Changed oil, better results.

[datsaxman@hotmail.com]

What is REALLY interesting is that the "test procedure" on the thread is not discussed in the least.

If you have ever read any SAE or API o ASTM test specs, they are VERY detailed, and VERY specific. 

No details == complete BS

 
In the spirit of posting links, here are some more...


One on HD oils:

http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/HDEO%20SUMMARYrev2.html?utm_source=august+17%2C+2013&utm_campaign=July+30%2C+2013&utm_medium=archive


One that references some interesting disagreements between auto manufacturers about the possibility of a new viscosity rating:

http://www.infineum.com/Documents/Crankcase%20Technical%20Papers/SAE%20J300%20viscosity%20grades%20below%2020%20grade-SAE%20Powertrains%20Fuels%20and%20Lubricants-2010.pdf


This one is a lot less technical...but still has some graphs.  WE <3 <3 <3 GRAPHS!!

http://www.ideas4ag-ed.com/uploads/3/7/0/4/3704787/stan_toepfer_understanding_motor_oil_viscosity.pdf


Even lighter reading, but still interesting (including some of the reasoning for using 0W-16 as the name for the newest SAE viscosity grade, instead of a multiple of 5.  The short version: so owners of 2018 Hondas don't pick up Rotella T6 15W-40 by mistake.  Really!  That "16" will hopefully keep owners of older vehicles from picking up 0W-16 too, which *might* be very very bad for their engines.):

http://www.amsoil.com/news/2014_january_the_trend_toward_lower-viscosity_motor_oils.pdf

http://articles.sae.org/11945/

http://www.ssgm.com/news/ultra-thin-oils/1003021170/?&er=NA





saxman

[tomp]

Your post reminds me of a semester reading list for a chemistry class....Guess I will take them one at a time. 

BTW, do you play sax?  A drummer, myself.

[B.D.F.]

Agreed, and when it comes to motor oil there is virtually no real- world data available because almost no testing has been done. Ever, by anyone or any entity with one exception- Consumer Reports.

The only oil test that I am aware of was the Consumer Reports test of various motor oils in taxis in NYC quite some years ago. The test was certainly limited as all tests are (some say it was flawed but I do not agree with that) and it failed entirely to show the goodness or badness of ANY of the oils tested. What little it did show was that in 60,000 miles per vehicle of testing, all oils used performed identically based on the internal parts of the engines from actual measurement.

I have some background in tribology and my own personal opinion is that reciprocating engines simply do not put enough demand on oil to allow superior oils to show their superior properties. Modern synthetic oils perform admirably in turbine engines but provide, in my opinion based on some study, no benefits at the speeds and per unit area forces that piston engines can generate. Another way to put that is to say that the very worst oil available is really quite excellent and will perform extremely well in anything virtually any private citizen can afford to put a license plate on.

But back to the testing: even actual tests are easily misinterpreted or miss- represented. A standard four- ball tribology test seems to be a great way to test various oils and greases..... until bleach is poured onto the balls and the test results skyrocket. Does that mean that we should all be using Clorox in our crankcases? Nope, it is just the result of an extreme pressure (EP) package, chlorine, being taken out of context (no actual oil).

So I use the oil that allows the bike to shift better- that way the engine gets lubricated and I get a little benefit myself 'cause I am the one doing the shifting.

Brian

What is REALLY interesting is that the "test procedure" on the thread is not discussed in the least.

If you have ever read any SAE or API o ASTM test specs, they are VERY detailed, and VERY specific. 

No details == complete BS

<snip>

saxman

[tomp]

I do agree that the worst oil we have available still is wonderful compared to the days of my teen years.  Single weight oils used in engines that needed a ring job in 50K miles.  Used to do commercial O&F changes, and a good portion of the time, recycled oil was used.  We have come a long way, baby.  tp

[VirginiaJim]

Another way to put that is to say that the very worst oil available is really quite excellent and will perform extremely well in anything virtually any private citizen can afford to put a license plate/s on.

Brian

FIFY

[PH14]

[tomp]

Au contraire, it is a smoother shifting thread, with just a little bit of oil thrown in to make it interesting....

[maxtog]

The only oil test that I am aware of was the Consumer Reports test of various motor oils in taxis in NYC quite some years ago. The test was certainly limited as all tests are (some say it was flawed but I do not agree with that) and it failed entirely to show the goodness or badness of ANY of the oils tested. What little it did show was that in 60,000 miles per vehicle of testing, all oils used performed identically based on the internal parts of the engines from actual measurement.

That is what I tend to believe too, that with most modern oils, it doesn't matter for [real-world street] performance.  The one thing I still attribute to synthetics is that they probably tend to last a lot longer without breaking down, and I do change oil about half as often.  Of course, one has to take the oil filter into consideration and how good that is at removing contaminates (and not clogging)....

[PH14]

Au contraire, it is a smoother shifting thread, with just a little bit of oil thrown in to make it interesting....

[tomp]

Now that's funny.  Strange no one has mentioned that different brands of TIRES can alter the shifting, of the C14, too...

