SJ, but not SL in a Harley?

[fuel tanker man]

I talked to a Kendall rep today (supposed to have been a tech but she sounded like she'd have been more at home behind the jewelry counter at Walmart than where I found her).

Nonetheless...

She said that Kendall GT-1, being an SL rated 20W50, was not compatible with Harley Davidson's recommended oils. She said that Harley specified that a particular friction modifier present in SL rated oils was not compatible with their engines.

"Moly?" I asked.

"No, not moly. There are more friction modifiers than moly out there."

"Zinc? Phosphorous?"

"Zinc and phosphorous aren't friction modifiers," she informed me.

"So what is the FM that Harley doesn't want?" I asked.

She got silent for a few seconds, seeming perturbed at my persistent questioning. "Harley Davidson doesn't mention what the FM actually is," she finally said.

"So it could be moly then, right?" I persisted.

She didn't answer, and seemed to be getting ticked. I moved the conversation in another direction.

"Is Kendall GT-1 a group I or a group II oil?"

"That's propreitary," she said.

"That means group I," I told her. "If it was group II you'd want to brag about that." I laughed, but she didn't.

I thanked her for her efforts (I called it trouble) and hung up the phone.

I still can't imagine what Harley Davidson would consider to be wrong with an SL rated 20w50. It's possible they're talking down moly for the instances where the oil was going to be put in the primary, or used in a Sportster type set-up. I do think it's probably moly that Harley is cautioning against; I just think the Kendall gal didn't know for sure, and in the process of not trying to sound stupid, well, sounded stupid.

Do you think there is anything wrong with an SL rated 20W50 dino oil in a Harley? I'm guessing not, as the Mobil 1 has worked well for me in the past. (And I'm hoping not, too, since I've just purchased a case of Havoline 20W50 at Advance for 12.96 after rebate)

...

I wonder if Harley is just trying to thin down the herd of options for us so that we'll end up having to purchase their "360" oil?

Dan

 

[fuel tanker man]

Looks like what I suspected was correct.

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/H.H._M_bulletins/M1065_oildesg.pdf

In this service bulletin, HD seems to be recommending against the use of SJ oils. According to the Kendall gal I spoke to, HD is now saying that SJ oils are okay, but SL oils are not.

If the Kendall gal is correct, and HD is recommending SJ but not SL, something has changed since the linked tech bulletin shown above.

Is Harley Davidson merely taking advantage of the newer oil rating changes in order to (as the bulletin suggests) convert more customers back to their house brand of oil?

Or is there really something "inferior" about, say, Havoline SL rated 20W50 oil? Or Pennzoil 20W50? Both of these oils report acceptable viscosities and seemingly more than adequate addtive packages.

Dan

 

[LVHospiceRN]

Bear in mind you are talking about Harley the company here. This is the same company that said you can't use synthetics in our bikes....until they came out with their own synthetic!

It wouldnt surprise me a bit for this to be nothing but a, "You have to use OUR oil, not someone elses" ploy to keep those dollars rolling into their dealership.

The basic design of the Harley V-Twin dates back to what, the early 1900's? I find it difficult to believe any late production oil would more than meet its lubrication requirements...

Just IMHO

darrell
sin city

 

[medic]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LVHospiceRN:
Bear in mind you are talking about Harley the company here. This is the same company that said you can't use synthetics in our bikes....until they came out with their own synthetic!

---

Bear in mind that it sounds like this Kendall rep didn't know her @ss from a hole in the ground. Never did Harley say you CAN'T use synth oil. Harley recommended against the use of synthetic oil because there weren't any synth oils on the market that had been tested by Harley to Harley's specs. Therefore, they couldn't be sure how it would act in their engines. Harley took this stand back when Mobil1 first hit the market. At that point, you weren't given the choices of synth ois that you are today. The choice was very limited and may not have included an oil that was good in a shovelhead engine. Harley may have made a very educated decision at that time. Harley stuck with that stand on synth oil until recently, when they realized that synth oils were the wave of the future and they needed to jump on the bandwagon.

