Following was sent to a friend of mine after he asked about Redline MTL and the Chrysler specification. Read his question and the Redline tech's response below.

--------------------------------------------------------
>Can you tell me whether your Redline MTL product meets
>Chrysler's specification MS-9224 for lube oil in the NV5600 >truck transmission? Are there substantive differences
>between MS-9224 oils like the Texaco MTX, GM, and
> Pennzoil Syncromesh, and Redline MTL?

The MTL will satisfy the Chrysler MS-9224 spec in all applications including warranty requirements for the NV5600 transmission.

The biggest differences between the lubes you mention and the MTL is the base stock protection offered and the consistency of the shift. In our tests, our polyol ester base stock offers higher film strength, better viscosity characteristics and a more ideal coefficient of friction for improved shiftability and synchro action over the those other oils.

Regards, Dave
Red Line Oil
-----------------------------------------------------------

I have no reason so far to question this guy. I had an occasional grind between 2nd and 3rd, and notchy shifting between 3rd and 4th. So did my friend in his NV5600. After a change to Redline MTL, I have no notch from 3rd to 4th, and only an occasional notch between 2nd and 3rd when the transmission is cold. No grinds, even when temps are below freezing. Transmission temps are down when towing 7000+lbs. loads, I can tell by putting my hand on the tranny wall. My friend's truck shows the same shifting improvements.

NVG has admitted that there have been some durability problems with the 5600 synchronizers and for '02, they put hardened materials into the surfaces. I think MTL has a better "balance" between load and gear shock and the synchronizer friction coefficient than other GL-3/4 oils I've tried, including the Texaco MTX standard recommended by DC, which is no longer manufactured, apparently.