Actually, he's right, the borg-warner 9 bolt does not require a posi-additive. It uses a different clutch or whatever you want to call it inside that uses cones. There is no need for the additive. I have a 9 bolt too and I have no trouble going through turns, no noises at all. With a different kind or rear, you may need the additive though.

 

Thats strange as Miles recomends it on his site and my Haynes manual makes no mention of the 9-bolt not needing the additive and all the reference manuals at my former employer recommended the additive. You need to remember that while it is different from a "clutch type" posi the cones are indeed clutches in their own right.

P.S. just offering the facts I have seen not wanting to flame any one just really wanting to get to the bottom of this as I need to change the lube on my 9-bolt soon.

Oh you are defending yourself in the 3rd person 89 IRO. You think we are that stupid the Z would throw us off.

 

Biff,

I can't say with any certainty that a Borg axle for an '89 required friction modifier (additive), but my '86 Borg axle does. I know a Zexel-Torsen axle and later Saginaw (locker) doesn't need additive. I use about 1½ quarts of Mobil 1 gear lubricant and a tube of GM 1052358 additive for limited-slip differentials. I mix the additive into the first quart of gear lube I pump in. Mine is too noisy on cornering without the additive, even with synthetic.

 

Biff- Who is Miles? Anyways, I researched this too before I filled my rear. I researched it here as well as I asked my mechanic about it and my local GM dealer. All said no to the additive in my 9 bolt. You can maybe find some info if you do a search. Are you saying the Haynes manual says to use the additive or just doesn't say anything about it at all? What I suggest you do is just change the fluid yourself w/out the additive. Drive if for a week or so, and if you run into any problems, then you can just top if off with the additive, if no problems, then you're good....win-win situation. Easy? Hoped that helped.

 

Miles at diff solutions I cant remember his name on the board right off hand but he is almost the only one left for 9-bolt parts.

The Haynes manual makes no distinction between the 9-bolt and the 10-bolt says they both need the additive.

Guess I`ll throw some in there as it is much better to be safe than sorry and I definately do not feel like paying for a new posi in my 9-bolt.

 

miles aka 88 427 camaro

 

Horse Power TV TNN This morning:

2000 SS Camaro LS-1..Dyno Jet..301.xx RWHP

Drain all fluids..Engine tranny(T-56)..rear...replace with the Purple Stuff synthetic...back on dyno-jet...308.xxx Just about an 8 hp gain....But Im sure they Rigged it..

 

Man you beat me to it. Why do cars lose 15-20% of their engine's power by the time the torque is applied to the rear wheels?? Because of friction. This test, along with hundreds of other tests done, have PROOVED that synthetic lubricants offer superior protection to moving parts (which equates to a lower coefficient of friction, which gives you more power).

As for the original question, I have never heard of synthetic fluid causing a rear end to whine. Listen to my Strange 12 bolt 3.73. I currently have the original non-synthetic lube they put in from the factory (it's still in its break-in period). The thing whines like you would not believe. This has nothing to do with the lube. High performance posi units almost all whine like this, regardless of the oil used.

 

i believe in synthetics and all....but i'd be a little skeptical about anything i see on horsepower tv.

 

wow ok.. that got a little off track there.. back to the reason i asked my origional question.. after puttin my rear togather with my new carrier and gears its whined pretty loud.. nobody else seems to notice it but me.. but it drives me crazy.. i've taken it apart 2 times and reassembled it thinking i messed up the pinion lash or somethin.. same thing everytime.. used 2 diff types of synth and then someone told me that they heard of synth's causing gear whine.. i've never heard of this before so i thought i'd post the question on here.. from the sounds of it hes fulla sh*t.. so after reading through all of this i noticed a comment by i think 57? too much flaming goin on to look back and see who said it but anyhoo.. richmond gears are known for being loud.. i have richmond 373's... guess i'll filler back up with synth and rest assured that its just the design of the gears.. thanks to all the people who actually attempted to answer my question without trying to start arguments due to their lack of experience or overall ignorence... thanks!

 

Welcome back!

Yes, Richmonds are known for being whiney.

Now you have an excuse to upgrade the stereo...

(Just for future reference - it's usually a good idea to include a little background info so that the question can be addressed more directly.)

 

I'd agree with five7, the fluid is not the cause of your whine. Never is.

If you used the Richmond drag racing gears, then you have teeth which are optimized for shock loading strength. One of the compromises they made was the noise. Another is longevity in street-type use; they will not last anywhere near as long in a street car as a street gear will, just as a street gear will not last as long in a racing application as a racing gear will. It's not a question of quality, but rather suitability for a purpose.