All of that too slippery for needle bearing talk never came from Harley. You may have heard dealers say it, but the corp never said it. Their stand on synth oil remains the same to this day - the only synth oil that they have tested to their specs is SYN3.

 

[fuel tanker man]

So what about the no SJ, and now no SL oil? HD apparently said (in a response to Donny Petersen in American Iron, circa 1998) that the SJ oil did not have enough zinc and phosphorous in it for the unique "appetite" of the Harley V-Twin engine. VOA's tend to show that several other oils actually have more of these additives than the HD 360 oil does.

Now, if the Kendall gal is reading her cue cards correctly, Harley's line is that the SL oils have an additive that should not be in a Harley engine. I still say they're talking about moly, but most of us have figured out by now that moly isn't bad for the seperate crankcase of the Evo's and Twin Cams.

I love my HD cycle. I hate their smoke and mirrors BS with regard to lubricants...

Dan

 

[fuel tanker man]

By the way, here is a link to a page with three links (about 3/4's of the way down) on the American Iron articles, and Harley's response. Yeah, it's a Amsoil webpage (whoda thunk?) but the links are good, and it's Adobe format so the magazine pages are presented as they originally were. HD's response is in part III. All of the debate is interesting and informative.

http://www.pecuniary.com/newsletters/americaniron.html

 

[fuel tanker man]

Here is a blurb about SL rated oils on Advance Auto's website: "SL: This rating is for all gasoline engines currently in use. SL oils are manufactured for better high-temperature deposit control and lower oil consumption. Some SL oils also qualify as "Energy Conserving." SL is the most current of all categories. Look shortly for the soon-to-be-announced SM category."

And if you read the linked articles in the American Iron mag--in particular the Harley Davidson response in which the MoCo rep says (in reference to why an SJ rated oil isn't good enough for a Harley):

"So what does all that mean to the Harley Davidson owner? The Harley Davidson air cooled engine runs hotter than a water cooled engine, more like a diesel engine. API SJ motor oils have deposit control suitable for the temperatures common in water cooled gasoline engines, not those of diesel or air cooled engines. Harley Davidson's HD 360 is formulated to give the deposit control needed by the Harley Davidson air cooled engine."

So it should follow that an SL rated oil would have the better high temp deposit control that HD is looking for? Probably so. So they had to concoct a reason why the SL oil was still bad. "Hmmm... give us a second here... okay, okay I got it. How's this sound guys?

The SL oil won't work because it's got an additive we don't like! Eureka! (Can I have my raise now, boss?).

You guys paint this how you choose. For my part I think I've figured it out

...

Dan

 

[LVHospiceRN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by medic:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LVHospiceRN:
Bear in mind you are talking about Harley the company here. This is the same company that said you can't use synthetics in our bikes....until they came out with their own synthetic!

---

Bear in mind that it sounds like this Kendall rep didn't know her @ss from a hole in the ground. Never did Harley say you CAN'T use synth oil. Harley recommended against the use of synthetic oil because there weren't any synth oils on the market that had been tested by Harley to Harley's specs. Therefore, they couldn't be sure how it would act in their engines. Harley took this stand back when Mobil1 first hit the market. At that point, you weren't given the choices of synth ois that you are today. The choice was very limited and may not have included an oil that was good in a shovelhead engine. Harley may have made a very educated decision at that time. Harley stuck with that stand on synth oil until recently, when they realized that synth oils were the wave of the future and they needed to jump on the bandwagon.

All of that too slippery for needle bearing talk never came from Harley. You may have heard dealers say it, but the corp never said it. Their stand on synth oil remains the same to this day - the only synth oil that they have tested to their specs is SYN3.

