goodgollyjosh
XS650 Addict
A guy on speedtalk posted this info. I found it quite interesting and wanted to share it with you guys.
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
-
Enjoy XS650.com? Consider making a donation to help support the site.
XS650.com receives a small share of sales from some links on this page, but direct donations have a much greater impact on keeping this site going.
Best motor oil comparison I have seen.
- Thread starter goodgollyjosh
- Start date
ANLAF
XS650 Guru
thanks, goodgolly, it all adds to the knowledge base.
Anlaf
Anlaf
hardrock785
XS650 Addict
thanks for posting
Thanx, Josh, quite interesting.
Shell Rotella and Valvoline Motorcycle are quite low on the list.
Adding ZDDP seems to seriously reduce oil wear protection.
The testing does not address the impact absorbtion/cushioning needs of hardened solid rocker tips and valve stem tips. Guess I'll try to find that document, it's somewhere in metalurgy. Going to elephant's foot adjusters makes this moot, though...
Shell Rotella and Valvoline Motorcycle are quite low on the list.
Adding ZDDP seems to seriously reduce oil wear protection.
The testing does not address the impact absorbtion/cushioning needs of hardened solid rocker tips and valve stem tips. Guess I'll try to find that document, it's somewhere in metalurgy. Going to elephant's foot adjusters makes this moot, though...
goodgollyjosh
XS650 Addict
That's true. I also would like to see this test conducted on the same oils after some hard miles or hours have been put on them to see how long it takes to break down the additive pack in each oil. I think he referenced one motor oil with new and used samples but that was the extent of it. He didn't say so, but I believe the test he is doing is the "ball bearing test". We offer it as well, but I have never seen the data compiled so well before. Generally speaking I am left in the dark with brands because of a third party that puts everything into plain containers with a serial number. Keeps the people with loose lips quiet, damn 
I have to assume he paid the lab in Nevada to compile this data for him. Because if he worked for them, they would have hung him a long time ago. He bashes zinc, but I do recall around 2002-'03 when the EPA pulled a lot of the poor emissions producing additives from the shelf like zinc, manganese, and phosphorus it created a rash of flat cams during break-in with the circle track guys who were running insane spring pressures on flat tappets because of rule restrictions. I started using the Shell Rotella T for break-in and the cams lived just fine.
I know a lot of you guys run Shell because it works with your trans, I was planning on doing the same. I would rather my trans shift smooth than not.
I have to assume he paid the lab in Nevada to compile this data for him. Because if he worked for them, they would have hung him a long time ago. He bashes zinc, but I do recall around 2002-'03 when the EPA pulled a lot of the poor emissions producing additives from the shelf like zinc, manganese, and phosphorus it created a rash of flat cams during break-in with the circle track guys who were running insane spring pressures on flat tappets because of rule restrictions. I started using the Shell Rotella T for break-in and the cams lived just fine.
I know a lot of you guys run Shell because it works with your trans, I was planning on doing the same. I would rather my trans shift smooth than not.
burns
OWG
I'm a bit skeptical of any study where the party publishing the results won't identify himself. I am also skeptical of any report that contradicts other findings without being subject to peer review. Why should we assume that this anonymous fellow has superior knowledge to the plethora of engineers who formulate oils for high pressure applications (desil and flat tappet motors e.g.) by increasing ZDDP levels? And, finally, ANY "technical" article that SHOUTS in all caps raises my incrudility index.
To all of this I add:
(his quote)
"I’ve also “wear tested” a handful of used oils, both synthetic and conventional, that had 5,000 miles on them. And in every case, there was NO REDUCTION what so ever, in wear protection capability, even though the zinc levels had dropped by around 25% on average. So, this is even further proof that the zinc level is not tied to a motor oil’s wear protection capability."
Wherein this fellow demonstrates a weakness in his reasoning, to wit:
The zinc in ZDDP additives bonds with the metal surface to form a sacrificial layer, i.e. the levels of zinc in the oil are SUPPOSED to decline with use and therefore the formula will always have a redundancy in the additive level.
