What is a good oil to run in a Harley Twin Cam 88

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes I use the Amsoil engine oil filter. I run the 20w 50 (MCV) in the engine and primary and 75w 90 gear lube (SVG) in the trans.

I am retired and spend winters in Florida so I do ride year around.

I wonder how many miles you could reach on a Harley engine using HD 360 and OCI's of 10,000 miles before needing a rebuild? fuel tanker man, are you aware of any documented results doing that? That would be a better comparison to Amsoil instead of the 2500 mile OCI, IMHO.
 
Quote:


I wonder how many miles you could reach on a Harley engine using HD 360 and OCI's of 10,000 miles before needing a rebuild? fuel tanker man, are you aware of any documented results doing that? That would be a better comparison to Amsoil instead of the 2500 mile OCI, IMHO.




No, running the 360 5000 miles and the Amsoil 10,000 miles would be a better (and more fair) comparison.
 
I think G-Man is referencing cost, whereas the overpriced HD 360 is about half what the Amsoil product is.

I would suspect that the corrected for mileage wear metal counts on a 5000 mile OCI with the Harley oil versus a 10,000 mile OCI with the Amsoil would be very comparable, and may even favor the dino oil.

If your goal is to avoid doing oil changes, and you can ride pretty much year round (to vent the crank case of moisture accumulation and re-circulate the the oil frequently) then I think your Harley engine would outlive you--even on 10K OCI's with Amsoil or any other good oil. So it's not such a bad plan.

I have done the UOA's using dino oils and have posted them here. There are other Harley UOA's on synthetic oils where the oil was changed in less than 3000 miles... but they still don't look as good as my dino UOA's. The LC UOA (a dino based oil) posted on a Harley at ~2800 miles is every bit as good as my UOA's... so again, the evidence seems to favor dino oils for the best wear metal protection.

The newer dino oils are really good at withstanding extreme heat, and I think that by the time the engine got hot enough to bake a good petroleum oil into a paste the heads would be warped and other serious damage will have resulted. The real world difference in the heat mitigation properties of syn versus dino seem negligible. I know guys who have the temperature gauges on their oil tanks and they aren't noticing any difference between Syn3 and dino oil.

I will offer the board a challenge: Run your synthetic oil of choice for 4000 miles, or even 5000 miles. Get a UOA from Blackstone. Then drain the oil well and re-fill with a quality dino oil, such as Havoline, or as has been mentioned here, Valvoline VR1 20W50. Run that oil for the same number of miles, and get Blackstone to do a UOA.

If the wear metal counts are better on the synthetic oil UOA, I will send a Paypal payment of 40 dollars to the testing individual to cover the cost of the UOA's. Or if the person does not have a Paypal account, I'll send an MO. I'm on record here as affirming this, and my word is good.

Dan
 
The caveat for amsoil is "or 1 year", even with all their fantastic claims and pdf's and bar graphs it comes back down to "or 1 year". For the guys that REALLY do rack on the big miles on their hogs, which are a VERY small minority, it makes sense that they would want to extend the drain interval right or wrong. IMHO the amsoil would make a good choice for this practice.

But since the huge majority of harleys NEVER see these kind of miles in a year (look at the want ads, go to the shows), it seems kind of a waste to dump a good oil at the end of a year of paddling your feet from bar to bar. Ina typical 1000 mile year 360 would be just as good as amsoil, IMO. Heck most guys sell the things before they'd ever see any supposed benefit from the expensive shop oil anyway?
 
Quote:


Why is that a fair comparison? To be fair shouldn't both oils be tested by the same number of miles in use?




Absolutely not. Amsoil is a fully synthetic PAO-based oil. 360 is not only a conventional, it's made from Group I. You can't expect these two oils to perform similarly for extended drains. The 360 would do fine in the 3K to 5K mile range. The Amsoil should do fine at 10K. Neither oil should be left in the engine for more than one year.

Testing Amsoil and Syn3 out to 10K miles would be a fair comparison.
 
Quote:


The caveat for amsoil is "or 1 year", even with all their fantastic claims and pdf's and bar graphs it comes back down to "or 1 year". For the guys that REALLY do rack on the big miles on their hogs, which are a VERY small minority, it makes sense that they would want to extend the drain interval right or wrong. IMHO the amsoil would make a good choice for this practice.

But since the huge majority of harleys NEVER see these kind of miles in a year (look at the want ads, go to the shows), it seems kind of a waste to dump a good oil at the end of a year of paddling your feet from bar to bar. Ina typical 1000 mile year 360 would be just as good as amsoil, IMO. Heck most guys sell the things before they'd ever see any supposed benefit from the expensive shop oil anyway?




laugh.gif


If you have more dollars invested in chrome than you have miles on your odometer... you might be a RUB.
laugh.gif


Dan
 
Dan, SF 20w50 racing oil was more synthetic than ANY of the OTC lubes mentioned. This oil was run in many alcohol burning racing cars with excellent performance.

