition set down by those manufacturers. Met most of the time by a specific additive package.

[paul reed]

soon as i find my 25 foot pole and my flamesuit-i`ll post that link to the tranny repair site...i gotta search for it again...then you can toss me a beer

[Yardpro393]

ossa, you are absolutely correct.
the oil manufacturers manufacture products with a wide variety of applications.
what i meant was that the trfineries don't make a "motorcycle" specific oil. the same oil also falls within ratings of many other applications as well.

[Dart440]

Ive ran ATF in all the 2 strokes ive ever owned. Never had a clutch problem at all with any of them. We get ATF from quaker state in bulk drums so nobody ever misses a few pumps for either of my bikes...

I had a bottle of Belray gearsaver stuff given to me one time, I decided to give it a try and couldnt notice a difference?

ATF is cheap and it works good.

[Jaybird]

Type F ATF is fine to use in a two-stroke gearbox, as it is in a very familiar surroundings there.

ATF is also great for fork fluid as well as juice clutches.

Paul, perhaps you should actually cite your sources for all of your information. Sitting back and ridiculing someone for posting their opinion, and without so much as a link to information to back up your slam, is quite gay.

You seem to know much about nothing and little about most.
You claim to "shoot holes" in someones post, when you gave nothing but alleged anylitical data.

It may be your "style", but it seems like a big waste of ASCII....as well as folks time.

Did you get beat up alot when you were a kid? Is there a specific reason you pop off on most every subject without even a thimble full of any evidence to support your claims, save for the websites you claim to visit but can't seem to find again?

I'm new here and just trying to understand where you are coming from, since every thread I read here is full of you supplying nothing more than chin music.

And save your witty coembacks...you can throw mud at me all day long and it wont phase me. I just question why you want to fill threads up with your obviously less than learned info?
Do you actually feel that folks think you have it together?

[Thump_This]

i remember a passage in the bible that says "judge, yet not be judged." Paul has made some very useful points and i hate it when i see everyone put their crosshairs on him. its jsut not fair. i would hate it if other ATM'ers did that to me. the only thing i can say is Paul needs to be more direct. i have a hard time understanding his posts and they are all over the place. half the time filled with stuff not even pertaining to the question or discussion at hand. other than that i can see nothing to complain about. great thing about the USA is freedom of speech and freedom of choice. god bless all you ATM'ers. you are the greatest bunch of people i have met on the internet EVER. = )

[Honda_Rider_XR]

He is one of the funniest guys i have met, allthough i don't take him very seriously, thats how i view his posts. I think when you get his age, your sense of reality turns into a game No but seriously, i think he's funny. One smart fellow too.

[Yardpro393]

guys,
jay is miffed due to the problem arises when someone makes up facts when trying to argue thier point, or when they falsely claim expertiese on a subject.
ask faded and ossa

[paul reed]

