x2

The E53 MT on my V6 Camry was built amazingly strong, and after 200k miles I took it apart (had it out for other reasons, and to replace the seals it had to come apart) there was no measurable wear in its synchros, shift forks or bearings. Only the diff thrust washers showed any wear (0.1mm), so other than the seals those were the only parts that needed replacing.

Sadly, Americans being as they are, it was only like a 1% take rate option, so was dropped from future generations.

 

x2

The E53 MT on my V6 Camry was built amazingly strong, and after 200k miles I took it apart (had it out for other reasons, and to replace the seals it had to come apart) there was no measurable wear in its synchros, shift forks or bearings. Only the diff thrust washers showed any wear (0.1mm), so other than the seals those were the only parts that needed replacing.

Sadly, Americans being as they are, it was only like a 1% take rate option, so was dropped from future generations.

Actually, I believe in the US (but not in Canada) for the '97 model year (only) 4th Gen V6 Camry's were avail with that manual transaxle, which is more HD than the S51 is.

 

You are correct, after the Gen 3 (MT only available in the US for 2 years, '92 and '93), when the Gen4 launched ('97) they did re-introduce an MT option, the same transmission but with a much lower cost differential, named the E153. It was also available on the Solara.

But, so few Americans bought it the MT option was dropped completely after '01.

This same family of transmission was also used in the Rav4, MR2 and the 4WD Turbo Celica. The E53 ('92 ~'93 in the US) was originally designed for the Toyota rally racing team (Celica), so it has an incredibly strong differential, steel shifting forks, an oil pump and cooler lines. By the time it ended up in the Rav4 some years later, everything had been greatly reduced in weight and size, but still did good service in that heavier vehicle!

 

An oil pump too? Now that's a feature of manual Porsche's and manual- or automated-manual Maserati's! Now I'm really impressed! Cool!

 

Sadly manual transmissions are more less a relic of the past.

 

They may be becoming a relic of the past... but not in my life... yet. 3 of my 5 vehicles have 'em. 4 of 6 if you count my m/c...

 

I have one and enjoy driving it. Recently changed the oil. It was the most expensive oil I've ever purchased dollar per litre. The oil looked quite clean for 200k kms, I'm never going to drive the mileage to justify another change. Though, it should be mentioned it's more expensive on fuel than the AT.

 

I can understand why it uses more fuel... You've got to rev it a bit more than the automatic does, though the A/T does have slippage prior to torque converter lockup. Interestingly, if you rev it to more than about 2700 rpm prior to shifting gear, the throttle -"dashpot" action causes the rpm to fall more slowly when shifting gear. So, your shifting action changes somewhat as the drop-throttle rev-hang comes in.

Mine is Japanese-made too; not made in Kentucky. I'm sure many parts are the same though.

 

Yes although I found that items such as alternator and starter on my AU assembled M/T Camry are Bosch, not OEM. So don't buy such a donor vehicle if you are wanting one for one replacement. The US is likely different as it is a much bigger market.

 

Due to requirements for minimum locally-sourced parts percentages to qualify for government subsidies, Bosch starters/alternators etc are OEM equipment on a lot of Aus-built Toyotas. Also things like steering racks (TRW rather than Aisin), brakes etc (even so much as having Holden/GM Trimatic autos on the older RWD Corollas)

 

I won't own a vehicle if it doesn't have an MT. So, I recently restored my '93 V6-MT Camry to get at least another 200k miles and 25 more years out of it.

For fluid, I've found best is Redline MT90 (some other gear oils contain HP additives meant for hypoid differentials which interfere with the synchro operation, MT90 does not have them so makes the MT shift like new). Shop around on line, and sometimes a deal can be found for less $.

Not sure why someone thinks the MT gets worse mileage than the AT. Until the very most modern ATs came along, MT always got better mpg (because the AT slips until steady speed/lockup, and because it weighs a lot more).

Norm

 

One bit of info, and a question if I might:

My S51, on startup, has a bearing that "sings" a bit. More when it's colder. Has done this for, oh, the last 30,000 miles/50,000 km... in fact ever since I bought the car. I bought the car at least 10 years ago, with 185,000 km on it... and it has 235,000 km on it now. So that's only 50,000 km/30,000 mi. in 10 years. Not much. The "singing" never has become worse. Second gear synchro is tired (I think)... I say "I think" because I don't give it a chance to exhibit any "tiredness"; I always double-clutch into 2nd, except when it's at full operating temp... when I either granny-shift first to 2nd, or I 'kinda delay (from normal shift timing) before I shift, so it always feels butter-smooth to me. Always double-clutch down, into 2nd.
I changed lubricant once... I forget to what... but I do know it is GL-4 conventional lubricant, of the mfr-rec'd SAE viscosity (is that 75W-90.... I'm going by a poor memory).