Exotic and out of the box formulating is an understatement.

RLI BIO SYN would be closest competitor, the majors aren't even close.

I MISS SF.
 
"I think that synthetic oils perform well in many applications, but from the wear metal numbers I think it's fair to say that they cannot outperform dinos in a Harley V-Twin engine."

Wrong. I don't need to buy a oil analysis from Bklabs and have you reimburse me to know that answer Brother...
laugh.gif


Besides it depends on to many other variables.

Sincerely, Terry
 
Then pray tell us how you do know that... Please understand that I'm not saying you don't have the science, I (and likely others) would like to hear your line of reasoning. That is not too much to ask, I wouldn't think--and I do say this with the utmost respect.

We are here to learn...

If we cannot go by the wear metal numbers, what criteria do we use?

Dan
 
I used to be an Amsoil salesman until I learned .... and could no longer in good conscience promote their marketing claims in their literature.

They intially touted the UOA as part of the proof for their ... performance claims in their extended drain promotionals. Now when many people have ready access to a data bank of UOAs for dino oils, and the methodology and equipment for testing has vastly improved the accuracy of the UOA; to Amsoil salesman it is no longer a conclusive measure of wear or quality... How then can you trust them as proof for extended drains OCIs????

Amsoil distributes various kinds of "simulated tests" to allege the superiority of their oil, but data which actually comes from a working internal combustion engine UOA has now become relegated to an ambiguous and speculative source of information status.

Now don't take this all wrong, Amsoil does make excellent quality products, but the truth is ... that in many cases the UOAs show that running a 5k OCI of a quality dino will often yield superior results to a 10k OCI from Amsoil in a "normal application." This makes a person wonder, do we run the more expensive syns in "normal applications"--to extend OCIs or to get superior protection?

If we run the more expensive syns in a 5k OCI, how can we justify the price when we cannot quantify any added protection from a UOA? Are we going to trust the simulated tests over actual engine data?

Severe duty or extreme temp usage is another matter...but that is not what is being discussed here.
 
T-Stick, I think you're right on... and I think we've been subjected to a lot of psycho-babble and pseudo-science for quite some time here.

There is an old adage among the scholarly: "If you can't explain it in layman's terms, you do not understand it."

When the promoters of synthetics have to resort to explaining away wear metal count comparisons, the thinking man begins to wonder. There is a lot of pablum lapping going on in these pages, as well as elsewhere on the 'net.

I would be happy to learn why higher wear metal counts mean more engine protection. And I'm not even saying that there isn't a viable explanation for such a claim.

Just lay it out in sensible, layman's terms and let us ruminate on it a bit. Who knows? Maybe us dino buffs will cross back over--if the case can be clearly made.

Just make it make sense Terry. We're not all that hard to teach.
wink.gif


Dan
 
One thing I've learned here.
If it's a synthetic oil you like, has a 1 or an A or is made by elves or whatever, the elevated wear #'s are just " cleaning up what the previous oil left behind" and you need to give it a quick change and start again with another run of it. Of course if you buy the same brand flush chemical, and filter, you'll get even better results?

If its an off brand synthetic and it gets higher #'s its "weak" and probably isn;t a real pao or something, LOL.

And if a dino shows good #'s and doesn't even look like it has a "stout" add pack, heck, it must just be a good engine. But you'd still be better off trying to make a long OCI work for you.

As I remember it, Amsoils long oci marketing was primarily aimed at justifying the high cost of the product to the would-be purchaser and prospective downline. Not saying it wasn't capable, just remember that was the pitch. Having dealers in the family I saw plenty of it come out of those 25k mile runs, and it looked awful. Guess they need to buy a bypass system too?
 
Wiley, I see these issues haven't gotten by you either.

Let me apologize to the board for the tone of my last post--not for the content--but for the tone... I re-read what I wrote and although I wasn't intending to sound hostile when I wrote it, it does come out that way on review.
frown.gif


We have a really good 10,000 mile OCI on Havoline dino oil here in the automotive UOA forum. To me, this really blurs the distinction between syn and dino even more.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...true#Post901394

The above UOA would probably be filed under the "good engine" category. And it is a good engine, but the wear metal numbers from synthetic oils are not substantially different (generally, a bit worse) in the UOA's on file here.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...true#Post903919

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...true#Post818138
 
Dan,asked:
"If we cannot go by the wear metal numbers, what criteria do we use?"

Simply put; get a oil analysis report that is properly interpreted by a company or consultant that has the background, experience, and proprietary data to explain or at least aim YOU the non tribologist the right direction. Frankly, most labs do a poor job of interpreting data and do a good job of getting statistics out there to be shared. The line of demarcation between the lubricant maker, labs to measure that lubricant, and even the additive companies that LIMIT what the blender can know chemically is much more broad than you seem to grasp.

