The BEST engine oil is ???? Syn vs Conv.


120 replies to this topic
  • RCannon

Posted June 10, 2006 - 06:48 PM

#21

I tend to agreee with the above post. The info is so good, who cares who is "REALLY" right. I have learned a lot from both of you over the years.

  • grayracer513

Posted June 10, 2006 - 08:33 PM

#22

What do you mean by behaving?

I rather clearly meant that as soon as anyone dares to disagree with as much as 10% of what you say, you start with the insults and name calling.

That is why you won't see many listing of 4-ball wear tests by top oil mfg's. ....You will also see this test listed by snake-oilers.

Interesting you should say that.. the search function is once again disabled or I would post you in your own words daring me to subject your chain lube to a 4-ball and/or a Pin and V test...Snake Oil, you say?

...So instead of belittleing someone...

Well said, Tryce.

Thanks Grey for turning me on to (Amsoil)

Which one did you decide on?

  • aford541

Posted June 10, 2006 - 09:26 PM

#23

Amsoil 0 w 40.

  • srhines67

Posted June 10, 2006 - 11:19 PM

#24

I use recycled deep fry oil. It smells better and you can get it for free at McDonalds every evening. So, what is the answer here. What is the best oil and do you really need to change it every ride?

  • DigilubeJay

Posted June 11, 2006 - 03:30 AM

#25

Tryce,
I'm not trying to flaunt my knowledge. At least it is for sure not my intent. My intent is to provide something that goes past the simple "Use this, it is the best, nuff said" sort of BS that is the cruxt of most of these oil discussions.

If all we want to do is get information that provides us with no real information, then sure...we could simply keep debating the same "this is best" sort of stuff over and over again.

I think what turns most people off here is my disagreeing with gray. They seem to find him the all-knowing guru of the moto world and take offense to anyone providing anything in contast with his info. Which is fine. But as he is obviously an intelligent fellow, and has lots of valuable information to provide, he doesn't know it all. And there is always room for debating even with the sharpest of folks. I don't see anyone chastizing his use of words "over peoples heads" (shrug)

And he never hesitates to throw bricks at me. For example in this thread, Motogoalie didn't disagee with what I posted...no, he simply was trying to subtly warn folks against taking any of my advice over grays. He had nothing to add besides that, no disagreement or debate one way or the other. He was simply trolling for my response. He has a vendetta as part of his agenda, as I dared to offer an alterior view in one of his precious threads.
And gray never fails to point out and enter into such trolling in any post we enter. He also clearly has a vendetta as part of his agenda, otherwise he wouldn't add his two cents each and every time a magpie chimes in.

My opinions are based on study facts. Why should I leave the basis surrounding my opinions out? Isn't what we are doing is discussing issues and trying to make the best possible conclusions from what information is available? Or are we simply on a chat board here? :applause:

Gray,
A 4-ball or a pin&vee test are far more relevant for greases and chain lubricants and how they operate than they are for engine oils. And for the reasons I stated.
But you don't see me advertizing such test results in any of my literature. Even though we have had extensive testing done in many areas by certified testers at Falex inc, and show how we absolutely blow our competition away in head-to-head, unbiased tests. Falex, by the way, are the folks who actually develop and design many of the ASTM procedures and equipment for such testing.
Amsoil would do good to have independant tests run by a credible lab...but why bother? They know they can sway most by simply doing what they do.
Which is fine, marketing is marketing, but I am simply pointing out that even though Amsoil reports want you to make the conclusion that they are the best oil, hands down, that is not the case. And there is plenty of other evidence that proves they aren't. I was simply providing some of that evidence.

  • DigilubeJay

Posted June 11, 2006 - 03:39 AM

#26

OK, Tryce...I'll try it your way.

Use Exxon Superflow 20w-50. It is only about $1.79 a quart and performs better in a YZ thumper than most all of the high-dollar synthetics on the market.
Change your oil out every other ride or so. Heck this oil is cheap enough that you can change it out every ride and your engine will be FAR better off than the guy who uses Amsoil or similar synthetics and changes it out according to manfacturers recommendations.
You'll have lots more money in your pocket too.

  • Ga426owner

Posted June 11, 2006 - 06:27 AM

#27

Use Exxon Superflow 20w-50. It is only about $1.79 a quart and performs better in a YZ thumper than most all of the high-dollar synthetics on the market.
Change your oil out every other ride or so.