What his purported findings support is not that the ZDDP is ineffective, but that the levels remain high enough to provide the original level of protection (whatever that may be) after a 5000 mile test period, which we would certainly expect in any quality lubricant.
My bottom line on this: it goes in the "anecdotal evidece" file.
Other anecdotal evidence that I have been presented with are from reports from a highly credible (to me) source of blue-printed motors with 20,000 mi on them run on Rotella that showed zero measurable wear.
To which I would add, as the good golly guy said : "when the EPA pulled a lot of the poor emissions producing additives from the shelf like zinc, manganese, and phosphorus it created a rash of flat cams ..." and the fact that all the hot rod guys have noted the cam failures that followed reducing ZDDP in car oil.
You cannot draw definitive conclusions from anecdotal data but you certainly weigh the credibility of the source in any such analysis.
I'm sticking with Rotella until some real evidence suggests other wise.
To all of this I add:
(his quote)
"I’ve also “wear tested” a handful of used oils, both synthetic and conventional, that had 5,000 miles on them. And in every case, there was NO REDUCTION what so ever, in wear protection capability, even though the zinc levels had dropped by around 25% on average. So, this is even further proof that the zinc level is not tied to a motor oil’s wear protection capability."
Wherein this fellow demonstrates a weakness in his reasoning, to wit:
The zinc in ZDDP additives bonds with the metal surface to form a sacrificial layer, i.e. the levels of zinc in the oil are SUPPOSED to decline with use and therefore the formula will always have a redundancy in the additive level.
What his purported findings support is not that the ZDDP is ineffective, but that the levels remain high enough to provide the original level of protection (whatever that may be) after a 5000 mile test period, which we would certainly expect in any quality lubricant.
My bottom line on this: it goes in the "anecdotal evidece" file.
Other anecdotal evidence that I have been presented with are from reports from a highly credible (to me) source of blue-printed motors with 20,000 mi on them run on Rotella that showed zero measurable wear.
To which I would add, as the good golly guy said : "when the EPA pulled a lot of the poor emissions producing additives from the shelf like zinc, manganese, and phosphorus it created a rash of flat cams ..." and the fact that all the hot rod guys have noted the cam failures that followed reducing ZDDP in car oil.
You cannot draw definitive conclusions from anecdotal data but you certainly weigh the credibility of the source in any such analysis.
I'm sticking with Rotella until some real evidence suggests other wise.
jd750ace
Front Toward Enemy
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_0308_oil/
A few years old, but scientific, and I think everyone is aware of who Sport Rider magazine is. If you are interested and resourceful, you will find part 2 of this article, where the meat and potatoes are, but I encourage you to read part one first, so you have a good idea what it all means. I'll let you find part 2 where you will find some laboratory testing that disputes several "findings" in the article above.
As far as Rotella, go to the Shell web site and look at the parts out of 500,000 plus mile OTR trucks. Diesels are just as filthy as air cooled gas engines (and more!) and they don't dump their oil every 1500 miles!
I think frequent changes with it will hold up to putting around on a 30+ year old bike pretty good if it hangs in there and protects the engine that's dragging 90,000 pounds all over the US for that many miles, and at least 3 times that mileage between changes too. Just saying.
A few years old, but scientific, and I think everyone is aware of who Sport Rider magazine is. If you are interested and resourceful, you will find part 2 of this article, where the meat and potatoes are, but I encourage you to read part one first, so you have a good idea what it all means. I'll let you find part 2 where you will find some laboratory testing that disputes several "findings" in the article above.
As far as Rotella, go to the Shell web site and look at the parts out of 500,000 plus mile OTR trucks. Diesels are just as filthy as air cooled gas engines (and more!) and they don't dump their oil every 1500 miles!