---

C'mon, you are talking about a multi-million dollar company and they couldnt afford to test a new "revolutionary" oil that may offer much better lubrication? No, they didnt test the oil because they didnt have a synthetic oil to sell! Why did they NEED an synthetic? They could sell their dino oil at synthetic prices thru their dealerships.

And i agree that the Company didnt start the rumor that synthetic was "too slippery" but they sure didnt do anything to dispell that rumor either!

Wille G. puttin down the road makes a fantastic marketing photo opportunity, but if you think they are anything more than a Large Corporation expressly interested in seperating the consumer from their $$$, you are sadly mistaken.

Just IMHO
darrell
sin city

 

[medic]

I never said they couldn't afford to. As a business, it was in their best interest not to test these oils, and therefore recommend against the use of them due to lack of testing.

To this day Harley recommends agaisnt the use of any oil made for use in gas engines. They maintain that, if an oil other that their oil is to be used, it be rated for use in diesel engines, CF I think. Back when mobil1 hit the market, it wasn't made with diesel engines in mind. This is when Harley made their "no synth" stand.

The oil I currently use in my EVO is SJ,SL,SH,CD & CF rated, Redline 15w-50.

I'm sure Harley wasn't the only manufacturer to jump on the anti-synth band wagon in the beginning. They just stuck with it for a bit longer. Many auto manufacturers recommended against the use of synth oil during the break in period. These same manufacturers are now using synth oil as a factory fill, and plastering the M1 logo all over their engines. Now I'm sure this was only because they wanted their consumers to have better protected engines. I highly doubt any $$$ changed hands between exon/mobil and these manufacturers

Harley isn't the only manufacturer that is driven by the all mighty dollar.

Synthetic oils didn't really make up all that much of the total motoroil sales in this country until about 10 years ago when the numbers started to rise. With this rise in synth sales, automotive manufactures had to re-evaluate their current direction, and change accordingly. Harley, slowly climbing from the slump that AMF left them in, didn't have time to worry about looking in a different direction, they were already looking ahead, both in terms of engineering and sales. I wouldn't be surprised if the porsche designed engine on the V-rod helped them with the idea of releasing a synth oil.

BTW, they could've jumped in with the group III synth blenders for their SYN3 and made more profit (still selling it for $8 per quart), but they actually used a PAO. I think this proves that harley isn't out to get all of your money, just most of it. If you think about it, Castrol Syntec 20w-50 (grp III) is $5.19 per quart, In comparison, SYN3 (grp IV) is $8 per quart. Really, it's not that bad of a deal. Everything is relative.

 

[LVHospiceRN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by medic:
BTW, they could've jumped in with the group III synth blenders for their SYN3 and made more profit (still selling it for $8 per quart), but they actually used a PAO. I think this proves that harley isn't out to get all of your money, just most of it.

---

Nah, that just proved their marketing dept. isnt as smart as they think they are!!! LOL

I looked but didnt find a VOA for Redline 15W-50. Is there one floating around that you know of? With Mobil redefining their oil not sure what i am going to change too next, using Mobil 1 15W-50 "red cap" now.

darrell]
sin city

 

[medic]

Nope, none that I know of. The reason I went with Redline 15w-50 is:

1. I got a great deal on it the first time, less that $5 per quart.

2. The guys who have the older brit bikes swear by it because those old norton, triumph & BSA engines get hot and chew up oil quick. Redline seems to hold up to the heat a bit better. I imagine it has something to do with being a grp V base oil.

3. Redline has shown the ability to stand up to fuel dilution better than most other oils on the market. This has been seen here time and time again. I often ride in cooler weather and my oil doesn't see anything above 150F. The oil did get warmer prior to switching to Redline, but I still feel better with synth.

4. I chose the 15w-50 over the 20w-50 due to the extreme ambient temps we see here in north western PA. I can leave in the morning when it's 40F outside and end up riding in 90F temps by midday. This is a bit extreme, but it does happen. I also ride as much as I can, so the oil sees use from early spring to lat fall, and occationally on a nice day in the winter.