well,in answer to that...someone here once said "Never,never argue with Paul,he is never wrong!!..and his posts are not short!!"...to that i responded something along the lines of my secret is to at least have a foundation to stand on,as the bullcrap gets real deep here,real quick!!...first off,many folks in human history have been attacked by the rabble when their words or ideas were not accepted...an example of this is Galileo-Italian astronomer and phsicist;1564-1642;it was he who demonstrated the truth of the Copernian theory with the telescope;he was condemned for heresy by the Inquisition....my second example is Sir Isaac Newton;1642-1727;English mathematician and philosopher;formulated the binomial theorem,the laws of gravity and motion,and the elements of differential calculus...i also bring up Newton as it was he who was responsible for offering explainations on the subject of fluids in regards to/and relating to movement in his book 2 of The Principia...and if you pay close attention when reading the link info...well...now,as far as any contemptuous use by myself of the word rabble,let me remind the reader here that rabble refers to a disorderly crowd or mob,which in this case,to me is seen as two or more at any given time...maybe even more in more than in just one thread at a time...constraints on my time,other more important obligations,and the general thought that most folks here can think for themselves and are capable of finding out the nessasary information to verify my posts has lead to my being slack on giving any links to show what time of day it is...and the links i will now provide should show who`s full of bull*#** and is shooting from the hip from those who know their salts or at least have a solid basis for their opinions...it is not hard to see a pattern in the posts that seem to attack credibility in my opinions and posts...and as far as statements go about me thinking and/or posting in many directions at once-as to fly off in a tangent ,throw in a curve or to seemingly change course in thought...when you`re reading the links i will provide,consider that Newton was well known for thinking in tangents as much in our physical world is interconnected...many brilliant or healthy minds think that way-mine included thank you...maybe some of my posts seem to fly right over some readers heads...well,i think they just might be missing the point i was possibly trying to make...as it would seem at least half way logical to make such a suggestion or statement at the time...sorry if you missed the point...i`ll spare adding the forum link i mentioned as i feel the need to have a little privacy in my personal life...and i will again state that making telephone calls to a certain University i claimed to attend in another post is beyond what i feel is your average Joe threadreaders buissness...i don`t need folks here checking into my personal background...i`m very sorry now that i have shared personal information on my jobs as i did-it was a fun thread on what we did to make a buck to support our dirtbike habits-or so i thought...i didn`t know i`d be rediculed by a certain moderator who lies and says i said i won a four stroke national...i might ask where i said this info?...i also might point out that my credentials were in fact brought out and laid on the table,so to speak...as well as my previous jobs...credentia or credentials is based on credence,which is defined as beleif,especially in the reports or testamony of another...so,you see my credentials here are at stake...credentials don`t have to be on a stinkin peice of paper...now,the mods closed the last thread where i was slandered,soon as a certain moderator was exposed or whatever happened...i just don`t like personal background checks and slander...and sorry if i set your buddies straight in their posts before...or now...here`s some informative links-some good reading here this one really makes me look correct-the others well...LOL... [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and about Sir Isaac Newton-this one is extra cool too..enjoy...allhough somebody earlier kept argueing without even clicking and reading...LOL...have a nice day! maybe we can all just get along...i`d prefer it that way ...i also have more links,but these make the points quite well..... [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[paul reed]

pesky links!...i`d say what former USA President Ronald Raygun said after a speech when he didn`t know that the cameras where still rolling....but this would really upset the moderators...BTW...i got another link comin...to hopefully set the matter straight once and for all...then we can maybe all start getting along alot better around here...i don`t hold a grudge on folks...i figure,they`re just the way they are...if we were all the same-what a boring world this would really be

[Jaybird]

hmmm,it`s that guy from the peanut gallery again....that pesky chain hawker,the infamous Mr. Missinglink....i thought i left him to mumble incoherently to the rest of the peasants at the oring thread....he seems to be a hard one to shake....especially after considering this thread was buried for three days....maybe if i just ignore the guy,he`ll just go away

Paul seems to feel he's correct on every issue he enters into, which seems to be just about each and every one.
Always claiming that the "bullcrap is getting deep in here".

Thump_this,
I agree that one should be careful as to how deep they jump in the critisizing pool. It tends to let one find the deep end fast.
But to sit back and listen to a person throw unfounded claims, when they have less than nothing to back them up...and then have the sack to critisize someone elses info, is hard for me to do.
Paul critisizes everyone who dissents from his info, as if he were the utmost authority on the issue.
The thing is, there are folks who are more than up on some subjects that Paul enters into, and they know immediately that the guy is full of it. But rather than discuss the issue in an adult and constructive manner, Paul seems to feel the need to discredit them and call names.
Many operate in this mode. It's a matter of trying to discredit the opposing debater in an attempt to one-up them. This will throw some doubt, in the minds of the less than learned, on the credibility of his opposition.
When Paul uses this method of operation, it IS fair to come back at him with full force. He is doing no less.
And as far as "freedom of speech" goes....we all have the right, in America, to be ignorant and spout off unfounded claims. The freedom to speak one's mind has nothing to do with whether the information is credible or pertinant.

