Mobil 1 Racing 4T 10W40, Suzuki V-Strom DL-650

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Originally Posted By: Analyzer
Now, the JASO MA standard for an oils frictional properties within their test methodology provides you with three categories while maintaining JASO MA standards in this order: JASO MA, MA1, MA2...

MA is the entry level grade, followed by better/higher friction coefficients of MA1 and MA2...


You misunderstand the MA spec. MA1 and MA2 are sub-divisions of the overall MA category. The paper you linked to at jalos explains this very clearly.


I'm not exactly sure what I'm misunderstanding about the JASO MA spec, but perhaps rephrasing will help clarify everything.

The initial JASO T 903 implementation manual was published in April of 1999 with two separate grade classifications known as JASO MA and MB. The MA category was designated for oils meeting higher friction standards (dynamic, static, and stop time indexes) while MB was for the lowest friction oils for 4 stroke motorcycles (primarily many scooters and some dry clutch applications).

http://www.jalos.or.jp/onfile/pdf/4T_EV0412.pdf (pages 2 & 3)

To once again clarify, dynamic friction represents clutch feel and how power transfers through the clutch, static friction measuring resistance to clutch slippage under high torque conditions, and stop time index measuring how quickly the clutch engages.

Chemistry and Technology of Lubricants by Roy M. Mortier, Malcolm F. Fox and Stefan T. Orszulik (December 1,2009) (page 322)

JASO made an updated implementation manual in April 2006 known as JASO T 903:2006. What differentiated this revision from the original manual is additional chemical limitations, and two more separate grades: JASO MA1/MA2 and I quote, "JASO T 903, is classified into FOUR GRADES, MA, MA1, MA2, and MB, according to test results..."
http://www.jalos.or.jp/onfile/pdf/4T_EV0604.pdf (pg. 2, subsection 3.2)

As you can see on page 3 in the graph indicating the respective four different grades, JASO MB has the lowest of all friction indexes, and these friction indexes become greater and greater depending on the JASO grades, i.e, MB has the lowest, and is increased upon every successive grade to MA, to MA1, and finally MA2. Remember, "that for a lubricant marketer to claim JASO MA1 or JASO MA2, all indices must fall within the values specified for the category", i.e, if a specified oil only met two of the three tests indices of JASO MA2 and one met MA1, it would have to be labeled MA, but if it fell into all three categories of MA2 it would be labeled as such.

JASO then made another revision in May 2011 further updating friction indices between the four separate grades.
http://www.jalos.or.jp/onfile/pdf/4T_EV1105.pdf (page 3)

http://www.lubrizol.com/MCEO/Spec-Check/JASO-T903-Four-Stroke.html

I've provided a lot of references to validate what I've stated and believe it further backs up/adds emphasis to my previous post. To sum this all up, JASO T 903 has FOUR DIFFERENT GRADES of wet clutch frictional indices starting with the lowest friction rated oils and progresses to the highest in this order and stated in their previous two revisions: MB, MA, MA1, MA2. A simple search will provide a wide variety of motorcycle specific oils that meet each of these different grades, and have these variances for specific reasons. MB oils are generally more well suited to dry-clutch applications and scooters, MA is the most widely specified motorcycle oil from various manufacturers, while MA2 is widely suited for racing applications. Why might you ask? Since MA2 indexes have higher frictional properties they will provide better clutch feel and power transfers through the clutch, increased resistance to clutch slippage under high torque conditions, and more quick clutch engagement. This is why most Racing motorcycle oils like Repsol and Motul 300V meet JASO MA2 requirements, while their more "standard/economical" oils are generally rated MA. I see I've written a lot, but hopefully that clarifies everything
wink.gif
 
You characterized MA as a lower-friction classification than MA1 or MA2, and it is not. You further characterized MA as "entry level." MA1 and MA2 are merely frictional subdivisions of MA, characterized by Dynamic Friction Index (DFI), Static Friction Index (SFI), and Stop-Time Index (STI).

See table 2.1, "Performance Classification," on page 3 of JASO T903:2011 (that's the document labeled as 4T_EV1105 in your above post) to see exactly where MA1 & MA2 break out within the broader MA category.