Jay you obviously are a oil expert as we all see from your long winded threads of oil and the properties associated with wear characteristics etc....blah blah blah..... :D

So for people like me that want the simple 2 sentence max on your logic.....how and why do you feel a standard non - synth oil like Exxon SF will out perform a synth oil?
How does it outperform?
I don't get your logic....sorry and I change my Synth oil every other or every 3/4 ride depending on the amount of hrs I accrue typically every 3/4 hrs of engine running time. Usually hard MX only riding.
I have found that on my 03 and 06 that the shifting is much better with Synth vs conventional oil.....why is this? I found that my Clutch w/ Synth oil works better to.
I do agree with you that a 1.79 oil changed every other ride is cheaper than a 5.60 qt of synth ...... so we do agree on this. :applause:

  • MotoGoalie

Posted June 11, 2006 - 07:01 AM

#28

I'm just keeping it positive.

I like my Bel Ray Thumper Racing oil, the Bob is the Oil guy is pursuasive enough and agrees in like-minded debate with most everyone else I respect on this and other boards.....though I have been experimenting with Mobil 1 Goldcap.

  • BergArabia

Posted June 11, 2006 - 09:18 AM

#29

I was using Mobile gold cap but it is now hard to find in Dubai so I am looking so another oil. It is kind of hot here now so I am thinking maybe I should just go with the 20-50 dino oil and change more often. But for me more often would be every ride instead of every other ride. Exxon and Mobile merged I think so I guess Exxon 20-50 could be the same as Mobile 20-50? Sorry for lowering the intellectual level of the thread. It has been very informative..

  • TheCure

Posted June 11, 2006 - 09:46 AM

#30

Funnay

i found a douchebag in an oil thread

wut is your problems lubejay?

Visit the ThumperTalk Store for the lowest prices on motorcycle / ATV parts and accessories - Guaranteed
  • FFRacing79

Posted June 11, 2006 - 10:16 AM

#31

Use Exxon Superflow 20w-50. It is only about $1.79 a quart and performs better in a YZ thumper than most all of the high-dollar synthetics on the market.
Change your oil out every other ride or so. Heck this oil is cheap enough that you can change it out every ride and your engine will be FAR better off than the guy who uses Amsoil or similar synthetics and changes it out according to manfacturers recommendations.
You'll have lots more money in your pocket too.


There ya go Jay! :applause:
I guess what my point was, although you seem to be extremely knowlegable on the subject, this reply probably hit home for more riders. What I have found is no matter what the best product or idea is, whatever the majority uses, is what carries the most weight.
On the subject of oil, I guess whatever anyone has used with the least problems is the best for them. Very few are interested in "why" something works, but rather "does" it work.
Personally, I found the reply very informative and well written. Will it change my mind in what I use?? No Tdub

  • DigilubeJay

Posted June 11, 2006 - 11:05 AM

#32

So for people like me that want the simple 2 sentence max on your logic.....how and why do you feel a standard non - synth oil like Exxon SF will out perform a synth oil?
How does it outperform?

See, Tryce...right off the bat I'm being asked to explain why I make such claims.

Funnay

i found a douchebag in an oil thread

wut is your problems lubejay?

Gray doesn't like me to respond with mean spirited name calling when such ignoramous' spout off...but I find it so much more satisfying to let these sorts know just how ignorant they really are. I find it "funnay" how the yute of America can spell douchebag just fine...but when it comes to simple 4 and 5 letter words... :applause:


Back to the point....
GA,
Sorry, but if you want an answer, it takes more than 2 sentences. Hopefully you can keep your attention span focused for just a bit.

If you would have read and paid attention to anything I posted, you would see that labratory anaylisis, that was done on oils that were run in the same bike with similar conditions, showed that using Exxon 20w-50 organic (dino) oil produced at or below wear metal levels than the Amsoil 20w-50 full syn used for similar miles (less actually). Aluminum levels showed a bit higher on the Exxon sample, but Steve claims he had a different clutch plate in during that run, and he attributes the elevated aluminum to that...which makes perfect sense.
Thing is, the Amsoil synthetic sheared down to less than 50 weight in that short period of time. The Exxon stayed within the grade, even with a few more race miles on it.
This bike is raced in hot Texas harescrambles, btw....

But there is more to consider than simply if the oil is protecting the motor in short runs like this. When we add the fact that many of the moto-specific oils are quite expensive, it does come into play. Sure many will say that money is no object in the protection of their high-dollar investment, but many folks I've seen say this, do not truely practice it. They simply like saying it. It is very hard to dump out a $7-$12 oil after every ride, I don't care who you are. And most young folks simply won't do it.
But if there is an oil that is cheap...real cheap, and can provide the same, if not better protection than the high-dollar moto-specific synthetic, then why not use it?

