Oil comparision...

[buster]

Dan, I think your way off base here in many of your comments.

quote:

---

Moly--in large quantities--is garnering a rep for attracting H20 (yep, water). This is almost certainly the reason the Redline oils, most of which have about 600 ppm of Moly in them, tend to show high wear metal counts in most UOA's. (the wear metal may well be from corrosion).

---

Moly has nothing to do with attracting water. The issue with Redline being hydroscopic was from it's polyolester basestock. Remember something, Redline is not 100% POE. It does contain some PAO. Dave has told me it does.

Your also forgetting about Havoline containing 490ppm of Moly. ZERO corrosion. Your also forgetting about the fact that oils with strong dispersant additive packages contain many things in suspension while other oils will leave them behind. This fools the person who does a UOA.

Here is a quote from XOM

quote:

---

EliteEtc.com: We've had a few reports that the wear metals in oil analysis increase immediately after converting to Elite. Is this due to the same phenomonon?

ExxonMobil: That's right, Lisa. This is usually a sign that Elite is suspending some sludge containing wear metals left by your previous oil. This usually returns to normal after the sludge has been solublized by Elite and removed from the engine.

The process takes only 2-3 drain intervals after which your wear metals will return to a more normal level, or even a bit lower due to Elite's superior anti-wear additive package.

However, please ask your customers to fax a copy of their oil analysis report so that ExxonMobil Technical Support can review each situation individually.

---

Dan if dino oils were as good as synthetics, they would be using them in NASCAR/F1. They are a thing of the past for extreme applications. Whether cold or hot, synthetics are superior. 99% of us may not need them therefore they don't always show their superiority, but that doesn't mean the are not. Run 15,000 mile drains on a good synthetic vs a dino under tough condtions and perform tear down. I bet the synththetics will keep the engine much cleaner. I sure Roy Howell of Redline, former chemist at Lubrizol is quite aware of what works and doesn't work. To think we know otherwise is a bit scary.

[ November 13, 2005, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[Blake Sobiloff]

Buster, good point about Redline's base oil being hydroscopic, not the moly!

However, I don't think that invalidates FuelTankerMan's original points: Motorcycle engines generate significantly more combustion by-products that quickly result in high levels of insoluables in the oil. These insoluables aren't filtered by full-flow filters and, as such, become a limiting factor in how long any oil can be in service.

In fact, FTM asserts that the high insoluables limit the oil service life to such a degree that synthetic's long life advantages can't be realized. I think there's empirical support for this position.

Additionally, many motorcycles tend to fuel dilute the oil, also shortening the oil's serviceable life. I think this is going away with the trend towards fuel injection, choke-less cold start ECMs, and oxygen sensors, though, but it is still an issue for most motorcycles on the road at this time.

Lastly, to tie in another common thread, shearing is a dramatic limiter to an oil's service life in a motorcycle that has a shared engine and transmission lubrication system. Sunrah's many UOAs provide excellent evidence of this. (I believe that this doesn't apply as much to FTM's motorcycle since, IIRC, his Harley has separate transmission and primary drive lubrication systems.)

My thought at the moment is that oil used in a motorcycle with a shared transmission has two primary enemies: shearing from the transmission gears and insoluables from poor combustion chamber sealing.

Group V multi-viscosity oils are probably the best at resisting shearing by nature, so they are a ready available solution. (This, of course, assumes that we are biased towards multi-vis. Monograde oils would be even better, but they have the significant drawback of poor cold start performance.)

So, we're left with getting a handle on insoluables and fuel dilution. Group V oils handle fuel dilution very well, and careful carb settings can make this manageable. But what about the insoluables?

I'm thinking a bypass oil filtering system would be ideal for the removal of insoluables, but I've never heard of one on a motorcycle.

 

[buster]

Thanks Blake, but you basically said above that Group V are more suitable at handling shear. So why then wouldn't you suggest using a synthetic over a dino? I do agree though, if MC do contaminate the oil with a lot of insoluables, your best just to change it more often and therefore use a cheaper oil.

 

[fuel tanker man]

Respectfully, what is good for racing engines isn't necessarily always what's going to be best for our cars and motorcycles. Race cars use different fuel, too, but CAM2 and the like are not what is best for our highway operated vehicles.

I do stand corrected on the reason Redline draws moisture. My bust.

I had read elsewhere at this forum that it was being suspected that Redline's high moly content was responsible for its seeming to draw water. Whatever it is, it does seem to be a problem.

On the matter of shearing, I think that many engine manufacturers take into consideration that oils are going to shear about one grade during a normal OCI. I know that Harley Davidson believes that 40 weight oil can protect their engines, as they recommend 15W40 truck diesel oil when their own 20W50 can't be found. So what I'm basically saying is that shearing may not necessarily always be bad.