BTW, as I get older, the colder weather seems to get colder every year. When I was 20, it was nothing to ride 25 miles to work in 40F weather. Now, 40 seems downright cold!

I have really considered dropping to Redline 5w-40, but I'll have to do some more research. I'll probably hold off until 2006 because I already have enough 15w-50 for this coming season. If I do it, I'll be sure to do a VOA, if not already done, and a UOA at the end of the season.

 

[LVHospiceRN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by medic:
I chose the 15w-50 over the 20w-50 due to the extreme ambient temps we see here in north western PA. I can leave in the morning when it's 40F outside and end up riding in 90F temps by midday. This is a bit extreme, but it does happen. I also ride as much as I can, so the oil sees use from early spring to lat fall, and occationally on a nice day in the winter.
BTW, as I get older, the colder weather seems to get colder every year. When I was 20, it was nothing to ride 25 miles to work in 40F weather. Now, 40 seems downright cold!

---

I can relate to the age thing! Back in the olden days it didnt matter as long as there wasnt ice on the street i rode my bike! Now if the sun aint shining and it's warm, which here in Vegas is the norm, i dont ride!

I switched from harley oil to M1 just for the preceived benefit of high temperature protection. Our extreme is 117 degrees in stop and go traffic!

What are you running in your tranny case/primary case?

darrell
sin city

 

[medic]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LVHospiceRN:
What are you running in your tranny case/primary case?

---

Amsoil 10w-40 in the primary (I have'nt been able to get passed that moly vs. wet clutch idea) and Redline MT-90 in the tranny.

BTW, If you haven't read it before, my bike is a '93 FXSTC.

 

[fuel tanker man]

Medic,

I don't know if you have any Advance Auto stores in your area, but the stores in my area are closing out the Redline oil at around 5 bucks a quart.

Just a heads up.

Dan

 

[pococj]

Relatively new here, but have been riding HD for over 30 years. I ran Castrol 20w-50 for most of the life of a '78 FLH that went 200k miles before the bottom end needed done. Now have an '87 FLST that I got used. I've been running Mobil 1 15w-50 since I got it at 40k miles; now has 100+k miles. I run it in the engine only, not the primary or the gearbox. What's the deal on the new Mobil 1? Has an analysis been done on the 15w-50? I refuse to buy the Mobil 1 V-Twin or HD's Syn 3 at the $8/qt gouge.

 

[LVHospiceRN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pococj:
I refuse to buy the Mobil 1 V-Twin or HD's Syn 3 at the $8/qt gouge.

---

I promise you Pococj, if it has the harley name on it, its GROSSLY overpriced.

darrell
sin city

 

[fuel tanker man]

Pococj,

I agree with you. Eight bucks is scandalous for a quart of oil--especially when there are other oils out there that'll do the job just fine.

The new Mobil 1 has double the amount of moly. (Old had 50 ppm, new has 100 ppm according to the tech I spoke to yesterday). In your crankcase (which is seperate from the wet clutch) you can run that oil with no concerns. The only thing is the price of the new Mobil 1 has increased. Mobil justifies it by saying you can go farther between changes, but as I've mentioned elsewhere I don't think it's a good idea to go more than 2500 to 3000 miles without draining the oil. There could be quite a bit of "crap" floating around in there by that mileage, and viscosity could be greatly reduced by that time due to fuel dilution.

I was running the old Mobil 1, because I could get it for 4 bucks a quart at Walmart (in the five quart jugs).

Now I've decided to try 2000 mile drains on regular Havoline 20W50, and I'm thinking I'll be fine in this area of the country (Virginia). I don't ride in 90 degree + weather very often if at all, and I don't forsee idling in traffic at that temperature. If I know I'm gonna head into such a situation, I'll drain and fill with the pricy Mobil 1--but not until then...

Dan