Wildguzzi.com

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: rbond on March 30, 2015, 11:07:25 AM

Title: moly, is it really needed
Post by: rbond on March 30, 2015, 11:07:25 AM
Since I am using full synthetic oil in the rear end, do I still need to put moly in too? With synthetic it just seems like overkill.....
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Two Checks on March 30, 2015, 11:14:05 AM
As long as the oil is rated GL-5 it isnot needed.
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Lannis on March 30, 2015, 11:15:07 AM
Since I am using full synthetic oil in the rear end, do I still need to put moly in too? With synthetic it just seems like overkill.....

Check your owner's manual for the bike you're riding.  It has a whole lot better information in it than the "Well I use it and my bike's doing fine" and "Well I don't use it and my bike's running fine" that you'll get here ....

Lannis
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Antietam Classic Cycle on March 30, 2015, 11:29:37 AM
Helps if we know what bike.
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Wayne Orwig on March 30, 2015, 11:37:21 AM
Don't hate me for feeding an oil thread....
But what the heck does using synthetic have to do with the EP additive? If the manual says use moly, don't you technically still need moly?
And yes, I know that most rear dive lube has some moly.
 
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Two Checks on March 30, 2015, 12:49:41 PM
The moly requirement was when GL-4 was the recommended lubricant.
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: sib on March 30, 2015, 12:56:28 PM
I agree with Lannis here.  it's amazing what you can find in the owner's manual, answers to burning questions that get asked over and over again on this forum, including "what should my valve adjustments be?", what should my spark plug gap be?", what weight oil should I use?", "what tire pressures should I use?", etc.  For some mysterious reason, the manufacturer has done research to determine these things, and it actually releases the results to the general public, in the form of owner's manuals.  Who would have thought?
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: youcanrunnaked on March 30, 2015, 01:08:32 PM
If a rear diff is spec'd to use GL-4 oil + moly, I would think it best to use that, rather than GL-5 without moly.  While GL-5 has a slightly higher EP rating that GL-4, how can you say whether GL-5 alone is the EP equivalent of GL-4 + moly, without extensive testing to prove it?  Otherwise, you're just guessing.

Also, my understanding is that GL-5 causes additional wear on brass and other soft metals, which is why it is not recommended for certain transmissions, where it can muck up the synchros.  No idea if that concern applies to any Guzzi rear differentials (or transmission), though.  Anyone?
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Dilliw on March 30, 2015, 01:35:39 PM
If a rear diff is spec'd to use GL-4 oil + moly, I would think it best to use that, rather than GL-5 without moly.  While GL-5 has a slightly higher EP rating that GL-4, how can you say whether GL-5 alone is the EP equivalent of GL-4 + moly, without extensive testing to prove it?  Otherwise, you're just guessing.

Also, my understanding is that GL-5 causes additional wear on brass and other soft metals, which is why it is not recommended for certain transmissions, where it can muck up the synchros.  No idea if that concern applies to any Guzzi rear differentials (or transmission), though.  Anyone?

The EV's were spec'd for Rotra MP which is listed as meeting GL-5.  The spec was MP 80/90 + molykote and there's no mention of GL-4 or GL-5.

I doubt a little moly can hurt though and it's pretty cheap to get:


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CPL8UPY/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CPL8UPY/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER)
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Dilliw on March 30, 2015, 01:44:21 PM
Oh by bike:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.harpermoto.com%2Fpm65%2FTechnical%2520Data%2520Sheet.pdf&ei=XZkZVbbJHK3IsATEhYCAAg&usg=AFQjCNEe3m9M23wA2OM3SJJatI40hZWucw&sig2=VB50EMPSO37o-UUm3KiQcA&bvm=bv.89381419,d.cWc&cad=rja

Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Two Checks on March 30, 2015, 01:57:23 PM
Actually the GL-5 doesn't muck up sychros, it's too slippery for many. Not enough friction for the synchros to slow in order to do their job.