Berg,
You may try looking for an HDEO (heavy duty engine oil) that is marketed towards the diesel engine crowd. These oils are proving to provide excellant wear protection as well as long life. AND at a cheaper cost than the moto-specific synthetics. Or the auto synthetics for that matter.
Delo 400, Delvac 1300, Rotella T have all been proved to work well in a wet-clutch situation and are VERY robust engine oils. Many will say that they seem to look darker when coming out, but that is not always a bad thing. These oils have high levels of detergents/dispersants that clean the metal surfaces and hold the free radicals in suspension, which keeps the crap from collecting and building up sludge. This action tends to show an oil darker as a result.
These oils are very economical to boot. The HDEO's also provide a synthetic version of their oil, but truth be known, they are group III synthetics, which means they are severely hydrocracked (dino oil run through a refining process of sorts) organic oils. These oils will probably last a bit longer than their full organic (groupII) counterparts, but as I have explained before, we need to change out the oil before this advantage comes into play.

(Btw...Mobil 20w-50 is not the same oil as Exxon 20w-50. Completely different chemistry in each)

  • BergArabia

Posted June 11, 2006 - 11:24 AM

#33

Thanks :applause:

  • LVThumper

Posted June 11, 2006 - 04:07 PM

#34

Funnay

i found a douchebag in an oil thread

wut is your problems lubejay?



No, what is funny is a douchebag decided to use his first post to make such a profound statement! :prof: Or someone didn't want everyone to know who they really are?? :bonk: :applause: :prof: :p :D

Thanks to both Jay and Gray (sounds like a super hero duo :lol: ) for your info and assistance. Now we can all do what we "think" is best for our bikes.

:applause:

  • DRH

Posted June 11, 2006 - 06:32 PM

#35

Holy Crap! I've ridden my 400 F for 7 years now, and I have been using inferior oil in it. I wonder what damage I have caused. Stupid me, I have used YamaLube since day one. I knew I shouldn't have read my manual. All this time thinking that the folks at Yamaha were giving me good information as to what oil was best for my bike. Damn them all. I wonder how much longer my 400F could have gone if I had only used one of those BLING BLING, $10,00 a quart oils? Oh Yea I forgot, my 400F is still running strong. One piston, no valves, one clutch and no other damaged internal parts, no engine failures. I feel my test was more valid than an 8 hour trail ride and subsequent lab tested oil. The only draw back with my test, was that I wasn't that religious at changing my inferior oil. Plain and simple, follow the reccommedations of the manufactures, they want their machines to last as long as we do. Yamaha wants to sell YamaLube but they also give other reccommendations in the manual. Come on guys, Can't we all get along? If it makes you feel better to put Super Duty Synthetic Anti Wear and Really Really slippery oily stuff in your bike then do it. For those who believe that Terrible Herbst oil is for you, then go for it. In several years all the bikes will still be running, especially if it is a Yamaha....

  • DigilubeJay

Posted June 12, 2006 - 03:17 AM

#36

KTM now recommends using nothing but Motorex Synthetic. They used to recommend nothing but Shell product. Those sort of recommendations are nothing but OEM money deals, and have little to do with what is best for the bike.

KTM also recommends running the Motorex synthetic for a period of 15 run hours before change. Motorex, or any syn for that matter, may well hold up that long on a bench test (doubtful) but I can't see that happening in a real world situation.
Especially with all the analysis of oils that are published showing all of them sheared down to water in no time flat.

Do OEM's really want our bikes to last as long as we want them to???

  • srhines67

Posted June 12, 2006 - 09:26 AM

#37

Why would any high grade oil not last for 15 hours? That's not a lot of time. We run oil in our cars for many more hours than that.

  • grayracer513

Posted June 12, 2006 - 09:39 AM

#38

Why would any high grade oil not last for 15 hours? That's not a lot of time. We run oil in our cars for many more hours than that.

One thing a YZF has that your car doesn't is a transmission. When you're under power and the back wheel is hopping from place to place, the impact loads on the gears can be tremendous, and the shearing force this applies to your oil is unlike anything that happens in most engines.

The trouble is that the additives used to keep the light base stock used in multigrade oil from thinning excessively at high temperatures (viscosity index improvers, or VII's) can be physically destroyed by these forces, and you'll be left with a 10w-20 in place of your 10w-40. The VII's used in multigrade gear lubes don't suffer from this much if at all, but they are generally not used in automotive engine oils because they are more expensive, and there isn't a need for them in that application. Single grade oils are usually not subject to this sort of problem, at least not to the extent that MG oils are.

That's one of the advantages that oils like Amsoil MCF/MCV and Mobil1 MX4T have.