Lastly, on the notion of three OCI's to see wear metal counts come down. No one has yet shown any such evidence. Mobil 1 continues to show high iron (likely a product of accelerated rusting), and this has become the norm for UOA's on that oil. Redline afficianados have yet to produce a series of UOAs where wear metals actually trend down significantly--so I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that these syn makers are simply trying to string us along by telling us that after three OCIs we'll see wear metals come down. It's a safe thing for them to assert; the overwhelming majority of folks will take Redline's or Mobil's word for it and not even test three times in a row. And for the folks who actually do get three UOAs in a row--and who see wear metals NOT trending down--these makers will certainly have plenty of excuses in their quivers. The oil is still cleaning... this engine gives up such wear metal counts routinely so it's not a problem, etc.

Dan

 

[satterfi]

quote

I do stand corrected on the reason Redline draws moisture. My bust. [Embarrassed] I had read elsewhere at this forum that it was being suspected that Redline's high moly content was responsible for its seeming to draw water. Whatever it is, it does seem to be a problem.

quote

I use Redline and don't see water as a problem.

Maybe trailer queens see it. I don't.

 

[Blake Sobiloff]

Buster, you're correct: While Group V oils are superior at resisting shear, they are also four to five times more expensive ($9 for Redline versus $2 for Havoline). If the other factors that pollute the oil can not be controlled, primarily high insoluable levels, you'll have to dump your expensive Group V long before the break-even point. As such, even though it's more labor intensive--and don't forget to factor in the cost of a new filter--conventional oil changes at short OCIs may be more economical.

FTM, on shearing, please read the article I posted in this thread on optimal oil viscosity. Manufacturers of motorcycles with shared engine and transmission oil do not want the oil to shear down into the 30-weight range, as pitting and galling of the transmission gears will occur. This, more than anything else, is the likely reason behind the recommendations for a 50-weight oil. A 50-weight can shear down into a 40-weight and still provide the necessary protection for the transmission gears. A 40-weight that shears into a 30-weight may not.

Lastly, I'm wrapping up an Auto-RX application on my bike and will be putting Redline 10W-40 in there, along with LC. I have a UOA on the oil that came in the bike when I bought it (used), and I'll UOA the Auto-RX cleaning phase oil in about 400 miles. I'll continue to UOA the Redline and let everyone know the results. FTM, care to bet a dollar on the results?

 

[Andy H]

From Jaybird, 9 Nov 6pm:

quote:

---

"Additional testing must be reviewed to determine an oil’s actual ability to prevent wear".
The above statement taken from the report, pretty much sums up my thoughts.

---

No trouble here.

quote:

---

ASTM testing does indeed give some insight on the exteme conditional aspects of a fluid. However, the 'real world' testing regiment is invaluable for making the correct decision on the proper fluid.

---

ASTM tests are selected for certification - not motorcycle road tests - specifically because they are reproducible and thus comparable. The same fuel, the same atmospheric conditions, the same mechanical components and metallurgy, and the same test procedures are used in a licensed lab for the testing. While it’s true that variations will exist in the ‘real world’ when someone pulls an oil sample on their bike. UOAs are useless for comparing products! Why? Every piece of equipment will wear differently. Every rider rides differently. Fuel and atmospheric conditions are seldom the same. Each unique bike contaminates the oil differently. That’s why UOA is best used as a trending device for a single piece of equipment and shouldn’t be used for general comparison.

quote:

---

Just as individual additives can show value in one or more areas of protection, it is not really known how they will react and compete for space until some real world in-use data is compiled.

---

The referenced ASTM tests are not testing just one component of an additive package - they're all testing finished oil. This is real-world data that can be compared!

quote:

---

So, IMO, analysis of the fluids after similar runs under the exact same conditions will give lots more valuable information than simple ASTM findings. Even more valuable would be actual measurements of components after such runs.

The old addage; "It looks good on paper" applies here.

---

These ASTM results are 'analysis of the fluids after ... runs under the exact same conditions"! And that's PRECISELY the point!

Andy

 

[satterfi]

" If the other factors that pollute the oil can not be controlled, primarily high insoluable levels"

The two UOA's I've run on my bike with Redline show insoluables as
That's at 5k miles. It shears a bit, but is still in pretty good shape.

 

[Blake Sobiloff]

AndyH, I agree that lab experiments are vitally important. However, as a former research scientist I can tell you that lab results aren't the end-all, be-all! There are frequently unforseen factors that lab experiments don't (or can't) take into account that have a significant impact on the question at hand.