Use synthetic, your gears will last as long as possible in either street use or racing.

 

Friction is not the primary cause of power loss in the drive train, rotating mass is, it takes an amount of power to start an assembly rotating and to keep it rotating. Thats why Alumnium drive shafts were devloped, light weight rotors & drums. The more rotatinal mass you can eliminate the more power you can free up.

 

Wrong.

Once a rotating thing is rotating, it requires no further energy input for it to keep rotating, assuming that there is no friction. That's Newton's First Law of Motion.

Go take a physics class or something, learn a little about how the world really works, before you come around trying to educate others. Here's an online oversimplification for grade-school children. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Clas...aws/U2L1a.html

It is true that an aluminum drive shaft or a lighter weight rotor, having less mass, requires less energy to get it into motion; and since it must start at zero speed at the starting line and accelerate up to whatever RPM it needs to be going at by the time it reaches the finish line, it consumes energy that way. It does not require less energy to spin an aluminum drive shaft at a constant RPM than it would a solid lead one, except for frictional losses in the bearings holding it up.

Ooooops, there we go again, that nasty little word.... "friction"....

Not that this repeated diversion into the world of error and lack of understanding has anything to do with why this man's gears whine, or whether his synthetic fluid can cause it.

 

You have reached the limit of my paitents. Since you already know everything there is to know, you should already know there is NO SUCH THING as perpetual motion. So much for Newton's first law of motion applying to life in the REAL world. Now YOU go back to physics 101 and figure out WHY it still takes power to turn a rotating assembly. OOOOPS I forgot, you already know everything.

It seems that you just want to get into a pissing contest with anyone. I'll oblige you. No matter what you say you are WRONG, now I sound JUST like you, don't I?
A bigger jackass I have never met.


One more for you,
The sky is blue.

 

yeah, so you're saying you'd rather spin a fair's wheel than spin a brake rotor?

that hit me as kind of a harsh reply man, glad you took your required physics class, but chill out.

As a small note, most new gms use aluminum driveshafts? Why? Well it still requires energy to get them moving huh? And one thing a physics class wont tell you is you that you dont just get them moving once.

the driveshaft does not go at a constant velocity once it is energized. Actually, as odd as it may seem, sometimes you actually stop, and the driveshaft isnt moving. Then you have to get it moving again. From my intense research i've found this happens quite frequently. So having a lighter one actually helps gas milage, among other things.

as an interesting side note, back in the 50s drag racers use to put the heaviest flywheel they could find on. Yes, it took a little energy to get it going, but since they're revving that high anyway, once it was moving it acted as kind of a "torque bank". Now that engines are much larger, more powerful and torque is easily attained through almost infinite gearing, thats not really useful.

I missed a question on my technical physics test once, so just to be cute i went out and did the experiment in my lawn. It was one of those stupid shoot a in the air and it will land here. Took a whole spring break to do correctly. And obviously the real answer differed from the physics answer. As the text book shrugs the other 300 factors in the equations off, they just want to get you to buy the book, learn the very basics, pass the test and free up a new seat.

 

Dude, you just don't quite get it yet, do you.

Spin something. Stay at your own level; go to the dime store, buy a child's top.

What happens?

You pull the string; the top spins; you sit and watch. What do you see? Please, use all your (never mind; I speak Latin fairly fluently, and no, I'm not Catholic) OK. Why doesn't that spinning thing stop?

(Hint: see Newton's 1st law.)

A drive shaft is no different. It takes energy to speed it up, but then, once it's going, no more energy is needed. It keeps spinning until something stops it. I fail to see where that is an issue. Yes, a car equipped with it it will absolutely get better gas mileage, probably a small fraction as much improvement as it would get with synthetic lube compared to mineral oil, due to constant continuous frictional loss (that ugly word again). The lighter drive line and running gear components will make more of a contribution to gas mileage (and RWHP) in a city or stop-and-go type of driving regimen, whereas the reduced friction from improved lubrication will make a more measurable difference in steady-state driving such as highway cruising, as well as a significant improvement in acceleration.

Yes, the sky is blue. Do you know why?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I do.

Yes. I live in the real world. Not only did I take the physics class in college, I taught it to those who came behind me. I missed a couple of questions over the course of my academic career too. "Mr. Bldg. Superintendent, I will give you this fine barometer if you will tell me the height of this building".

Obviously some of us don't live in the real world. But that's OK. I'll live in this world that we're stuck with, whoever else wants to live in some other world and thinks it's real, go right on ahead.