Paul,
To compare yourself to a couple of the worlds greatest thinkers, in an attempt to qualify your responses, shows me you not only have less than a clue on how worthy your information actually is, but you teeter on the edge of delusional as well.
And I can get along with the worst of people as well as the best. I have no problem with you personally....as a matter of fact, I would enjoy riding with you. It would be a pleasure to ride with a guy who has it all figured out. Unless of course you don't have it figured out, and you aren't nearly half as fast or good as you think you are on that oversized tank of a bike. In that situation, I would think it very embarrasing for you to get scalded by an old, fat guy.
I'll debate till the cows come home on any issue that you want. But please bring some ammo with you next time. Anylitical data is merely opinion with sugar coating. And, personal experience data is fine, IF the person actually experienced it. You make it very hard for me to believe half of the experiences you claim.
Try a few facts on occasion. Proven facts, not "the world according to Paul" facts. Galileo and Newton, you aint!

I realize this has gotten WAY off topic, and I appologize to the board.

[Yardpro393]

what exactly are the links you provided supposed to show ??
one is a link to an amsoil advertisment with some info on regular oils, NOTHING is specific to ATF which is what this debate is on....
and the other is a biography of issac newton.
where do they fit into an argument other than just regurgatating information. they have no purpose in this debate.

[ossagp]

Yeah,,come on all,,it was a "fun" post.

[paul reed]

eye fer one sure gotta laugh outta reading the responses..HAR HAR HAR!!!

[ossagp]

Anybody besides me wonder how the guy who started the thread came out after his oil change?

[paul reed]

last i heard his gearbox disintigrated into mush:

[ossagp]

Yeah,,I would have guessed that if I followed your logic Paul. My guess is it still wont shift any better,,,which really was his only question, since he said he had decided to make the switch.

[3dzoomz]

The only thing that comes to mind here is hmmm....
And all I know is I fueled up and rode today, I might not of went as high as some, as deep as others. But it sure in the heck beat the hell out of just talking about it.

And for a almost over the hill guy it still felt fast, tight and balanced. Now if I could just tune the wife that good <G>

Zoom

[04whyzee]

Originally posted by ossagp
Anybody besides me wonder how the guy who started the thread came out after his oil change?

I'm here. I ended up using the rest of the regular Silkolene that I have! I may end up switching to ATF yet but I still am not 100% sure. If there is any chance it could ruin my bottem end then I will most definitly not do it. A lot of posts in this thread have been pointless and completely off-topic. The slandering and crap is gettin old guys. I know that you all think you are right and that is just human nature but cmon! It's the INTERNET guys! So anyway I'm off to sleep. Gotta do a few laps in my head before the race this weekend!

[paul reed]

no worries Andy...like i said before-i`m just giving my opinion on material i have read...0n 2-09,i suggested he might consider polishing his shifting mechanism...as i was growing up and learning...i was advised to pay heed to what engineers say...my post on 12-13-04 mentioned additives packages added to any given basestock...this is very important as many folks do not have any clue what is in any given fluid...the link i previously gave were told to be reprinted from an industry publication...it also mentions additive packages...and yes,he is an engineer as well as an amsoil dealer...he is probably unbiased on this subject-as he sells both gear oil and atf...and he mentions exactly what i`ve been saying all along here...additive packages...if you wanna read about atf additives causing the chemical soft peel i mentioned...do a simple google search with the words..."atf chemical soft peel"...click on the top website given...in the thread there will be as many failures as successes mentioned when using atf in manual gearboxes...i took note of what Romke says...and Widman...and Evelrods saying "nothing risked-nothing gained"...well,i can`t be risking my gearbox...and i honor my teachers by following their advice to not second guess lubrication recommendations given by the engineers...i never have said it wouldn`t work...i said it was less than optimal...something about shear...viscosity ratings being diminished due to microscopic-level lubricant strand trimming...i`m quite sure spectrographic analysis of gear oil versus ATF samples would show many particles present that would tend to indicate that atf does not do as good of job in protecting the insides of your gearbox...anybody reading this is free to use whatever they want...i just gave my opinion based on what i`ve been able to learn about this subject...as i`ve mentioned before-this debate is over 20 years old...my family has been repairing gearboxes since the wheels were made of wood...it was allways their judgement to stick to the recommended fill...i`m done with this thread-you can use whatever you please...