I think frequent changes with it will hold up to putting around on a 30+ year old bike pretty good if it hangs in there and protects the engine that's dragging 90,000 pounds all over the US for that many miles, and at least 3 times that mileage between changes too. Just saying.
goodgollyjosh
XS650 Addict
All good points. I have no idea who this guy is that posted the blog but he definitely put a lot of time into his findings. Whether he has an agenda or not, who knows. I know that Shell Rotella may be a well known diesel oil but it is also API certified for gas as well. In fact, the only time I can think of a gas engine failing from using this oil was when I saw a yahoo put in into a freshly built Civic Hybrid that calls for 0W-20. The oil feed hole in the head gasket is about .030. Needless to say, the engine ran about 10 minutes at idle and the cam locked up, it sheared the cam sprocket dowel in the process. Quite funny to see from the sidelines, but felt sad for the tech. But, that certainly wasn't as much the oil's fault as the tech's. Beyond that, nothing but good things to say about the oil. It kept my buddy's Mustang together in the 9's 
Last edited:
Interesting about the absent zinc having been replaced with stuff that does the same thing better.
Unfortunately he didn't test a lot of oils, like Pennzoil 20w50, that are more common than many he tested.
Unfortunately he didn't test a lot of oils, like Pennzoil 20w50, that are more common than many he tested.
He claims to not have used the "one-armed-bandit" tester, maybe referring the older falex bearing tester? But, he's claiming to be testing the film strength and additive protection by reporting a yield value in psi (supposedly penetrating the 4th hydrodynamic layer). I'd like to know more about the test equipment and the materials and surface finish used.
The numbers don't sound right to me, maybe not important in apples-to-apples comparisons, but seem quite low compared to hydrodynamic thin-film lubrication articles in older engineering books.
For example, the cam/follower contact zone is incredibly small. Using rough/generous numbers, if you imagine that the contact zone width between cam and follower (both curved surfaces) was as wide as .001", and spanned approx 1/2", the contact area is about .0005 SqIn. If the force on that follower was only 200 lbs, then the pressure on that contact zone is 400,000 psi. It gets worse when looking at the valve adjuster and valve stem tip. If you imagine, on a fresh spherical adjuster tip, and fresh/flat valve stem tip, that the contact zone was a small circle about .001" diameter, about .000001 SqIn area, that 200 lb force shows as 200,000,000 psi.
If the lubricant yields at the 70,000-100,000 psi range, the parts MUST wear to larger contact areas to achieve stabilization. If you've seen some of the cam/follower pics here on this forum, you'll see many have a thin wear line on the follower, which bears this out. Same with valve stem tips. However, during overhaul of many hi-mileage engines in the `70s, most followers I saw had very little, if any, wear lines. And valve stem tips weren't as badly boogered.
So, what I see here is a serious shortcoming of many current lubricants to protect our older engine designs, and remain all-ears to any new reports and products...
The numbers don't sound right to me, maybe not important in apples-to-apples comparisons, but seem quite low compared to hydrodynamic thin-film lubrication articles in older engineering books.
For example, the cam/follower contact zone is incredibly small. Using rough/generous numbers, if you imagine that the contact zone width between cam and follower (both curved surfaces) was as wide as .001", and spanned approx 1/2", the contact area is about .0005 SqIn. If the force on that follower was only 200 lbs, then the pressure on that contact zone is 400,000 psi. It gets worse when looking at the valve adjuster and valve stem tip. If you imagine, on a fresh spherical adjuster tip, and fresh/flat valve stem tip, that the contact zone was a small circle about .001" diameter, about .000001 SqIn area, that 200 lb force shows as 200,000,000 psi.
If the lubricant yields at the 70,000-100,000 psi range, the parts MUST wear to larger contact areas to achieve stabilization. If you've seen some of the cam/follower pics here on this forum, you'll see many have a thin wear line on the follower, which bears this out. Same with valve stem tips. However, during overhaul of many hi-mileage engines in the `70s, most followers I saw had very little, if any, wear lines. And valve stem tips weren't as badly boogered.
So, what I see here is a serious shortcoming of many current lubricants to protect our older engine designs, and remain all-ears to any new reports and products...
goodgollyjosh
XS650 Addict
Yea, the test is a bit one dimensional. I still haven't seen anything better though. I am always on the hunt for stuff like this on the net. There are some good comparisons out there and we have done plenty here at work, but that info isn't shared with me. He tested so many brands, it must have cost him quite a bit, not just in purchasing oil, but having them tested. Someone had to pay for those results, it would have broken my bank account long ago. I don't know if my work still offers it but I remember many years ago we use to test used oil samples for the public, I can't remember what they charged, but it was just a screening process to tell you what was in the oil itself and in what quantity. It certainly didn't include any tests under pressure.