My question: I do have some Redline synthetic manual transmission lubricant, GL-4, correct viscosity, but I have never replaced my conventional lubricant with it.
i) I don't know why, but I'm 'kinda leery of Redline MTL's. It works very well for many; it doesn't work at all, for limited others, and I have heard a limited number of folks say a) it tends to "wear-out" in service faster than other lubricants; and b) I've also heard some folks claim it "centrifuges-out" it's additives resulting in a lubricant that is missing anti-wear properties, resulting in fast component wear. These may indeed be fisherwives's tales.
ii) I'm a bit afraid of synthetic lubricants, in general, re seal leaks. Introducing a new lubricant might have a solvency action for the crud, within the oil seals, acting in part as a sealing media itself. Synthetics at least they HAD a rep. of causing- or worsening seal leaks.

I don't want that!

What is YOUR experience?

 

I weighed mine but cannot find the note where I wrote down what it was. Somewhere around 120 ~150lbs, as I recall.

 

"
My question: I do have some Redline synthetic manual transmission lubricant, GL-4, correct viscosity, but I have never replaced my conventional lubricant with it.
i) I don't know why, but I'm 'kinda leery of Redline MTL's. It works very well for many; it doesn't work at all, for limited others, and I have heard a limited number of folks say a) it tends to "wear-out" in service faster than other lubricants; and b) I've also heard some folks claim it "centrifuges-out" it's additives resulting in a lubricant that is missing anti-wear properties, resulting in fast component wear. These may indeed be fisherwives's tales.
ii) I'm a bit afraid of synthetic lubricants, in general, re seal leaks. Introducing a new lubricant might have a solvency action for the crud, within the oil seals, acting in part as a sealing media itself. Synthetics at least they HAD a rep. of causing- or worsening seal leaks.
I don't want that!
What is YOUR experience?"


My experience is MT-90 works great, no seal leak issues and seems to last as long as any other gear oil (which ideally gets changed at 50k mile intervals). Never had an issue with a seal leak after using synthetic oil (in any of my vehicles, but, then again, they all have healthy seals in).

Can't imagine why Redline MT-90 would have any unique durability issues. Its main difference from most gear oils is the lack of HP additives which cause synchro issues (HP additives are only meant to be used in differentials with hypoid gears, which front wheel drive differentials do not have).

Norm

 

I have a pdf of Redline's "MTL" product (which, for my Mazda6, is 75W-80). Redline claims to have a formulation that behaves differently than most manual transmission/transaxle lubricants, vis à vis synchromesh action. It'll take me a 'wee while to find it... but it'd be worthwhile to discuss. Please standby...

 

Note that HP additives exist in GL-4 gear oils too.
Just thought I'd add that in case even though you'd used GL-4, you might have accidentally used one meant for a RWD differential and not for a transmission.

 

Note that HP additives exist in GL-4 gear oils too.
Just thought I'd add that in case even though you'd used GL-4, you might have accidentally used one meant for a RWD differential and not for a transmission.

Thx @norm356 ; I am acutely aware of GL-4's having a small amount of EP additives, or at least some type of anti-wear formulation, but clearly NOT harmful to the yellow metals most often in synchro's. Further, GL-4's intended for manual gearboxes have the appropriate amount of "slipperiness" to allow synchro cones and rings to properly grab one another, thereby allowing synchro sleeves and dog teeth to "clock" and to engage one-another. I'm very fussy about using gl-4, if mfr-rec'd, and of the recommended SAE viscosity.

 

" I am acutely aware of GL-4's having a small amount of EP additives," - That is my point. What makes Redline MT90 nice for MT is they don't put in any hypoid gear additives, for the purpose of optimal synchro operation.

That would make it inappropriate for RWD differentials with hypoid gears (since it has no EP additives in it). It is meant only for MT and FWD MT transaxles which do not have those kind of gears.

 

"clearly NOT harmful to the yellow metals most often in synchro's" - make sure whatever gear oil you use is low sulfur so that it does not attack synchros (or copper, bronze or brass bushings/components in classic RWD differentials).

Note that the sulfur in typical GL-4 and GL-5 gear oil is for hypoid gear durability, which are not in an E series transmission.

