Re: [OMC-Boats] OMC Type C lab testing

From: Lee Shuster <lks@...>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:28:14 -0600

It never ceases to amaze me how completely engineered these OMC units
were. These guys must have been on their "A" game in the late fifties
to early seventies designing these products.

I'm sure OMC went to great lengths to insure reliability. Once they
figured out what lubrication was needed, they probably just called
Mobil or one of the other "big" oil companies to formulate their
unique "premium" blend.

Wonder what Type "C" stood for?


On Aug 30, 2009, at 7:51 PM, Andy Perakes wrote:

> If the OMC engineers specified a gear lube, it was for good reason
> and I wouldn't substitute an ATF. ATF and gear lube are
> dramatically different animals. From a gear perspective, you can
> only use ATF with helical, bevel, and spiral bevel gears. Hypoids
> need gear lube to address the sliding motion of the gear teeth
> induced by the offset. (For those not familiar with the terms, a
> spiral bevel is a hypoid with no offset -- the pinion centerline
> intersects the ring gear centerline. Of course a spiral bevel is
> also a bevel gear with curved instead of straight gear teeth.) On
> the flip side, you wouldn't want to use a gear lube in a hydraulic
> application because the pumping losses would be tremendous at colder
> temperatures. The only time I've substituted ATF for a gear lube
> was on a transfer case where I knew the gear lube was used solely to
> have a common lube between the axles and t-case for service
> simplicity. Otherwise the two are not interchangeable, generally
> speaking. Again, from a gear perspective, ATF will have a much
> thinner oil film which means you will spend more time in the
> "boundary" or "mixed regime" regions instead of the hydrodynamic
> region....which translated means gears will wear faster. Modern
> transmissions are loaded with electronics/wires (as are many
> transfer cases and axles) which means the lubes must be obviously
> compatible. With a little online effort you can look up the
> certification (i.e. certified to SAE or ASTM standard....) on the
> lube at your local store and see if it meets your needs.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Shuster" <lks@...>
> To: "Evinrude & Johnson Boats of the 1960's and 70's" <omc-boats@...
> >
> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [OMC-Boats] OMC Type C lab testing
>> I'll let you do the math. OMC built electric-shift stern drives
>> from 1962 to 1977.
>> Yours is most likely a 1964 - 1970. I would call tha ant "older,"
>> OMC sterndrive in relative terms, for what that's worth?
>> I'm not that familar with the properties of Dextron II or III
>> having never owned a GM product that uses it in an automatic
>> transmission.
>> I've never seen a cross-reference to Dextron as a recommended OMC
>> Type C subsitute. But who knows? Maybe it has similar properties?
>> It's easy to use google to look up the properties of GM's Dextron
>> II or III :
>> It does have a high dialetric property (35 kV), but I can't vouch
>> for the other parameters compared to the specs for "real" Type C
>> or "Premium" Blend.
>> If you wanna try and use it fine by me. If I was in your shoes,
>> I'd drain it ASAP and put the right stuff in there, regardless of
>> cost.
>> Congrats! You've stumbled onto an interesting point, and again this
>> is NOT a dumb question.
>> Lee
>> On Aug 30, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Justin DeSantis wrote:
>>> I always heard that the dielectric properties are what makes type C
>>> different. But I'll tell you where my concern came from. Today being
>>> Sunday, I couldn't go to the boat shop to get OMC Type C gear
>>> lube. I
>>> had 3 tubes of Sierra brand type C, which I was comfortable with.
>>> But
>>> the local hardware store had tubes of marine gear lube that was
>>> marked
>>> suitable for Type C applications. I was shocked they had it, so I
>>> grabbed a couple tubes, just in case. It was cheap too. I think it
>>> was
>>> Citgo branded. Anyhow, while it says type C on the front, on the
>>> back,
>>> in smaller print it said something to the effect of "Not suitable
>>> for
>>> use in some older electric shift outdrives that require Dextron II
>>> or
>>> Dextron III fluid." So that gave me reason to pause. Why would it be
>>> Type C yet not be suitable for some electric shift models? Anyhow,
>>> that was the reason I asked.
>>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Lee Shuster<lks@...> wrote:
>>>> One other note I forgot to mention.
>>>> My Dad, who introduced me to boating holds a Chem Eng degree for
>>>> Ohio State.
>>>> He worked his entire career for Ashland Oil, the parent company of
>>>> Valvoline.
>>>> Back in the sixties, we owned an electric-shift J/E V4. My Dad
>>>> was also
>>>> curious about the "mysterious" OMC Type C lubrication
>>>> requirement and had a
>>>> sample tested by the Valvoline engineering labs.
>>>> They reported back (and I don't have their response) that their
>>>> testing
>>>> revealed some amazing qualities:
>>>> What I remember in their report was:
>>>> 1) very high diaelectric (non-conductive) properties (that makes
>>>> sense) and
>>>> 2) excellent anti-corrosive properties.
>>>> I can't recall if they ever "reverse engineered" and offered
>>>> their own Type
>>>> C product, but they were extremely impressed.
>>>> Just buy the right stuff and be done with it, No biggie.
>>>> Lee
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OMC-Boats mailing list
>>>> OMC-Boats@...
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OMC-Boats mailing list
>>> OMC-Boats@...
>> _______________________________________________
>> OMC-Boats mailing list
>> OMC-Boats@...
> _______________________________________________
> OMC-Boats mailing list
> OMC-Boats@...
Received on Sunday, 30 August 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tuesday, 29 July 2014 EDT