Lucas Motorcycle Oil Stabilizer?

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Idahokid
I use Lucas products in my Harley....

So, is the oil so poor or the Harley design so poor that one cannot just use an oil out of the bottle as specified? The stuff didn't help the oil last longer on the UOA; it lasted despite the additive.

 

[guyonearth]

My policy is simple, if they can't explain EXACTLY, PRECISELY how it works in a real scientific manner, then the conclusion I draw is that, in fact, it doesn't work.

 

[Idahokid]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Idahokid
I use Lucas products in my Harley....

So, is the oil so poor or the Harley design so poor that one cannot just use an oil out of the bottle as specified? The stuff didn't help the oil last longer on the UOA; it lasted despite the additive.
. When it's in the high 90's and your idling,It's just insurance is the way I look at it.

 

[Garak]

Okay, without the cliches, now? What is Lucas accomplishing when it's 90 outside and you're idling that cannot be accomplished by your oil alone? When I want insurance, I talk to an insurance broker, and don't go to the additive aisle, after all.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Idahokid
When it's in the high 90's and your idling,It's just insurance is the way I look at it.


Insurance in not having that cash in your pocket and spending it instead on beer/soda/a trip to the pool, or the gas to go for a ride ?

As to insurance for your engine, the additive package that you paid the oil manufacturer for has been diluted by 20% or so, and will have a lesser ppm of Friction modifiers, dispersents, AW additives, anti foam and the like.

 

[UltrafanUK]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: mr_blackstock
It is common knowledge that the hotter an engine gets, the more likely lubrication additives will break down.
Any extreme stress on an engine will directly effect lubrication.
Ever since oil was first considered as a lubricant for auto use, companies have experimented with additives.
The biggest "snake oil" producers have always been big oil companies, their advertising budgets cover up alot of [censored] products.
You know early motorcycle race bikes used vegetable oil? Multi-grade oils were once considered a "fad"
4 cylinder bikes were considered too unstable to be reliable, traveling over 20mph was once considered a health risk...

How many current companies relied on an innovative product to establish themselves in their market? All.

If you have not used a product, do not dismiss it out of hand.


Interesting post. Do you have insider industry knowledge as to which big oil company additives are junk and covered up by advertising?


Castrol make a lot of noise about the use of FST, Platinum and special Magnetic molecules.
FST is just a term for more group 4 base stock (Like Mobil, they still don't produce a true German standard full synthetic).
Platinum can replace DZZP (Zinc based), BUT they never put enough in to make a real difference, cos it's too expensive.
Magnetic moles don't exist!

The biggest scam is the incorrect use of the term full synthetic in the US and UK, as it includes HC (Hydro Crack) base stocks.
The term full synthetic should be restricted to group 4 synthoils, OR group 3 plus GTL (Gas To Liquids) technolgy oils like Shell Ultra (Penn Ultra in the USA).
SAE groups are also one bad way to define vicosity. What you really want to know is the kinematic viscosity at some artic winter temp AND max oil temperature.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK
Magnetic moles don't exist!

That's why the invented and trademarked the term, "Magnatec" and don't really claim magnetism is involved. I'm a purist about how synthetic oils should be labelled, and what should be called synthetic and what should not be. However, there are primarily Group IV oils in existence in North America, and the naming controversy ship has long sailed. All the oil companies did was invent new words for use in Germany.

I can find you some Group IV oils here that would meet German labeling definitions and proudly proclaim their Group IV content, but don't meet the API, ACEA, or builder approvals of anything current, and have some pretty poor viscometrics, so what's the point?

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: guyonearth
My policy is simple, if they can't explain EXACTLY, PRECISELY how it works in a real scientific manner, then the conclusion I draw is that, in fact, it doesn't work.

Good reasoning.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK
The biggest scam is the incorrect use of the term full synthetic in the US and UK, as it includes HC (Hydro Crack) base stocks.
The term full synthetic should be restricted to group 4 synthoils, OR group 3 plus GTL (Gas To Liquids) technolgy oils like Shell Ultra (Penn Ultra in the USA).


Which are also severely hydrocracked.

I think the argument can be successfully made that the biggest scam is (or will be) the German labeling law. As technology has advanced on hydrocracked oils the insistence to naming only Group IV oils as fully synthetic will become a detriment, not an advantage.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK


The biggest scam is the incorrect use of the term full synthetic in the US and UK, as it includes HC (Hydro Crack) base stocks.
The term full synthetic should be restricted to group 4 synthoils, OR group 3 plus GTL (Gas To Liquids) technolgy oils like Shell Ultra (Penn Ultra in the USA).


I am with ya bro as I am a by definition, a "purist.'

However, this has been hashed many many times going back to 2002.

Here is another discussion from 2007:

Originally Posted By: Molakule
I think there is more to consider in the Mobil vs Castrol marketing question.

As Dr. Gresham, a contributor to Tribology and Lubrication Technology has stated, Group I, II and III are simply more sophisticated levels the refining of crude oils and I tend to agree.

In addition, he says that "synthetic base oils are generally specific polymers produced from controlled polymerization. These polermerization reactions begin with specific small pieces called monomers and start from very basic building blocks like ethylene, propylene, butenes, their oxides and similar small molecules. The resultant base oils are polymers of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen...most commonly the polyalphaolefins, dibasic esters, polyol esters and polyalkylene glycols...they dont' have wax [and other compounds] contaminants."

Another definition of synthetic is: produced by synthesis, especially not of natural origin, made from basic building blocks not part of the resultant sythesis, and historically, this has been used as a definition for Group IV and V base oils.

As I have stated before, I think Mobil made a mistake by bringing the issue to a marketing association such as the BBB. What were they thinking? Most issues such as these are fought in the technical world of peer reviewed journals and with the army of scientists/chemists Mobil had, they should have been able to cast a great shadow of doubt over Castrol's claims.

I think the real sad issue here is that the marketing and sales community, instead of the scientific community, is defining lubricant chemistry.

Now with all that being said, we see that the highly refined Group III formulations are showing great performance results in both PCMO, gear lubes, and hydraulic oils.

And the same can be said about HOBS and other renewable lubricants.

Additive chemistry has advanced to the point where we no longer should be concerned about additive solubility or other additive interactions with either Group III OR Renewable lubricants.

Simply put, Mobil made the mistake of bringing this issue to a marketing group and lost to Castrol. Mobil is only to blame for their own, in my opinion, miscalculations.

The oils made by both companies are the result of lots of expensive research and development and will show their merit in used oil analysis results and field trials.


Another Synthetic VS Discussion

 

[Revving2Redline]

No to Lucas. Find oil with better additive package like Redline Oil or Amsoil.