To Syn or not to Syn

[LSUBOY]

Regular dyno oil will be worthless in less than 1,000 miles in a motorcycle due to the gearbox running in the same oil. Do your engine a favor, and get synth or synth-blend at the very least.
For a good read on the how and why.

Eye wrote mark about his article and it goes like this:

Q. Thanks for the great oil article. Are you still running Rotella T Synthetic and how many miles do you run it before changing?

A. I'm still using Rotella. Mobile-1 has been ruined in the last couple of months, I'm very annoyed. I'm going to have to take down my recommendation.

I run it for 8,000 miles in my truck and my ST1300. 5,000 miles in my VStorm, which is significantly harder on its oil.

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

LSUBOY Posted on Jan 12 2006, 05:28 PM<snip>

Okay Feejers,I've decided to put my money where my mouth is {www.blackstone-labs.com

and click "motorcycle} and get my oil analyzed.

C&C Posted on Jan 13 2006, 08:57 AM

To LSUBOY, that sounds like a good experiment to me. It would be nice to see all samples at statistally the same evaluation numbers but I guess we'll just have to wait for the results.

I agree w/C&C and want to lend my voice of support. Please let us know what info you receive and what you determine from it. Atho, it may have a negative effect on "N-EPRT"? Opinion and conjecture=good; facts=bad.

 

[jestal]

I wasn't ignoring the fact that motorcycle oils must lubricate the gearbox as well as the engine in my earlier comments.

The long chain polymers that reportedly get "sheared down" by the gears in the transmission and cause a loss of viscosity are actually the viscosity improver package in the oil. Running a straight 30 weight oil in a gear box will result in very little to no "shearing down" of the viscosity. But a 10 weight base oil with sufficient long chain polymers to achiever the 30 weight rating when hot will indeed "shear down" to a lower viscosity to some extent.

This was especially true back in the 70's and early 80's with oils in generally in the SF rating category. "Back then" the multivis oils were just taking off and becoming popular and were viewed (and marketed) as the "premium" oils for every application. Trouble with them was that the long chain polymers in the VI (viscosity improver) packages were relatively poor quality and would break down in the presence of high temps and would shear down rather readily when encountering gear type loads. Those old multi-vis SF oils led to many problems with the oils loosing viscosity and causing severe ring belt deposits. Those problems led to many myths that still hang around today....i.e...that multi-vis oils will shear down unless they are synthetic.

The fact is that the long chain polymers used in todays SL (and better) oils for viscosity improvers are pure synthetics regardless of the type of oil and are extremely resistent to deposit formation and shearing down of the viscosity. Even "conventional" oils , to meet the SL performance specifications, contain synthetic viscosity improvers. Those do not shear down apprreciably even in motorcycle gear boxes. Engines have/had spur gear oil pumps, remember, so the same gear engagement problems causing viscosity shearing down happened in car engines, too, even without the gearbox of the motorcycle. So that problem was recognized in car engines and fixed with the synthetic viscosity improvers.

I would be very surprised if there was any difference in the ultimate viscosity of any synthetic oil compared to the conventional Delo/Delvac/Rotella oils as they run in a motorcycle engine/gearbox. The synthetic VI packages in both are very robust and very resistent to viscosity loss thru shearing.

 

[SkooterG]

Once again, thank you Jestal for a little fact and clarity to clear up the mis-information.

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

Posted on Feb 28 2006, 11:45 AM<snip>

Atho, it may have a negative effect on "N-EPRT"? Opinion and conjecture=good; facts=bad. ohmy.gif

Present company excluded, of course!

Some opinions, facts, etc. are always appreciated.....

btw, does the GM Oil Monitor system employ a "sight device" as (reportedly?) the German ones do?

TIA

 

[afterburn]

That's all great, but API SL type oils contain a lot of friction modifiers which do not work so well in wet clutch applications like we have in our motorcycles. SL and SM oils should be avoided in bikes to prevent clutch slippage.

Also, 'also SL and better' is not really a correct statement as the S spec is not a complimentary specification, as specifications of the previous standard may not be included in the next. As such, SL spec oil may not work properly in a SG spec'd engine.

 

[jestal]

That's all great, but API SL type oils contain a lot of friction modifiers which do not work so well in wet clutch applications like we have in our motorcycles. SL and SM oils should be avoided in bikes to prevent clutch slippage.
Also, 'also SL and better' is not really a correct statement as the S spec is not a complimentary specification, as specifications of the previous standard may not be included in the next. As such, SL spec oil may not work properly in a SG spec'd engine.

I think that statement is not true.

