Anyone have videos that "prove" more or less wear of 40w or higher engine oils?

[grndslm]

I've seen this video which puts AmazonBasics / SuperTech synthetic virtually up there with Mobil 1 synthetic, which is the style of test I'm looking for... but these are 30w oils, which probly have the "energy conserving friction modifiers" that we are supposed to fear in bikes....

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9DWGtXpYUc

And I've seen some other videos that perform a -40 degree pour test of Rotella T6 vs others..... but this test doesn't really tell how it performs when I really need it most, at super high temps.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ_vxdO_9nc
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alnOguGvyh8

So do you guys have any videos that "prove" the best 40w or 50w motorcycle oil?? Opinions not needed... just tests that we can all see.

 

[CT8]

Are you going to see -20 startups in Mississippi ? These tests prove nothing about the oils keeping the parts separated in your engines operating parameters.

 

[Uphill_Both_Ways]

^^^ Read his post again.

 

[Cujet]

The SAE performed an oil test on timing chains 2009-01-0198 . Unfortunately it's $30 and I believe cannot be posted here without permission. Some other timing chain tests have been posted on BITOG. (it matters as many bikes have internal chains)

I know what you are looking for, unfortunately, many of the tests don't have results available on google. I apologize for not having a list of tests available.

Your "super high temp" performance is generally reflected in the HTHS specification. Remember, an oil's viscosity at temperature is a key factor in how well it protects against wear.

As much as we would like to believe things have changed in recent years, reality is unchanged. A quality oil with sufficient viscosity for the job at hand and relatively frequent oil changes to keep contaminates at bay remains the way to maximize an engine's service life.

Many of us remember aunt Hilda's Chevy 307 with the worn out timing chain at 70,000 miles. We also remember our co-worker's pickup truck with the very same timing chain and 300,000 trouble free miles. The common factor is the engine, the difference is in the maintenance choices.

Tests really can't duplicate real world conditions. I truly feel it's best to understand what gives good real-world results and why. Today, the best way to avoid oil related problems is to choose a quality synthetic oil of sufficient viscosity and perform frequent oil changes. As the oil change is the only way to remove contaminates.

 

[maxdustington]

Originally Posted by Cujet
Many of us remember aunt Hilda's Chevy 307 with the worn out timing chain at 70,000 miles. We also remember our co-worker's pickup truck with the very same timing chain and 300,000 trouble free miles. The common factor is the engine, the difference is in the maintenance choices.
Co-worker's pickup truck was a 305 that takes sand in the crankcase to stop!

 

[02SE]

I could explain in detail how a 15w50 oil protected a highly stressed engine and shared-sump transmission, where a lower viscosity oil failed to do so in the same application. But there's no video of the engine/trans teardown, so I won't bother.

 

[Shannow]

Those Timken testers (and their home made ilk) have nothing to do with how engines, and the components within them wear.

 

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by Cujet
Today, the best way to avoid oil related problems is to choose a quality synthetic oil of sufficient viscosity and perform frequent oil changes. As the oil change is the only way to remove contaminates.

Soo.... basically if I want a 15w-40 at a good value in synthetic, I need to go with Mobil 1???

I don't really see too many good options. Just by searching online, SuperTech doesn't have a synthetic 15w-40. Pennzoil Platinum doesn't have a 15w-40. I'm sure Amsoil and Redline are more expensive.

Mobil 1 seems like the best choice for bikes, no??

I'll use Rotella T5 for the break-in and then some Mobil 1 for every change after the first.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted by grndslm
Originally Posted by Cujet
Today, the best way to avoid oil related problems is to choose a quality synthetic oil of sufficient viscosity and perform frequent oil changes. As the oil change is the only way to remove contaminates.

Soo.... basically if I want a 15w-40 at a good value in synthetic, I need to go with Mobil 1???

I don't really see too many good options. Just by searching online, SuperTech doesn't have a synthetic 15w-40. Pennzoil Platinum doesn't have a 15w-40. I'm sure Amsoil and Redline are more expensive.

Mobil 1 seems like the best choice for bikes, no??

I'll use Rotella T5 for the break-in and then some Mobil 1 for every change after the first.


I would never say M1 is the only choice or the best choice. Clearly, there are many fine oils available, oils that will perform quite well and provide good service. You will find similar levels of performance from nearly all quality oils.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by grndslm
I've seen this video which puts AmazonBasics / SuperTech synthetic virtually up there with Mobil 1 synthetic, which is the style of test I'm looking for... but these are 30w oils, which probly have the "energy conserving friction modifiers" that we are supposed to fear in bikes....

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9DWGtXpYUc

And I've seen some other videos that perform a -40 degree pour test of Rotella T6 vs others..... but this test doesn't really tell how it performs when I really need it most, at super high temps.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ_vxdO_9nc
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alnOguGvyh8

So do you guys have any videos that "prove" the best 40w or 50w motorcycle oil?? Opinions not needed... just tests that we can all see.

The rank stupidity here is that those "tests" are nothing but opinion as well, and bad ones at that. No dood on a YouTube video is going to be able to test the wear characteristics of a motor oil. That is quite difficult, time consuming and expensive.

Oh and BTW the YouTube pour tests purporting to show low-temperature performance are equally useless.There is already a test for that and the results are printed on every container of oil.

 

[berlyn]

Why should a video be a proof of the specs of the oil and its level of protection inside an engine? Even the specs should be transformed into a series of pictures so that we can see them and not read the letters? Wouldn't be a video a more easy way to drown ourselves in the flow of marketing?

Tempi cambi I guess.

