Honda CBR600F PC41 Motul 7100 10w30 6300km 26 months

Messages
2,069
Location
Cedar Park, TX
i dont know what to say this is the 1st ever report of the stoners where they show a fuel that isnt in a .5 increment its always been none, tr, 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0..... 1.3 seems .... unlike them for 15+ years that alone makes me cautious the rest looks very good....if you believe it
 
Messages
13
Location
Graham, Nc, USA
I'm off the opinion you can run just about any motorcycle specific oil in these CBR600F engines. People regularly get over 100,000 miles from these engines. There's some video I saw on YouTube where a guy hit 300,000 miles on an CBR600F4i. I've got a CBR600RR, and although a completely different bike and engine, still runs strong at 50,000 miles with no consumption. Honda motorcycle engines are just plain reliable.
 
Messages
4,144
Location
South Carolina
Am I seeing something others are not? Wear metals are quite high, I cant help but feel the oil and the UOA would be getting trashed if some cheaper oil was used that cost 70% less.
 
Messages
175
Location
Greece
Thread starter
Originally Posted by JmanG
I've got a CBR600RR, and although a completely different bike and engine, still runs strong at 50,000 miles with no consumption. Honda motorcycle engines are just plain reliable.
this bike features a detuned 2007 600RR engine with lower compression ratio, rev limiter and a plain filter box instead of ram air type. So it is not different enough. Maybe even more reliable. Alarmguy, the wear is not high, the averages are based on a shorter than 3.000kms internal. It was high at the previous analysis, this one is perfectly good in my opinion. The engine is still quite young.
 
Messages
2,069
Location
Cedar Park, TX
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Am I seeing something others are not? Wear metals are quite high, I cant help but feel the oil and the UOA would be getting trashed if some cheaper oil was used that cost 70% less.
quite high compared too...........say another 600cc inline 4 with 3904miles on the oci ??? lets see: tin became infinately better. so BUZZZZ wrong on that aluminum was less than half. so BUZZZZ wrong again iron was 1/6 less. so BUZZZZZ wrong yet a 3rd time copper was 1/6 less so all BUZZZZZ and the last wear metal lead was 1/3rd less BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ wrong out of the 5 wear metals....ALL were less ... with MORE miles your eyes....need a checkup
 
Messages
175
Location
Greece
Thread starter
In the comments of the first UOA they say that universal averages are based on a 2600km interval but now they report that iron is above it but: I went way more than double the distance while my iron is less than double the average so what were they thinking... They should say that my wear is better than average based on my distance. Maybe they throw some kind of dice to give a fuel percentage at the end... Lol
 
Top