Here are a couple of comparisons:

GL4 Vs GL5: Detailed Comparison

View the side-by-side comparison between Gl4 vs Gl5 gear oil. Moreover, you easily determine which among the two is best-suited for your car.

oilsadvisor.com

MT-90 75W90 GL-4 Gear Oil

Popular in Nissan, Mazda, Mitsubishi, VW/Audi, Lotus Elise/Exige, Toyota

www.redlineoil.com

| Rx Mechanic

Gl4 vs gl5 debate is all about the difference of transmission caused by a higher rating of the latter due to the addition of sulfur and phosphorus additives to enhance its extreme pressure. Here you go with detail.

rxmechanic.com

The reason why I was so attentive to this issue is because almost ALL gear oil these days is meant for use in differentials with hypoid gears (like found on trucks and RWD cars). There are so few MT cars running around most oil makers have stopped bothering to make special formulations for manual transmissions needs. It is nice that small makers like Redline are catering for our unique MT needs (but that's why it costs more, because of low volume).

 

@norm356 , I didn't realize Redline had zero EP sulfur/phosphorus additions (to cater for anti-wear). Thanks for pointing it out; I learned something 🙂! The GL-4 spec for other and in fact most lubricants, indeed, does allow low levels of sulfur and phosphorus, with the thought that low levels can be tolerated by the yellow metal parts. But those two chemistry additions, I suppose, DO add slipperiness as you point out, not helping the synchro action.

I'm adding-on a Redline product info bulletin; it's about 2002 vintage? Maybe you've seen it? The notable thing it says is that just as the rpm difference between brass synchro ring and the cone clutch on the speed-gear approaches zero, Redline MTL's- and MT90's friction coefficient becomes lower, whereas many lubricants' coeff of friction rises. They attribute their superior shifting performance to this feature or attribute.

I'm currently trying to find a couple of screenshots of stuff I found a LONG while ago, about wear protection that Redline gives. I'll find them... but preemptively, I don't hold them out as accurate. Just anecdotal, for what that's worth... It's worth discussion in any case (I believe).

 

"Wonder how strong the E53 is compared to the E153." - the E53 diff is the big difference, it was massively over built for WRC racing.
Probably those E153s running crazy power had already swapped out the stock, much lighter weight 153 diff for a heavier built aftermarket locker.

E53 differential: cross pin with 4 spider gears, with 12 bolts holding the cage together, and then 12 more (!) to the ring gear. HEAVY.

E153 differential: single pin with 2 spider gears, way fewer bolts holding it together (sorry, no photos).

 

The earlier versions used in the MR2 had aluminum 2/3 shift forks which broke, and had weaker synchros.
The version used with the 3VZ-FE V6 in the Gen3 Camry used a steel shift fork and had added additional cones to the synchros.

 

The S-series box is great. I have 5 or 6 14hr endurance races on a stock S54 box in my Celica (which has ~140k on the clock before I got my hands on it). No issues other than the semi-common failing slave cylinder.

S51 I had in my '99 Camry worked beautifully with the TRW Short Shifter. I absolutely loved driving that car with the full OBX-R exhaust (still have the exhaust, lol, car long gone)
S5x box weights right around 90lb dry, for reference - weighed one myself.

E153 had an internal oil pump I believe, as there are external fittings for an oil cooler, which the E154f (4wd variant of E15x family) in ST205 Celica utilized.

 

Yep, that oil pump (incredibly rare in a manual), and those cooler fittings, were unique to the E series trans.
I used a video of a 4WD Turbo Celica E154 transmission to help me rebuild my 153 (same box, just with a center diff added where the diff cover goes).

"peak toyota right there" - true that! It is amazing to see how small and thin all of the parts had become by the time it was pared down in the Rav4 and it still worked just fine. All that burly excess had been for racing homologation, no longer needed by then.


Norm

 

still can't get over how beefy that gear looks...peak toyota right there

 

I really feel like Toyota peaked in their quality with, probably, the 3rd gen Camry (well, at least from what I'm told). My 4th gen Camry can't be far behind by way of quality. I keep thinking... if I could only buy my car, new, all over again. Current car quality is depressing.

I 'kinda figure there are not a lot of manual transmission fans on this Forum; (well, I suspect it is a microcosm of the US and Canada)... but Toyota did know how to build a great 'box. Underated car, my '99 CE 5 speed.

 

"I really feel like Toyota peaked in their quality with, probably, the 3rd gen Camry" - very true, when it comes to overbuilt. Note the Japanese "bubble economy" was just bursting when the Gen3 hit the market. Japan companies had been able to go overboard on a lot of things up til that time, and still make a good profit. But, from the '90s the exchange rate swung and the competition became a much more level field, price wise. Note from then the Toyota quality and durability has remained quite high, compared with other automakers, but the amount of overbuilt aspects went away.