  • DRH

Posted June 12, 2006 - 03:48 PM

#39

I think reliability is a key factor when purchasing anything that cost as much as our bikes. Look at the Honda Forum. See how many unhappy owners are there, I unfortunately am one of them. I will not buy anything red anymore unless I need a lawnmower or a generator. I am so disappointed in my Honda CRF250X and its fragile state exsistance. I was spoiled by my YZ400F and I had higher expectation for a newer and supposedly advanced designed bike. A lot of bike owners are ones who stay loyal to their color, but once a bike goes south on them, they may be just ready to switch to something else. So yes. I think OEM want a reputation for a long lasting piece of equipment, and will reccommend proper fuels and lubricants to make sure their bikes last as long as possible.

  • DigilubeJay

Posted June 13, 2006 - 03:02 AM

#40

One thing a YZF has that your car doesn't is a transmission. When you're under power and the back wheel is hopping from place to place, the impact loads on the gears can be tremendous, and the shearing force this applies to your oil is unlike anything that happens in most engines.

The trouble is that the additives used to keep the light base stock used in multigrade oil from thinning excessively at high temperatures (viscosity index improvers, or VII's) can be physically destroyed by these forces, and you'll be left with a 10w-20 in place of your 10w-40. The VII's used in multigrade gear lubes don't suffer from this much if at all, but they are generally not used in automotive engine oils because they are more expensive, and there isn't a need for them in that application. Single grade oils are usually not subject to this sort of problem, at least not to the extent that MG oils are.

That's one of the advantages that oils like Amsoil MCF/MCV and Mobil1 MX4T have.

MCF and MX4T are not multi-grade gear lubes. They are multi-grade engine oils. Sure, Amsoil may tout that their offering meets the requirements of GL-1 specification, but that is more marketing huju than anything. Many of the oils sitting on the shelf also meet this specification, but are not tested and advertized as such, simply because that is not where their marketing is directed.

And while it is a fact that organic oils may well have a larger amount of Viscosity Index Improvers in the formula than a full synthetic PAO base fluid does, this usually only is pertinent with extend uses of the oils. And again I stress that we should be changing our moto oil long before this becomes a factor.

Amsoil is telling us that it is far more shear stable than organic oils and some of it's synthetic competitors, however all they have is their own testing results to offer up. How do we account for the fact that Syn. Amsoil 50wt. sheared down to 40 wt. in 60 some odd miles of thumper use, when the Exxon organic oil saw more miles and stayed at 50wt. grade?

There is more than meets the eye with engine oils than ASTM tests and marketing mumbo-jumbo. Both can be valid guides, but often times will get you lost. Hard to fight a real world analysis of how an oil actually performed compared to what the MFG said it would do. :bonk:
And if you find that aon oil didn't quite meet up to the marketing mumbo-jumbo and hype it laid out for you, it is wise to start questioning what you read in marketing literature and product info sheets.
But, product info sheets and marketing are all many go by. :busted:

Just another heads up on marketing mumbo-jumbo, which Amsoil are the kings of...
They will always point to their running of the ASTM D-4683 test for shear stability. And the verbiage that they provide states: "Higher values reflects better film strength"
But truth be known, viscosity alone is not a full indication of the film strength of an oil. Not at all. Yes, thicker fluids that hold up better for longer periods of time can be said to have a better film strength than other oils, but true film strength depends on not only the base oil stability, but the additive package. Actually the additive package for anti-wear and extreme pressure are where an oil with a superior film strength gets its prowess.

If you arfe one of those who depend on product info sheets and literature for your oil choices, be very careful and read Amsoil stuff very carefully..they are the masters at side-speak marketing tactics. Take their fame to claim; "First in Synthetics" for a prime example. While they did release a full synthetic oil in the 70's before Mobil actually did, they did not manufacture it, as they lead us to believe. It was another company that did the mfg'ing and Amsoil simply bottled it up and got it on a shelf (maybe two or three shelves, lol...) In any event. They did not manufacture it. And they are probably one of the largest purchasers of Mobil synthetic basestocks to date.
Watch their verbiage like a hawk....or not. It's no biggy really, they make a good product and I will not argue with that. But them being the best is complete nonsense.
The best at marketing mumbo-jumbo I will agree with. :excuseme:





Related Content

 
x

Join Our Community!

Even if you don't want to post, registered members get access to tools that make finding & following the good stuff easier.

If you enjoyed reading about "" here in the ThumperTalk archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join ThumperTalk today!

The views and opinions expressed on this page are strictly those of the author, and have not been reviewed or approved by ThumperTalk.