600W Substitute

Meropa 680 is still availiable last I knew. We used to use it in through feed steam heated cookers. Great gear oil IMHO. Rod
 
For the sake of accuracy the rear end gearing in the Fords discussed here are classified as spiral bevel gears. To save me a bunch of keyboarding here is a pretty good description for those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_bevel_gear

As has been stated maybe a bazillion times on here, 600w in today's viscosity parlance is an ISO 460 grade, which converts directly to an SAE gear lube viscosity grade 140. Within a single companies products it could be very likely that an ISO 460 industrial lube and an SAE 140 automotive gear lube use the same base oil (which would be in excess of 90% of what's in the container), the only difference might be in the additive package (depending on intended application). Any perception of difference in viscosity or "feel" would indicate the need to get the eye, or fingers, or butt recalibrated.
 
I agree with the gentleman that suggested STP Rodger Kaufman before he past away was the model a tech director he said that's what he always used .He drove a car that he freshly restored 3600 miles in a month time and really put the carto the test and he had no drive train problems so if it's good enough for Rodger it's good enough for me !!!!
 
Uncle Bob said:
For the sake of accuracy the rear end gearing in the Fords discussed here are classified as spiral bevel gears. To save me a bunch of keyboarding here is a pretty good description for those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_bevel_gear

As has been stated maybe a bazillion times on here, 600w in today's viscosity parlance is an ISO 460 grade, which converts directly to an SAE gear lube viscosity grade 140. Within a single companies products it could be very likely that an ISO 460 industrial lube and an SAE 140 automotive gear lube use the same base oil (which would be in excess of 90% of what's in the container), the only difference might be in the additive package (depending on intended application). Any perception of difference in viscosity or "feel" would indicate the need to get the eye, or fingers, or butt recalibrated.
Click to expand...

I've been repeating the correct info for 15 years! The original 600w was ISO 680 with the nearest SAE gear oil equivalent being SAE 250. Ford changed to SAE 250 in 1932.
 
Marco Tahtaras said:
I've been repeating the correct info for 15 years! The original 600w was ISO 680 with the nearest SAE gear oil equivalent being SAE 250. Ford changed to SAE 250 in 1932.
Click to expand...

Ah good, someone who sweats the details. For the very few who care we might be able to advance the discussion.

I suspect, even in 1932, there were ambient temperature considerations specified. SAE 250, in relative terms for automotive use, is very viscous. In my opinion too viscous for all but the most extreme of high temps. Just as an example; heavy duty trucks and off road equipment that use rear end gears not particularly different in design and assembly specifics don't specify that viscous a lubricant today, and they are subject to much more load than any early Ford. Granted, there are differences in additive technology from 80ish years ago, but then why would we not upgrade with the times/technology?

As an aside, an ISO 680 is borderline for the measurement range specified for both SAE 140 and 250, so, depending on actual testing results it could be rated as one or the other.
 
I like John Lavoy (spelling) think luberplate might be the answer . I will try it and see if it stays soft but not leak. Tony
 
Uncle Bob said:
Ah good, someone who sweats the details. For the very few who care we might be able to advance the discussion.

I suspect, even in 1932, there were ambient temperature considerations specified. SAE 250, in relative terms for automotive use, is very viscous. In my opinion too viscous for all but the most extreme of high temps. Just as an example; heavy duty trucks and off road equipment that use rear end gears not particularly different in design and assembly specifics don't specify that viscous a lubricant today, and they are subject to much more load than any early Ford. Granted, there are differences in additive technology from 80ish years ago, but then why would we not upgrade with the times/technology?

As an aside, an ISO 680 is borderline for the measurement range specified for both SAE 140 and 250, so, depending on actual testing results it could be rated as one or the other.
Click to expand...

You need to take a step back in time to get a clearer picture between then and now. You would find it interesting to read both ford's recommendations as well as the SAE specifications from the period. SAE was advancing their specs for lubricants during the Model A period and was a little more refined by 1932-33. SAE handbooks from the period provide more pieces of the puzzle if you like to dig (and understand) like I do.

With that said it's clearly a moot point. A Model A will survive almost anything (even STP!) or why else would there be so many survivors. The common practice of expediency/convenience (whatever is available) won't show any negative signs in our lifetime at 1,000 - 2,000 miles a year as most folks drive them .
 
For the steering box whats wrong with lubra plate.? It's thick enough not to leak and soft enough to lub the gear,. Tony While I am posting text not pictures yesterday the text never appeared ?? What am I doing wrong ? This is not the first time this has happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top