Today, it is still common for Camrys and Tacomas and Tundras, etc. to go many hundreds of thousands of miles without major issues (there are million mile Tundras out there). But, the mainstream engines might not be built to be able to be taken to 2x or 3x the power output without structural mods, anymore.

It makes sense, if your engine can go 500k miles with basic maintenance, it isn't necessary to design it with more.

Just eliminating waste.

Note the Gen4 was a kind of a swing far in the other direction. It was the most "cost cutter" Camry of the whole series. From Gen5 a lot of the content and substance started to be put back in, but only what the mainstream customers could recognize and benefit from.

 

Question for the Camry MT experts here. My family has a 2001 Camry V6 LE 5-speed manual (original owners), currently has 207k miles. Starting many years/miles ago, the transmission would occasionally crunch loudly when trying to shift into 1st (even with the car stationary). I noticed if I very lightly move the shifter straight upwards towards 1st from neutral, it will then follow a path just a bit to the right (towards 3rd) and then continue upwards into 1st smoothly. It's that slight movement to the right on the way into 1st that prevents the crunch. The transmission did this with the original clutch and it didn't change with the second clutch (original lasted 190k miles). Is there an adjustment in the linkage or the alignment of shifter to transmission that could alleviate this? This isn't the smoothest shifting manual out there, but it's less balky than the 5-speed in the 1988 Camry V6 that my father also bought new (traded at 115k for the 2001). Thanks!

 

I love driving my 5fse/stick 99' Camry, but I sure wish it was geared higher, it turns too many rpms on the highway to be good for engine longevity or fuel economy. It seems they geared the car so people who were not good with a clutch could get off the line no matter what they did. I think the second-gear ratio should be first gear, and the O/D needs to have the rpms down another thousand rpm from what it is now. Other than that the car is fine. I think I can get much better city fuel economy than with my automatic car, because you can easily drive the stick-shift around at 25mph in overdrive if you are a smart driver and look ahead and keep off the bumper of the car ahead of you. The auto tranny cars will generally not go into overdrive until around 45mph, which hurts city mph a lot.

 

I wish I had another gear for the highway... but generally I find first gear ok. I like the fact that I can let out the clutch with barely any revs on, and have the clutch fully let out at a walking pace. That's great for minimal clutch wear. Having said that, on a downgradient I'll often start in second, again, with barely any revs on.

On the highway, yeah, under some conditions it'd merit a sixth gear.

Don't get me wrong... I DO like it when a car has a tallish first gear... because I rarely (and I mean very rarely) get off from a start with a lot of vigour.... so I'm pretty well always easy on the clutch, regardless of how short or tall first gear is. But tallish first gears, in my view, are more fun with bigger engines/more torque.

The Camry, at the time, was a big car with a smallish four cyl engine. That kind of car is more typical of Europe than North America... and in deference to the smallish engine, the car is geared fairly low. That's my sense...

 

Worn or not, my E53 still shifts like new, with no grinding.

The shop manual had the feeler gauge check, based on the wear of those ribs will allow the parts to get closer together, so once the distance has dropped below the service limit that will confirm they are worn enough to need replacing.

Since mine were within spec (after 200k miles!) I never even bothered to disassemble the gear sets, so no photos to share.

 

That's a neat way to repair the dog rings, will have to keep that in mind!

I can see how staking the worn rings would work for a little while. When they repair the syncros.. they must add material before resurfacing though? I would think if you just cut new grooves in a worn syncro you'd end up basically in the same place, except maybe with a little better clearing action to remove the oil from the cone... ultimately the cone of the brass ring would still be too large to mate with the cone on the gear? In an extreme case the brass ring will just bottom on the gear before the cones ever mate.

 

Mind you, the Co. that does that does it for Porsche's. You'd have to source an unworn or totally serviceable dog ring. You mebe could harvest it from a higher gear from a scrap transaxle... as I suspect all dog rings are the same "module" and tooth shape. Then there's the question of sourcing a serviceable synchro sleeve...

Yeah, re the engagement depth of the brass synchro ring into the cone of the sleeve... it'd have to all be "blueprinted"... Difficult to reproduce.

Cool stuff. So few folks get into the minutiae of transmission synchro's.

Oh, btw, ZF style synchro's have dog rings that are meant to be pressed-off and replaced. Different design than Borg Warner style synchro's. Porsche ZF transaxles can have this done, and Others' 'boxes too I believe.