And the OP specifically asked about the final drive, so the point about synchros is moot, albeit good general info.
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: sib on March 30, 2015, 02:04:54 PM
Not sure about the other MG gearboxes, but the 5-sp on the V7 Stone/Special/Racer doesn't have synchros, it uses clash gears (horrible, but descriptive term).  And no brass parts as far as I'm aware.
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Lannis on March 30, 2015, 02:10:31 PM
Actually the GL-5 doesn't muck up sychros, it's too slippery for many. Not enough friction for the synchros to slow in order to do their job.

And the OP specifically asked about the final drive, so the point about synchros is moot, albeit good general info.

He did ask.   He (per previous posts) has a 2012 V7C.

Looks like the best way we could help him is by pulling up a copy of the owner's or the shop manual and letting him know whether a moly additive of any kind is specified for his bike?

Nobody's done that yet; we're just doing the usual thing of going back and forth about GL4 and GL5 and the difference between gearboxes and transmissions and synthetic and dino and all that.

I don't have access to a copy myself.

Lannis
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: HDGoose on March 30, 2015, 02:24:28 PM
RTFM.
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Dilliw on March 30, 2015, 02:32:57 PM
Closest I found was 2011:

http://www.thisoldtractor.com/mg_manuals/owners_manual_v7_cafe_classic_2011_ed.01_usa-cdn.pdf

No Moly listed.
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Arizona Wayne on March 30, 2015, 02:42:56 PM
I've used GL5 rearend oil in an `71 Ambo., `80 Convert, `81 CX100(over 100K mi.), `87 LM IV, `04  750 Breva with NO moly added and have had NO rearend oil issues whatsoever !!   ;-T  Give this argument a rest.
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Sasquatch Jim on March 30, 2015, 03:05:55 PM
  I thought the moly was there to help blacken your fingers when working on the bike.
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: charlie b on March 30, 2015, 03:40:29 PM
No, the moly only works if you are wearing a white shirt and a tshirt does not count.

The more expensive it is the better the moly works :)
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Triple Jim on March 30, 2015, 03:57:28 PM
Moly and Never-Seez are very similar in their ability to color things.  A gram of either one is capable of covering fourteen square miles of surface in a dark silver-grey.
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: oldbike54 on March 30, 2015, 04:11:46 PM
Moly and Never-Seez are very similar in their ability to color things.  A gram of either one is capable of covering fourteen square miles of surface in a dark silver-grey.

 I once sat down on a full open tube of high temp anti seize with predictable results  ::)

  Dusty
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Groover on March 30, 2015, 04:23:40 PM
Some info here on this thread I posted a while ago. Lots of input, and many hours of research on my end and great input from others. - yes, I obsess sometimes, and the linked thread shows sings of my sickness  ;D

http://wildguzzi.com/forum/index.php?topic=70913.0 (http://wildguzzi.com/forum/index.php?topic=70913.0)


Good luck.
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Antietam Classic Cycle on March 30, 2015, 04:46:22 PM
So after Lannis did his best Sherlock Holmes impression and found that the bike in question in the original post was a 2012 V7, I had a look at the owner's manual where it simply says: AGIP GEAR MG SAE 85W-140 . No mention of moly. Draw your own conclusion.

Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Chuck in Indiana on March 30, 2015, 05:16:07 PM
So after Lannis did his best Sherlock Holmes impression and found that the bike in question in the original post was a 2012 V7, I had a look at the owner's manual where it simply says: AGIP GEAR MG SAE 85W-140 . No mention of moly. Draw your own conclusion.



Yeah but.... you're trusting a Guzzi manual to be correct.  ;D
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: ohiorider on March 30, 2015, 05:20:49 PM
Have to ask ..... don't most motorcycle transmissions use shift dogs vs synchronizer rings?  My 1200 Sport and Griso8vSE both shift extremely smoothly, but so does my 24 year old R100GS that uses shift dogs.  If my Sport and Griso have synchronizers, I've been doing a lot of throttle/clutch/rpm synchronization for nothing.  But I don't think they do.