Unless you work for a lab, have access to reams of proprietary data from ALL the players, cookie cutter basic UOA is a hamstrung instrument for YOU the consumer to decide chemistry determination conclusions.

I have posted this for 8 years on the internet.

Finally the chemical terms you like to use; "dino,synthetic,blend,conventional" are marketing derived not scientific.

Another point to make on the low cost lubes vs higher cost( thats what you really mean when you say dino vs syn IMHO), is that you don't know enough about the environmental,tune level, mechanical condition, driving style, etc of the referenced UOA's that purport to support you overly simplistic position.

Hope that was simple and laymen enough to get just my POV across.

BTW Dan, I am never offended at honest questions and query. I have nothing to defend as an independent tribologist.

Terry
 
So if the inference is:
that many labs do not know how to interpret their own data and the data is inconclusive to the average user. This also infers that the average user cannot "know" whether a given oil is actually performing well in an engine as it may only appear to be doing so(because they do not have access to other "tribological" information). Further this means the data bank of UOAs on this site are somewhat like a dumpster load of meaningless statistics to the average reader. The discussions concerning the posted UOAs are so much mumbo-jumbo without access to other interpretative data.

If this position is tenable, then the average user getting a UOA at the average lab is not able to draw safe conclusions about OCIs such as some of the Syn companies promote with the use of their by-pass filtration systems.

The bottom line here then is that the UOAs do not necessarily demonstrate the superiority of synthetics either. Either the whole topic of "demonstrating the superior performance of certain oils" in a given application from a UOA is at an impasse or we are forced to allow someone else in the "know of proprietary information" to draw our conclusions for us.

I for one am always glad to learn something new, but I would not consider allowing someone else to do my thinking for me. While I do respect the knowledge of experts in their field and would gleadly learn from them, I would not change my opinions on the basis of the "mystique of proprietary information."

And finally, I think it is also incredible to think that we cannot safely draw some general conclusions about the quality of certain oils from a large data bank of UOAs on this site when we can select data from the same motor and similar OCIs. Otherwise we do not have the ability to know much of anything from a UOA. Some of the UOAs posted here are conducted in the same vehicle using different oils over a period of time.

The humorous thing about this whole discussion, is that the extended drain syn companies were always big promoters of the UOAs, now when the data bank seems to infer something different from their marketing claims or does not support their thesis, the same criteria which they previously touted takes on a dubious status.
 
T-Stick, you are taking what I said too far and out of context.I don't think I left enough room for inference. Exactly what many who post over and over here do with incomplete oil analysis knowledge then become accepted as experts because of volume of posts.

Low cost UOA is great for wear determination and how YOUR engine is operating/wearing/ using that chemistry. IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SEEING OR GET A GOOD INTERPRETATION.

Without all that other "stuff" (I posted above and for years now online) YOU cannot properly determine what chemistry is great, average, or poor, especially for the finer chemistry issues masked by ignorance of formulation, additives,engine conditions, etc and on an on. No one is being arrogant or overbearing here. Chemistries of lubes and secrecy are realities of business not a conspiracy.

Americans( in general) seem to think that because they can use an executive summary to read ABOUT IT ( whatever that is ) they can become fluent or experts in IT. In this case UOA is a great tool,( and one small aspect of tribological testing), just don't expect to become an expert in IT at BITOG or on the internet unless you are prepared to learn IT as if it is a chosen profession.

No one is thinking for you Bro.

If I could not speak or read english and you did ( and you are a english expert) would I take one lesson from you and decide I know now that you are tricking me when we both went to the coffee shop and you ordered in english and I did not totally grasp what you said? However, you did order what I had communicated to you even though I did not grasp the order because I did not speak the language. Once I learn english does that mean I can teach it and interpret it, and manipulate it perfectly? Of course not. It takes years to really understand any science or subject well enough to be versed in IT. Add restriction on disclosure and we have the mysterious world of UOA on BITOG!

Terry
 
In a nutshell, I think Terry is saying: "One or a dozen UOAs showing stellar wear numbers from a conventional oil only means that those individual runs of those individual oils in those individual applications produced stellar results. They PROBABLY indicate that future runs of the SAME oil in the SAME applications under the SAME conditions will yield similar results. Their value as a predictor of how these oils would perform in other applications, under different conditions, is nebulous at best."
 
G-Man makes the best point of all. However, I don't care for the old "your not an expert", I shouldn't learn or that its impossible to learn anything about. Not surprising considering the source.
 
Quote:


G-Man makes the best point of all. However, I don't care for the old "your not an expert", I shouldn't learn or that its impossible to learn anything about. Not surprising considering the source.




I stand fully behind Terry on this one. The interpretation of used oil samples is an art and a science. He is an expert and I'm not. I defer to his interpretations just as I would defer to a medical doctor who tells me I have a medical problem, even if I happen to feel just fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top