A "test queen" might look great on paper, but subject her to factors not accounted for in the testing and she might have a nasty surprise. That's why ASTM test results are a great place to start, but you can't deny that there are significant individual differences that should influence one's oil selection.

Satterfi, that's encouraging! I hope my bike can run as cleanly as yours. (Did you ever post a second UOA? I could only find one.)

 

[Andy H]

Blake,

I can't disagree with what you've said about lab tests - especially in a research arena. Putting 5 of the best minds together to solve a problem and formulate version 1.0 of a test protocol can leave plenty of holes.

These ASTM tests, though, are the result of decades of iterations of lab and road testing. The ASTM has been publishing their Petroleum Products Handbook since 1938. Participants in the creation and vetting of these tests include the petroleum industry, the equipment manufacturers, and the testing facility folks. Many generations of experts and tests - lab and road - have gone in the current tests.

This from the ASTM Petroleum Products: Seventh Edition: "The struggle to develop appropriate test methods for engine oils has been a long, expensive, and technically sophisticated effort. However, a comparison of engine durability, oil properties, effectiveness of current test methods, and current values for oil-change intervals suggests that the struggle has, to a great extent, been successful."

Andy

 

[Huhwhye]

FTM, I didn't see you chime in on this UOA from the MC UOA forum. Now we have 1 UOA to match your 1 UOA. Wear number look pretty low especially for the OCI, seems that oil protected the motor to 6000 miles no problem.
UOA forum BMW

 

[fuel tanker man]

I saw that BMW UOA a while back. It does indeed look good.

I was thinking more along the lines of similar engines when I asked for a syn comparison to my UOA.

But the Beamer motor does look like the Castrol Syntec did it a good job. Not sure if the 5W50 Castrol is a group III dino or not...

Dan

 

[Huhwhye]

I think they are pretty similar. Both air cooled twins (they call that BMW oil cooled, whatever) Both have dedicated engine oil and separate trans oil. Both use w50.

Reason I made the comment, you are usually one of the first to comment on a UOA that went bad, pointing out shearing and high wear metals. Then you go on and on about Havoline and your 2500 mile OCI. Then you say how stupid it is to run extended drains on a M/C. If you want the links posted, I'll find them they are all over this board. But when someone has a extended drain that works you are silent.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And I'm happy you found something that works for you. But every bike or oil is different. And some of us like to push the envelope.

 

[fuel tanker man]

Running extended drains on a motorcycle is like playing Russian Roulette. You might get away with it for a long time. And yes, there are probably other UOAs here that are examples of folks getting away with it. But that doesn't make Russian Roulette a good idea.

Dan

 

[Huhwhye]

Since we're on metaphors

I think we are beating a dead horse.

 

[satterfi]

I no idea what THE MOTOR COMPANY recommends for an oil change interval.

If FTM says 2,500 miles is a good number for those kind of bikes, that's fine with me.

Modern, high performance, Japanese bikes using an oil like Redline have no problem going to the recommended oil change interval of 8,000 miles. Most riders I know change between 5-6k and use and oil like Redline or Silkolene.

The general rule of thumb I use is, after you toast 2 or 3 rear tires, change the oil. That works out to be once a year or about 6k miles, sometimes a bit more.

 

[fuel tanker man]

Another point which should be mentioned is the type of riding you're doing, and the relation of that to the OCI's.

If you're on a cross-country trip, logging 400 or more miles per day, I think it would be safe to extend the drains.

If you're one who just starts the bike up, rides for a half hour to an hour about town and parks it back in the garage for another week, then you're going to want the change the oil more often.

Harley Davidson says 5000 miles for their regular dino oil... I think that's probably too far, based on the following points:

The two Harley Davidson bikes which have been documented to have gone over 400,000 miles without overhauls (one went 465,000 miles with a side-car!) did so on 2500 mile oil changes, and both used Harley dino 20W50 oil. Most Evolution HD engines don't make it past 100,000 miles before needing top end work--but then again, most riders follow maker recommended OCI's.

Secondly, most makers (perhaps all?) of any mechanical device have an ideal service life in mind when they make it. They don't want it to last forever~!

So when it comes to determining oil change intervals, they are going to strike a good balance between a reasonable service life and the minimum requirement. This way, as the engine begins to approach uselessness, the manufacturer can realize another sale of a new vehicle. It is important that they strike a good balance on OCI recommendation, however. Too short, the engine may last too long. Too long, the engine may not last long enough. As an aside, this kind of thinking goes into other components of the vehicle as well, so if the engine were to last "too long," something else would likely wear out, perhaps eventuating another sale--if it didn't wear out too quickly.

Dan