DFI
MA runs from 1.3 to less than 2.5
MA1 runs from 1.3 to less than 1.85
MA2 runs from 1.85 to less than 2.5

SFI
MA runs from 1.25 to less than 2.5
MA1 runs from 1.25 to less than 1.7
MA2 runs from 1.7 to less than 2.5

STI
MA runs from 1.45 to less than 2.5
MA1 runs from 1.45 to less than 1.85
MA2 runs from 1.85 to less than 2.5

Then look at Table 2.2, "Specific samples to define a performance class," on page 4 of the same document. It makes plain that MA1 and MA2 oils are also MA oils.

To re-phrase in summary:
All MA1 oils and all MA2 oils are also MA oils, but not all MA oils are either MA1 or MA2 oils. Because a specific oil may have certain frictional characteristics of MA2, and other frictional characteristics of MA1, such a fluid would be correctly labeled as MA. However, one which meets MA2 in all frictional characteristics could also be properly labeled as MA, even though it could (and by way of opinion, should) be labeled as MA2.

Cheers!
 
I think I now understand what you were trying to get at with your initial message, so thank you for further clarifying. I understand where you're coming from and completely agree that the frictional coefficients of JASO MA embody those of JASO MA1/MA2 as as been numerously covered in all my previous references and also in your last post.
I must admit the confusion here probably started with my initial post you quoted which was geared toward a fellow members question as to whether or not different JASO MA rated oils could effect the feel of his shifting quality. Since the M1 10W40 is rated as a JASO MA oil and possibly did not meet all indices of MA1/MA2, it's possible in theory that an MA2 rated oil with a higher dynamic friction coefficient could improve how the power is transferred through the clutch, thus altering the clutch feel and uptake.
I realize I could have been more thorough with that reply to avoid any possible confusion as I did here, but I think you summed it up perfectly in your last post, "All MA1 oils and all MA2 oils are also MA oils, but not all MA oils are either MA1 or MA2 oils."

With that in mind what you also posted is a lesser known fact that indeed oil manufacturers have the choice as to whether or not to label an oil that qualified as JASO MA1/MA2 to either list it as such or simply label it MA. I quote, "The lubricant marketer also has the choice to claim JASO MA on lubricants meeting JASO MA1 or JASO MA2."

Chemistry and Technology of Lubricants by Roy M. Mortier, Malcolm F. Fox and Stefan T. Orszulik (December 1,2009) (pg. 323)

Since we're on the subject, I completely agree they should be mandated to list the JASO grade they passed testing for, but do you have an idea as to why a manufacturer would want to list an oil as JASO MA when it passed the testing methodology of MA2? I personally would have thought the oil manufacturer would have wanted the "bragging rights" if you will, but I'm wondering if there's more marketing recognition with MA or they wouldn't want to confuse the public, or if there's a deeper root cause?
 
Originally Posted By: Analyzer
(D)o you have an idea as to why a manufacturer would want to list an oil as JASO MA when it passed the testing methodology of MA2?

...I'm wondering if there's more marketing recognition with MA or they wouldn't want to confuse the public...?


I can only speculate that the reason for labeling an MA1 or MA2 oil simply as "MA" is because that is what we see in motorcycle owners manuals. Naturally, I will not claim that _all_ owners manuals are no more specific than this, but I personally have only seen "MA" as the requirement in the motorcycles I've owned, or the ones friends or family have which are shared-sump bikes. My newest motorcycle is a 2012 Honda, so I do not believe my observation is purely a consequence of riding 'old' bikes.

Or, maybe there are a bunch of oil marketers with some seriously old labels laying around!
wink.gif
 
Haha I like the old labels theory!

Given we don't know the real reasons behind their choice, but I agree that they might prefer the MA labeling simply because the preponderance of motorcycle manufacturers spec exactly that in their manuals.
I know on my older 86 Yamaha FZX700 stated to either use API SF, SG, SH, while my newer 07 FZ1 states either API SG/greater or JASO MA. Perhaps for the bulk of the public that's not as fanatical about oil grades/specs they didn't want someone needing to do an OC looking for JASO MA oil and seeing only MA1/MA2 available and thinking, "Ah, this isn't the stuff they said in my manual, and I don't remember what API category they recommended...". Although that's complete speculation, I'm glad to see Rotella now lists both their 5W40 & 15W40 as not only JASO MA, but MA2 as well!
 
Last edited:
Speaking of Rotella, a riding friend recently told me that the 10W30 version is labeled as MB. I haven't seen this, and am a bit skeptical. Have you seen such labeling?
 