 

[kschachn]

I
Originally Posted by berlyn
Why should a video be a proof of the specs of the oil and its level of protection inside an engine? Even the specs should be transformed into a series of pictures so that we can see them and not read the letters? Wouldn't be a video a more easy way to drown ourselves in the flow of marketing?

Tempi cambi I guess.

I've read your post several times and I have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Quote
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9DWGtXpYUc

The rank stupidity here is that those "tests" are nothing but opinion as well, and bad ones at that. No dood on a YouTube video is going to be able to test the wear characteristics of a motor oil. That is quite difficult, time consuming and expensive.

Oh and BTW the YouTube pour tests purporting to show low-temperature performance are equally useless.There is already a test for that and the results are printed on every container of oil.

Perhaps you missed it, but the very first video I posted is absolutely not an opinion. It is indeed a difficult, time consuming test by a d00d on Youtube that proves -- visually (as I'm not sure of any other way that *anything* could be proven, hence, the purpose of this thread) -- that the wear characteristics of synthetics are better than conventional.

That guy hosting the Project Farm channel performs some awesome visual tests. There's one where he "proves" Seafoam isn't just snake oil. But anyway, that's for another time and place.

 

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by berlyn
Why should a video be a proof of the specs of the oil and its level of protection inside an engine? Even the specs should be transformed into a series of pictures so that we can see them and not read the letters? Wouldn't be a video a more easy way to drown ourselves in the flow of marketing?

Tempi cambi I guess.

The scientific process REQUIRES observation.

Vehicle and oil manufacturers are definitely observing the wear with their own two eyes, so why can't we do so, in comparison form? If you'd rather just believe some marketing numbers that are skewed to drown out the reality of engine wear... so be it. Times definitely do change... there's nothing more certain.

 

[ZeeOSix]

"Noack volatility" testing in coffee pots... classic.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by grndslm
Originally Posted by berlyn
Why should a video be a proof of the specs of the oil and its level of protection inside an engine? Even the specs should be transformed into a series of pictures so that we can see them and not read the letters? Wouldn't be a video a more easy way to drown ourselves in the flow of marketing?

Tempi cambi I guess.

The scientific process REQUIRES observation.

Vehicle and oil manufacturers are definitely observing the wear with their own two eyes, so why can't we do so, in comparison form? If you'd rather just believe some marketing numbers that are skewed to drown out the reality of engine wear... so be it. Times definitely do change... there's nothing more certain.


The only thing that these tests "prove" is that under the circumstances of the test, if you want to stop your wear test test rig from wearing out you use the oil that wears the test rig out the least...plus or minus 20% (minimum, on even the ASTM tests), which makes any variance fall inside the noise of the test.

Unfortunately people want to believe that they hold merit, "because they can see" the difference...They aren't scientific, and even the scientific ones are out there for greases and gear lubes (never engine lubes), and have a 20%+ error.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by grndslm
Perhaps you missed it, but the very first video I posted is absolutely not an opinion. It is indeed a difficult, time consuming test by a d00d on Youtube that proves -- visually (as I'm not sure of any other way that *anything* could be proven, hence, the purpose of this thread) -- that the wear characteristics of synthetics are better than conventional.

That guy hosting the Project Farm channel performs some awesome visual tests. There's one where he "proves" Seafoam isn't just snake oil. But anyway, that's for another time and place.

You have no idea what representative and statistically valid testing involves, especially when it comes to wear rate determination between motor oils. In fact, I'm willing to guess based on your statement you don't know anything about real testing at all nor about proper scientific methods.

 

[grndslm]

Originally Posted by Shannow
The only thing that these tests "prove" is that under the circumstances of the test, if you want to stop your wear test test rig from wearing out you use the oil that wears the test rig out the least...plus or minus 20% (minimum, on even the ASTM tests), which makes any variance fall inside the noise of the test.

Unfortunately people want to believe that they hold merit, "because they can see" the difference...They aren't scientific, and even the scientific ones are out there for greases and gear lubes (never engine lubes), and have a 20%+ error.


Originally Posted by kschachn
You have no idea what representative and statistically valid testing involves, especially when it comes to wear rate determination between motor oils. In fact, I'm willing to guess based on your statement you don't know anything about real testing at all nor about proper scientific methods.


Jeezy Chreezy. I don't really understand why guys like you feel like ranting on the internet. You don't have a video or any such visible proof of anything. OK. Got it. Here's a post I found from another member on this forum that shares my sentiment....

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4926655/re-mobil-1-15-50#Post4926655
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Oils are far more complicated then the EXTREMELY few components that are tested for in a lab when we do VOAs and UOAs.

Even though UOAs are fun ... (and even I am waiting for my UOA from Blackstone that I sent out last Saturday, still not done. on a C rated semi syn 15/50 which I have been using almost since the bike was new.) its impossible to predict actual engine wear based on looking at the reports and how much an oil might have sheared but in a shared sump, it s**cks when oil shears down and shifting gets notchy, been there, done that on past metrics I owned. I always found conventional oils provided best shifting on those bikes,


Blah, blah, blah.... Just because we're on BITOG, doesn't mean you need to be bitter because you don't have or have never seen actual, visual confirmation of more or less wear on the same engines, metals, components, etc. compared to any other oil.

 

[kschachn]

If you think my and Shannow's comments were based on a simple VOA or UOA then you still don't get it.

 

[Cujet]

In the end, I'm a fan of real world results from those who operate the same equipment I do and get good results.

Lab and preproduction testing is great. However, actual use has a wonderful way of finding the weak spots.

For that reason, I'm rather hesitant to purchase early production vehicles. I'd rather give the manufacturer and motorists time to find the problems along with solutions.