[PH14]

Now that's funny.  Strange no one has mentioned that different brands of TIRES can alter the shifting, of the C14, too...

 

[sherob]

So for you all running Mobil 1, is that the automotive type? 

I ran the Mobil 1 10-40 "High Mileage" in my cbr1000 for about 50k miles with no problems. Supposedly the high mileage formulation has more anti-wear additives (ZDDP?) for older engines with non-roller cams. My understanding is that roller cams of modern auto engines didn't need as much anti-wear additives and the Nazi EPA was in a hurry to remove them. So the oil manufacturer's came up with the high mileage formulations for older engines which I figured would be OK for cams in bike engines.

Regular auto silver cap 10w40.

I have very rarely run MC specific oil... if it's given to me, or it's the same price(or cheap) as auto, then I'll run it... otherwise I've always run auto oil.

[katata1100]

A
The only oil test that I am aware of was the Consumer Reports test of various motor oils in taxis in NYC quite some years ago. The test was certainly limited as all tests are (some say it was flawed but I do not agree with that) and it failed entirely to show the goodness or badness of ANY of the oils tested. What little it did show was that in 60,000 miles per vehicle of testing, all oils used performed identically based on the internal parts of the engines from actual measurement.

I

That test was incredibly flawed! It tested oil under the easiest of conditions. How?
1) Car choice. Kind of funny that although CU loves those little high revving four banger fwd cars, they chose the vehicle that their readers are least likely to own- a rwd Caprice with a v8!
Here is why- I own a similar car, '96 Impala SS. With stock 3:08 rear, to hit peak power, you'll have to floor it and keep in first up 40+ mph, otherwise it is just loafing along at a epa friendly rpm. The regular Caprice V8 is even worse, I think they have a 2:93 rear end. How often will these cars be flogged out in NY? Pretty hard to hit 40+mph in first with a lot of traffic!
2) The cars were run around the clock so they were always warm. No cold starts! Thus another advantage of synthetics negated by the  CU "test".

[tomp]

Kinda like the saccharin/cancer scare, I remember.  What amount did people consume; maybe a couple of drinks a day?  The lab rats were given what would be equivalent to pounds per day consumption by humans, and guess what, the rats got cancer.  An overdose of anything can cause ill effects, even water.  Someone wanted saccharin to be bad, maybe the sugar industry, so tests were done in a way that insured the results would confirm the danger of a new non sugar based sweetener.

It happens all the time, someone needs test results to confirm a certain hypothesis, and testing is done to assure needed results.   To make certain oils look good, a low rpm engine and no cold starts were done.  The test procedures had to validait the desired results.  Ain't life grand???

[B.D.F.]

Ah yes, I understand- the tests were flawed because they did not show the advantages of synthetic oil. Great. Care to point me toward the test(s) that show this 'advantage of synthetics'?

I always find it amusing when those who do not like a test's results claim the test itself is invalid. That would even be OK provided there were any other test results showing anything else but in this case, there ARE no other tests. So given a very limited amount of data, those who do not like it call it flawed and reject it. Really, it is kinda' funny. 

Brian

<snipped>

Thus another advantage of synthetics negated by the  CU "test".

[B.D.F.]

Great- so not the only single neutral, 'real world' test of motor oil is not only not valid, is incorrect, but is part of a conspiracy? Outstanding!

Gentleman, please cite the data that shows that this data is incorrect.

I have no dog in this fight and do not care what anyone thinks. That said, I am interested in tribology and have some time invested into the study of same. To my knowledge, there is no data anywhere showing that any motor oil type is functionally better than any other oil type. If anyone has any data collected from any source recognized by the scientific community (i.e., not Amsoil doing a test showing <shock> that Amsoil is great), I would be delighted to see it.

Brian

<snip>

It happens all the time, someone needs test results to confirm a certain hypothesis, and testing is done to assure needed results.   To make certain oils look good, a low rpm engine and no cold starts were done.  The test procedures had to validait the desired results.  Ain't life grand???

[clogan]

Regular auto silver cap 10w40.

I have very rarely run MC specific oil... if it's given to me, or it's the same price(or cheap) as auto, then I'll run it... otherwise I've always run auto oil.

I use the black cap 10w40...lots of tests show the black cap is at least as good as the silver cap. Red cap is pretty good too. I have not tried any other colors. Well...maybe I did use green cap once a long time ago, but I forget.

[tomp]

How did this become another typical OIL thread?  Thought it was an easy shifting thread.  As for oils being good or bad, in the 49years of motor vehicle ownership, I have had one real/bad result.  1968 Yamaha DT1, used Texaco 30wt in the crankcase, as indicated, and after one MX practice day, the oil came out looking like a chocolate  milkshake, foamy with no consistent viscosity.  Went to a different brand, and never had those results again. 

That was 44 years ago, and in that time I have never bought Texaco oils again.  I'm sure they make fine products, but that one experience set a negative in my mind for Texaco, and I'm from Texas. 

[PH14]

How did this become another typical OIL thread?

[maxtog]

I am interested in tribology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribology

Ah, interesting