I personally haven't seen any of JASO's T 903 specs on Rotella's T5 synthetic blends, but that would definitely be interesting if it was! I did some searching on their technical data sheets and the only JASO spec listed is DH-2, but I wonder if he might have mistaken the "MB Approval 228.31" which is a Mercedes Benz cert as it being MB certified?

http://s06.static-shell.com/content/dam/...t5-brochure.pdf

http://www.farleycompany.com/pdf/data-sheets/shell/b-fleet_engine_oil/TDS_Shell_Rotella_T5_10W-30_%28CJ-4%29.pdf

Some fellow members emailed SOPUS about the new arrival of their syn-blend 15W40 which doesn't have a MA cert, but the representative said they would expect it to meet the same standards the original 15W40 met (assuming of course); but it would always be great to have more options!
 
Last edited:
yes and some bottles (a lot of them) also say MB and could have easily been viewed as part of the jaso spec...a semi quick glance and it would confuse you.
 
It is odd that some oil manufactures show all 3 - MA, MA1 & MA2, until you realize that the sub index's are just different parts of the MA range. As others have noted likely more tailored to a specific application like racing. I'll use Castrol and Amsoil as a case in point. Castrol's Motorcycle RS 10-50 is spec MA2 and Amsoil MC 10-40 is spec MA, MA1, MA2. It is a bit confusing but in reality as long as you use any of the three MA specs you'll be fine in a wet clutch bike. You might get a slightly different clutch/shift feel between the different MA oils.

Current 2013 DL650 still specs a MA oil.
 
I'll throw a cat into this JASO MA fray. What about this theory, does it have any merit? --> If two different oils from two different makers each show compliance in the same subdivision of MA, say MA2 for instance, then can we figure on each of the two behaving the same way in the engine from a stand point of viscous friction (internal friction of the oil itself) and lubricity? And from those standpoints, engine performance? I realize "engine performance" is subjective, but there is that bit where people say their bike feels better on such and such oil vs other oils. So then let's look at an example. Since the MA tests involve fairly tight parameters or boundaries of frictional characteristics within which the oil must fall to be in compliance of MA1 or MA2, then shouldn't a 10W40 conventional oil meeting MA2 yield almost identical results against a 10W40 MA2 compliant synthetic in fuel economy, perceived throttle response and any other subjective factors folks tend to cite when they say their engine "likes" an oil? I am probably not stating my thesis very elegantly.
 
I think I understand the question you're posing; so this main question is what I'll be basing my answer off of, "So then let's look at an example. Since the MA tests involve fairly tight parameters or boundaries of frictional characteristics within which the oil must fall to be in compliance of MA1 or MA2, then shouldn't a 10W40 conventional oil meeting MA2 yield almost identical results against a 10W40 MA2 compliant synthetic in fuel economy, perceived throttle response and any other subjective factors folks tend to cite when they say their engine "likes" an oil? "

In theory I would say that, yes, a conventional oil should yield similar results against a synthetic variant that are both 10W40 and certified JASO MA2 as far as frictional testing indices are concerned. As I'm sure you've read previously, the reason I said "similar" is because there's a range that a given oil can achieve an MA2 rating, like the dynamic friction index of MA2 being >1.85 and clutch uptake, along with other factors they must pass such as: HTHS, foaming tendency, evaporative loss, shear stability, along with sulfated ash and phosphorus content.
Some manufacturers will use the maximum amount of phosphorus possible (1200 PPM) while others may be at the lower end (800 PPM, along with other varying testing parameters), but if both oils achieved identical friction ratings and had the same chemical properties, you would be hard-pressed to accurately notice a difference, except where you might expect a synthetic oil could outperform in areas like cold temp. pump-ability, less volatility, potentially more shear stable, higher flash point, etc.

http://www.jalos.or.jp/onfile/pdf/4T_EV1105.pdf

Now, I'm not suggesting this to be the Holy Grail of motorcycle oil study's/comparisons, but it's always interesting to take a look at Amsoil's 2009 study of motorcycle oils where they compared 15 different oils (13 are synthetic/syn. blends, 2 were conventional) and after reviewing the testing procedures found that one of the conventional oils (Valvoline MC 10W40) narrowly missed 4th place and out-beat 2/3 of the synthetic competition at a whopping cost of $3.99 per qt. I'm sure Amsoil was shocked at the results (as am I), but conventional oils can also have stout additive packages and be very robust, hence BITOG'S love of Rotella.

http://wpc.1c96.edgecastcdn.net/001C96/G...ived/index.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top