Bob
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Rough Edge racing on March 30, 2015, 05:47:58 PM
 Motorcycle transmissions use dog clutch but no cone clutches (synchos)...Cars have "dogs" also  but the teeth are very fine and need the synchro cone clutches to match up the dog teeth speeds for silent engagement.
   Down shift a bike slowly without blipping the throttle and they all crunch to some degree.
  Modern design cars tyranny generally have fibre synchros suitable for use with ATF , motor oil or lighter gear oils . The older vehicles and some newer trucks have what people call brass, but is usually forged bronze synchro rings. They rely on friction and for some, as mentioned ,GL5 oil is too slippery because of friction modifiers.
 There's also reports of the increased sulfur in GL5 oil eroding the yellow metals. Generally though to happen at high oil temperatures.....
 Does a Guzzi have brass or bronze thrust washers in the trans or rear axle? If so and no one is reporting problems ...it's of no concern I suppose
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Triple Jim on March 30, 2015, 06:03:57 PM
Does a Guzzi have brass or bronze thrust washers in the trans or rear axle? If so and no one is reporting problems ...it's of no concern I suppose

From the thread linked above:
Quote from: Triple Jim
Does any Guzzi transmission or final drive contain any "yellow metal" parts that GL-5 oil would tend to corrode?

Quote from: Antietam Classic Cycle
Yes. Loop and Tonti rear drives have a thrust washer that is some sort of yellow metal and all of the gears of 4 spds. run on yellow metal bushings. That is why I only use CRC Sta-Lube GL-4 Gear Oil or a GL-5 that specifies "safe for yellow metals" in 4 spds.
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Dick on March 30, 2015, 06:08:54 PM
Yeah but.... you're trusting a Guzzi manual to be correct.  ;D

What was he thinking?  ;D
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Lannis on March 30, 2015, 06:23:51 PM
Yeah but.... you're trusting a Guzzi manual to be correct.  ;D

Oh, I'd MUCH rather trust the "average" of 17 different opinions that say you should mix everything from acetone to moly to clarified butter to straight 90W to Marvel Mystery Oil into your gasoline, engine oil, and/or rear drive lube ....

If I "average out" any advice on the right lube for my bike, it'll be what Charlie and/or Pete says, which is generally "go with the manual".   

Lannis
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Dilliw on March 30, 2015, 06:43:27 PM
So after Lannis did his best Sherlock Holmes impression and found that the bike in question in the original post was a 2012 V7, I had a look at the owner's manual where it simply says: AGIP GEAR MG SAE 85W-140 . No mention of moly. Draw your own conclusion.



And interesting enough, although my owner's manual says to use molykote the Technical Data Sheet I linked above from Moto Guzzi Service does not even for the models going back to the early '90s.  
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Chuck in Indiana on March 30, 2015, 07:48:59 PM
And interesting enough, although my owner's manual says to use molykote the Technical Data Sheet I linked above from Moto Guzzi Service does not it for even the models going back to the early '90s. 

And I reiterate:  ;D
Quote
Yeah but.... you're trusting a Guzzi manual to be correct.  Grin
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: RinkRat II on March 30, 2015, 10:42:13 PM
I once sat down on a full open tube of high temp anti seize with predictable results  ::)

  Dusty
   Oh Dusty,your such a tease....now they tell me Clarified Butter . Decisions Decisions........

     PaulB :BEER: :BEER:
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: krglorioso on March 30, 2015, 10:50:33 PM
I once sat down on a full open tube of high temp anti seize with predictable results  ::)

  Dusty

You slippery devil, you.

Ralph
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Morizzi on March 30, 2015, 11:40:14 PM
Need/needed is a funny term. No lubricant is needed in an engine. It will run for maybe a minute without any and for years with the cheapest oil you can buy. It all depends on what sort of life you are hoping for.

I've written about moly before but I'll do it again.  :BEER:

Friction results in heat. If the rear drive runs cooler with it than without then there is less friction. Simple!  ;-T

I use mineral oil in all of mine and the rear drives run cooler with moly or its equivalent tungsten disulphide. I can measure the difference with an IR thermometer.