SL and SM performance specs have NOTHING to do with friction modifiers and fuel economy. SL and SM performance specs do NOT require or even mention friction modifiers. Just because an oil is labeled SL or SM does not mean it has friction modifiers.

Friction modifiers are added for fuel economy. Oils with friciton modifiers are labeled as "fuel economy" oils. THAT is what drove the GF3 and GF4 ILSAC label with the "starburst" for "gasoline engines" GF3/4 oils DO have friction modifiers. They are required as part of the GF3/4 specifications.

If the oil is labeled SL or SM for performance and is NOT labeled GF3 or GF4 then it does not contain friction modifiers. If the oil is labeled GF3 or GF4 THEN you can be sure it contains friction modifiers AND that it meets the SL or SM specs.

So....an SL or SM oil could contain friction modifiers IF it also has the GF3/4 starburst symbol on the bottle. If it doesn't (like the Delo/Delvac/Rotella heavy duty diesel oils) have the starburst on the can then it doesn't have friciton modifiers.

Friction modifiers are expensive and no blender is going to put it in non-GF3/4 oils just for fun. Besides, the friction modifiers will void the various diesel specs so oils rated for various diesel service will NOT have friction modifiers.

I also tend to disagree with the comment about the SL oils not servicing previous classifications. In general, the later oil specs are designed to service previous performance grades and not deteriote any of the performance criteria in the certification tests. Technically, there is some possibility that oils in the future might not meet previous specs but that is highly unlikely in my opinion.

Why isn't it correct to say SL and better? The SL performance spec will be superceded one day (by SM...???...) so there will always be a better oil. There are LOTS of cars on the road that the owners manual says to use SF or SG oils. Think those are on the shelf anywhere. NO. They have been superceded by better oils with higher performance specs. So it was perfectly correct to say "SF or better" for oil back in 1980.... That language is typically used in owners manuals and service manuals so that once an oil performance spec has been superceded there will be no consternation by the owner looking for antique oils on the shelf. Once again, technically, API may decide that the next oil after SM will be called ZZ oil or whatever so the "S" would not carry over. But that is not likely in my opinion....

 

[odot]

I wish the gods would lock this thread.....there's no humour and it's comparable to watching paint dry. Someone shoot me.

 

[SkooterG]

I wish the gods would lock this thread.....there's no humour and it's comparable to watching paint dry. Someone shoot me.

Are you kidding? Pay attention. We are actually learning something here.

You know.............I can't be entertaining you all on EVERY thread in this place. Unless that is, you want to pay me 100k a year for that service. Then I would be more than happy to do it.

 

[odot]

You take monopoly money? I'd be all for that.

 

[radman]

I think it's highly entertaining watching the learned ones argue what the letters mean.

 

[odot]

It would still be nice to be entertained whilst I was learning.

 

[jestal]

I wish the gods would lock this thread.....there's no humour and it's comparable to watching paint dry.  Someone shoot me.

Sooo..... The thread is boring and humorless....yet you just cannot bear to not click on it and see what is going on.....LOL LOL LOL

What ever happened to self control and just skipping threads you find useless?? Someone else needs to lock it to protect you from reading it since you have no self control?? LOL

I tried to dance to my last post but it had no beat....so, no intertainment.

 

[MCRIDER007]

I tried to dance to my last post but it had no beat....so, no intertainment.

I was entertained. There are so many myths about oils and additives it is very entertaining to finally be able get some straight (and very convincing) answers.

 

[panthercity]

Sooo..... The thread is boring and humorless....yet you just cannot bear to not click on it and see what is going on.....LOL LOL LOL
What ever happened to self control and just skipping threads you find useless?? Someone else needs to lock it to protect you from reading it since you have no self control?? LOL

I tried to dance to my last post but it had no beat....so, no intertainment.

All right, who the heck are you and how did you get jestal's log in!

 

[Feejer/Weejer man]

All I need to know is use recommended oil for your climate and change the oil and filter often. That's it in a nutshell. With this it will go the distance.

 

[Toecutter]

All I need to know is use recommended oil for your climate and change the oil and filter often. That's it in a nutshell. With this it will go the distance.

Great, where were you at the beginning of all these oil threads?

 

[odot]

No kidding....but, I still think we need to debate this some more. Any other ideas, jestal?

 

[Luke]

We haven't discussed shelf-life of the various oil additives.

 

[C&C]

You know, I seem to learn more, here, on the Never ending pointless threads, than any of the other topic headings. I think maybe taking out the word "pointless" from the title would just about make this heading perfect. I like all the title headings on this forum but this one is one of my favorites.