ATF Type F Substitute For Hydrostatic

[HardRockNM]

Ha. The thick plottens.
Do you have a Sundstrand model number for either or both.? Not a Type 15 perchance.?

Preliminarily, based on a slightly older model with a lot of parts commonality..
Pump is a Sundstrand 20-2045
Motor is a Sundstrand 22-4003

 

[Coaldust]

This opens up a few options. The 20 series is a common with ag machines. JD Hygard would work.

 

[Coaldust]

DIN 51524-3 (HVLP, part 3) in ISO 32 gives you a lot of options. Go big with Chevron Clarity 32.

 

[Nige]

Go big with Chevron Clarity 32.

Interesting you'd go with an ashless oil. Any specific reason.?

Also I came across some more detailed Sundstrand information that specified a "typical" viscosity of 200 SUS @ 100 F and 50 SUS @ 210 F when using a hydraulic oil in one of their hydrostatic drives. Wouldn't that be closer to (or bang on even) an ISO 46.?

 

[Nige]

It won't scan but the text to accompany the illustration below is as follows: -

"The following types of oil have been used successfully in the hydrostatic transmission.
1. Anti-wear hydraulic oil.
2. Automatic Transmission Fluid Type F.
3. Hydraulic Transmission Fluid. The type used by the agricultural industry for combined transmission, hydraulic, and wet brake systems. (I assume by this they are talking about a product meeting a specification something like Allison C-4 or Caterpillar TO-4).
Your best assurance for a quality product is the assistance that can be offered by a fluid supplier. All major oil companies are quite capable of providing suitable products."

 

[Coaldust]

No particular reason for ashless, other than having Clarity on the brain and a pallet of pails in my service truck. It’s ISO clean in the bucket. That’s a nice feature.

He was looking for something economical, reviewing his post. That does rule out Clarity. A chat with the local distributors could help answer the most economical question. What they have on the shelf will determine that.

Considering the New Mexico climate, 46 could be a better choice. Good point.

 

[HardRockNM]

No particular reason for ashless, other than having Clarity on the brain and a pallet of pails in my service truck. It’s ISO clean in the bucket. That’s a nice feature.

He was looking for something economical, reviewing his post. That does rule out Clarity. A chat with the local distributors could help answer the most economical question. What they have on the shelf will determine that.

Considering the New Mexico climate, 46 could be a better choice. Good point.

Surface temperature range is about 15-110°F. Being underground, actual operating temperatures are more moderate.

For the time being, the machine is being operated in a load-and-carry capacity on a decline averaging 15% grade with segments ranging from level to about 25%. Tramming distance from the current working levels is about a quarter mile. It will shortly be shifted over to loading trucks (with a tram distance of maybe three hundred feet on level ground from face to loading bay) shortly. When loading trucks, the speed-on-grade issue isn't really relevant but I'd like to get it resolved.

My working theory is that the pump cannot supply enough flow under those conditions to reach the rated tramming speed, due to the higher viscosity of the ISO 46. I should be able to get LV Hygard locally through the Deere dealership in town.

 

[Coaldust]

Just a random thought, at the next PM, it might be worth checking case drain volume just to see how healthy the system is, as another data point.

 

[HardRockNM]

Just a random thought, at the next PM, it might be worth checking case drain volume just to see how healthy the system is, as another data point.

Now you've got me thinking it could be a motor shifter issue. I'll check the adjustment, it might not be shifting into low range which would cause bogging/stalling under heavy load...

 

[cfherrman]

Since it's possible to use 3. Hydraulic Transmission Fluid such as c4, could he use 15w40 then?

 

[Nige]

So here are a few thoughts in no particular order based on what's gone on so far.

1. The oil selection for this hydrostatic transmission is not just limited to ATF Type F.
2. The text "The following types of oil have been used successfully in the hydrostatic transmission" in Post #25 above gives me the impression that the three oil types mentioned are just the ones the OEM knows about and not necessarily a comprehensive list of what will work.
3. Recommended viscosity information is thin on the ground. However the 50 SUS @ 100F & 200 @ 210F from the Sundstrand manual I found point directly to an ISO 46, maybe in truth something just a hair heavier. See chart in Post #25.

Bearing that in mind if the OP is using an ISO 46 oil at the moment I think I would be looking somewhere other than the oil as the root cause of the performance issue. Try an ISO 32 if the mood takes you, but TBH I would be very surprised if it proved to be the solution.

 

[terex herder]

To further muddy the waters, Deere recommends a 15w-40 engine oil in the hydrostat/hydraulic system of their skidsteer loaders. ISTR Danfoss swashplate pumps, maybe Rexroth motors.

 

[John C.]

The fluids types used in different hydraulic systems in my experience began with piston pumps clear back in the nineteen seventies. I worked for a dealer that sold Link-Belts and Poclain excavators. Both had piston pumps and they used different oils. The Link-Belts used AW hydraulic fluids while the Poclains used ATF. The difference in those days had to do with heat. The Poclain machines had multiple radiators with belt driven fans and the systems would get hot real quick if one of those belts broke. Operating pressures were in the 5,000 PSI range. The ATF would stand up to the heat better that the AW fluids. The pumps were not variable flow either which I believe was a large part of the heating problem. The Link-Belts were Linde systems and were pressure compensated and didn't require so many coolers and I don't recall the pressure ranges but don't believe the LS5400 and LS5800 machines running that high pressure.

When the Japanese machines showed up in the eighties and nineties with variable displacement pump systems, the choice of oils was always AW hydraulic fluids. The cost per gallon was a little less than half the amount for engine oils. I was paying $1.99 per gallon for hydraulic on contract and about $3.49 per gallon for engine oils. We were told to use the AW over the engine oils because of the anti-foaming agents used. In the two thousands time frame recommendations started getting more complicated. I still have customers that won't pay the higher price of the engine oils and use AW no matter the recommendations. I haven't seen any failures that I would say are caused by the oils. I do have some machines that I've gotten running that had significant amounts of water in the systems and they still run fine for whatever reason. It does lead me to believe depending on the brand of machine that the types of oils is not as important as just keeping it clean in the first place. I don't recommend oils anymore to anyone. I also don't comment on what oils are being used.

 

[Nige]

It does lead me to believe depending on the brand of machine that the types of oils is not as important as just keeping it clean in the first place.

This...............

 

[HardRockNM]

So here are a few thoughts in no particular order based on what's gone on so far.

1. The oil selection for this hydrostatic transmission is not just limited to ATF Type F.
2. The text "The following types of oil have been used successfully in the hydrostatic transmission" in Post #25 above gives me the impression that the three oil types mentioned are just the ones the OEM knows about and not necessarily a comprehensive list of what will work.
3. Recommended viscosity information is thin on the ground. However the 50 SUS @ 100F & 200 @ 210F from the Sundstrand manual I found point directly to an ISO 46, maybe in truth something just a hair heavier. See chart in Post #25.

Bearing that in mind if the OP is using an ISO 46 oil at the moment I think I would be looking somewhere other than the oil as the root cause of the performance issue. Try an ISO 32 if the mood takes you, but TBH I would be very surprised if it proved to be the solution.

After further work, it looks like you were correct. The motor shifter had been adjusted to allow excessive travel, which prevented it from going into low range. Once I got the shifter adjustment back in spec, the machine runs faster on the decline and bogs far less. I mucked quite a bit with it yesterday running load-and-carry to the surface from the uppermost level with no issues.

 

[Nige]

Glad you got to the bottom of it, and also that you came back and updated what the root cause of the problem was - and it wasn't the oil ........