Give it a try. Go on. let's be scientific.  :BEER:

Rod in Oz.
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: youcanrunnaked on March 31, 2015, 07:10:58 AM
And interesting enough, although my owner's manual says to use molykote the Technical Data Sheet I linked above from Moto Guzzi Service does not even for the models going back to the early '90s.  

Tech Note 010-2006 (re: Lubricants) also says nothing about adding moly to the "gearbox"  ::) of any of the models listed, including my hydro EV, even though my MOM says to add it.  So does the Tech Note supersede the manual, or did those crazy Italians simply overlook their own specifications?  In this case I choose to go with the advice I got in the MSF BRC:  "Always listen to your MOM."  It's not that much of a burden to add a shot of moly, and it can't possibly hurt.

Also, since I am using the same gear oil in the transmission and the rear diff, I choose a mineral oil.  Maybe it will help keep that plastic bearing cage in the transmission intact, maybe it won't.   :-\
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Two Checks on March 31, 2015, 07:19:48 AM
Amazingv how a final drive became a transmission.
It's a modern miracle!  :bow
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: sib on March 31, 2015, 07:46:59 AM
Amazingv how a final drive became a transmission.
It's a modern miracle!  :bow

Well, it DOES transmit power from the gearbox to the wheel.
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Rough Edge racing on March 31, 2015, 08:10:33 AM
Need/needed is a funny term. No lubricant is needed in an engine. It will run for maybe a minute without any and for years with the cheapest oil you can buy. It all depends on what sort of life you are hoping for.

I've written about moly before but I'll do it again.  :BEER:

Friction results in heat. If the rear drive runs cooler with it than without then there is less friction. Simple!  ;-T

I use mineral oil in all of mine and the rear drives run cooler with moly or its equivalent tungsten disulphide. I can measure the difference with an IR thermometer.

Give it a try. Go on. let's be scientific.  :BEER:

Rod in Oz.


 Have you made comparisons with different brand oils or synthetics without the moly additive?
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: Tobit on March 31, 2015, 08:21:21 AM
Oh by bike:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.harpermoto.com%2Fpm65%2FTechnical%2520Data%2520Sheet.pdf&ei=XZkZVbbJHK3IsATEhYCAAg&usg=AFQjCNEe3m9M23wA2OM3SJJatI40hZWucw&sig2=VB50EMPSO37o-UUm3KiQcA&bvm=bv.89381419,d.cWc&cad=rja

That's useful!  Saved to my library, thanks!  Now if I can plot it out on a 24"x36" sheet, it will hang in the garage.

Interesting, "gearbox" and "transmission" refer to transmission and final drive.  What's in a name?

Tobit
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: youcanrunnaked on March 31, 2015, 08:24:46 AM

Interesting, "gearbox" and "transmission" refer to transmission and final drive.  What's in a name?


Except MG is not even consistent in their translations.  In that 2006 Tech Note, "transmission" is transmission, and "gearbox" is rear differential.    :o
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: youcanrunnaked on March 31, 2015, 08:37:18 AM
Ok,  What to call it?  Transmission? Gearbox?  Bevel box?  Final drive?  Not-a-CARC?  I give up.   :P
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: rodekyll on March 31, 2015, 07:43:01 PM
Except that the guzzi does not use a differential on account of there is only one rear wheel -- nothing to differentiate.
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: LowRyter on March 31, 2015, 07:53:32 PM
rear end
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: rbond on April 01, 2015, 02:44:24 PM
So it is a definite yes and no? I think the component in question is scientifically called a '90 degree rotational redirecting, reduction, bevel geared, energy transmitting, all metal, in an oil bath mechanical device'. Thanks for everyone in clearing up / muddying the water advice. You guys are hilarious!!! Even if nothing concrete is decided on, it is very entertaining.  :pop
Title: Re: moly, is it really needed
Post by: sib on April 01, 2015, 05:24:39 PM
Indifferential.