The synthetic fluid still didn't cause gear whine.

 

Obviously you are the one that still doesn't get it and you aren't worth my time to explain it. Let's just say Newton's laws are NOT the only ones in play. Maybe you should go back and review this physics class you supposedly taught, you missed some things there (no wonder modern education sucks so badly in the U.S.).One day you'll wake up and realize a few things, probably not, but hey, you never know.


P.S. You are beginning to realize your arguments are weak, aren't you? Having to resort to finding the one mis-spelled word in a post and point it out LOUDLY. Quite sad.
Go sit in the corner and play with your top and leave reality to men.

 

Wrong.

You still don't get it. There's no question of my "arguments", there are none and don't have to be any, because the facts speak for themselves. I've attempted to point out the facts, but they evidently don't make any difference to you. You'd rather consider yourself to somehow be above them. These "other laws" you speak of, are non-existent, there are no "other laws" that govern the behavior of objects llike these; the only "other laws" there are that supersede Newton's, are the ones that cover subatomic particle interactions and the relationship between matter and energy. Newton, as a person who was willing to sit down, shut up and watch the world around him and learn from it rather than arguing with it, did a pretty good job of summing mechanics up in a nutshell.

All I'm really concerned about here is misinformation. Frankly, I don't care whether you ever learn how things in the workd really work, since your lack of understanding isn't my problem. But it really bothers me when people ask questions and get a bunch of ignorant BS from people who don't know what they're talking about, and make blatantly wrong statements about physical reality. Telling people a bunch of wrong stuff doesn't help anybody solve their problems, and it certainly doesn't help them learn anything.

Yes, you're right about modern education. It really sucks that people can get out of school so hopelessly unprepared for dealing with as simple a phenomenon as starting something moving, and noticing that it doesn't slow down unless something makes it slow down. That is just such a basic fact of reality that it's actually laughable that you can deny it. All of your snotty comments about me don't really make up for this basic ignorance you throw around. I'd like to know how many of the people who read this are laughing at you right now for making such a fool out of yourself.

I learned something a long time ago from a person whose wisdom I strive to attain. I'll pass it along to you, because you could certainly benefit from it, having already done the thing it admonishes against. Although, I don't really expect it to be taken to heart, any more than the laws of momentum and inertia and friction.

"It is better that people merely think you are a fool, than for you to open your mouth and remove all doubt".

And once again, this post has taken a left turn down a dirt road and off into the weeds, on a tangent unrelated to the original question, to a bunch of falsehoods and ignorant babbling. I hope the guy that posted isn't too offended; I apologize to him on your behalf.

 

Lookie here sonnyG, I don't need the likes of you to apologize for me. Thats all I have to say to your ilk.

And welcome to the ignore list.

 

LMAOF..:lala:

Humility: being teachable.......

 

Admittedly, I likely misinterpreted the original post, as I frequently do. I had the impression the original poster was asking about differential clutch noise, not gear noise. Obviously, I missed the part about physical properties of the universe and their application to automotive technology. (Yes, I understand the relevance.) The thread started appropriately enough as a relevant technical inquiry. And while the discussion continues to have foundations in technical theory, the ancillary damage created by the posturing and defence of those positions is beginning to take a toll. Personally, I hate tolls.

The most prevalent perpetual motion in force here appears to be the vortex created as te whole thing spirals downward. One otherwise respectable member has already be captured by the vortex, drawn in past the brink, and was probably needlessly banned. Other respectable members are at the asymmetrical edge of the vortex, fighting to keep from being drawn in. Others, still, are at some point between the edge and the funnel, and it appears that only the mysterious power of the Dark Side can close the hole and prevent further loss.

Ketchup or vinegar. Latex or sheepskin. Democrat or Labor Party. Chevy or Ford. We all have our preferences, and despite the urging of others, will never sway in our basic alliances. We've all played our cards, shown our hands, and it's time the bets were collected.

As much as I'm tempted to keep it open, and biting my tongue to remain on the sidelines, I'm afraid we can't risk the damage. I have my own theories and opinions, hopefully based in some fact, but I'm not siding with anyone - just trying to protect the remaining combatants from becoming casualties. Hopefully we'll be able to continue our debates in a more appropriate tone in some future post. I'm nearly certain the positions won't change by then. Until that next time, we can hopefully have a gentlemen's (and, of course, ladies') agreement to be entitled to different opinions, regardless of their foundations. But since there have been a few complaints issued already, there's little choice.