There are two statements that he made that stand out to me. The first I agree with and the second I don't. The first is when he stated that just because an oil held up to a higher pressure doesn't necessarily mean that you need that level of protection in your engine. Pressure is just one variable and there are so many other things to take into consideration. The second is the fact that he doesn't like testing oils in engines. Well, last time I checked motor oils go in...engines. It only makes sense to test them in...engines! Now of course there are a lot of other ways to test oils that don't involve engines and the industry knows this and makes good use of the other tests. But, once you add combustion by-products to the equation, things start to change. The R&D industry has been using engines to test oils for 60+ years that I am aware of and I am sure they did it even further back.
Removing the additives I mentioned earlier did cause some problems, that's apparent. There is a reason why they called those additives anti-wear agents. There is also a reason why diesel engines that were utilizing slider followers got to keep those additives in their oils. It may have been unfair but they realized all the modern gas engines were roller or OHC with bucket followers (direct acting, no rocker ratio). As for the older gas engines, they didn't really want them on the road anymore so we were left to fend for ourselves and find oils that would work with our antiquated equipment or find an add pack that we could pour in with some modern oil and make parts live.
Things are getting tricky for the oil companies with modern engines. Turbo gas direct injected engines are all the rage right now. Oil formulations are changing rapidly to work with semi-heterogeneous fuel mixtures. Also, as you saw in my earlier posted story about 0W-20, oils are getting thin as can be. Not just for fuel mileage reasons either. Engines now have lots of tiny screens placed through out for turbo feed, vanos units that adjust variable cam sprockets, and vacuum pumps. People won't be able to sludge engines anymore, they will simply plug these screens. The engine will fail to run properly, won't run at all, or it will lock up turbo or cause plastic internals of vacuum pump to break.
The soot that is created by stratified charges with D.I. gas motors will wear timing chains out if oil isn't changed enough. Look at new GM 3.6, chain stretches till tensioner is at max and then chain slap occurs (public knowledge, lots of tsb's), of course the early chains were made in France when they should have been made here, tight asses
Once the add pack breaks down an engine's oil will go south very quickly. Oil degradation is not linear. This is one of the reasons why I would love to see the test that Rat blog guy posted done with engine testing, but that would truly cost a fortune. Average engine test being 50 grand times 100 oils = 5 million bucks
Probably not going to happen anytime soon. So, as I mentioned before, I still think the test he posted has some good info in it, and something can be learned and gained from it. Is it the be all end all of motor oil comparisons? Certainly not.
Just to clarify, I don't necessarily think he is trying to hide his identity, he is a frequent poster at speed talk and can be found under the user name 540 RAT.
There are two statements that he made that stand out to me. The first I agree with and the second I don't. The first is when he stated that just because an oil held up to a higher pressure doesn't necessarily mean that you need that level of protection in your engine. Pressure is just one variable and there are so many other things to take into consideration. The second is the fact that he doesn't like testing oils in engines. Well, last time I checked motor oils go in...engines. It only makes sense to test them in...engines! Now of course there are a lot of other ways to test oils that don't involve engines and the industry knows this and makes good use of the other tests. But, once you add combustion by-products to the equation, things start to change. The R&D industry has been using engines to test oils for 60+ years that I am aware of and I am sure they did it even further back.
Removing the additives I mentioned earlier did cause some problems, that's apparent. There is a reason why they called those additives anti-wear agents. There is also a reason why diesel engines that were utilizing slider followers got to keep those additives in their oils. It may have been unfair but they realized all the modern gas engines were roller or OHC with bucket followers (direct acting, no rocker ratio). As for the older gas engines, they didn't really want them on the road anymore so we were left to fend for ourselves and find oils that would work with our antiquated equipment or find an add pack that we could pour in with some modern oil and make parts live.
Things are getting tricky for the oil companies with modern engines. Turbo gas direct injected engines are all the rage right now. Oil formulations are changing rapidly to work with semi-heterogeneous fuel mixtures. Also, as you saw in my earlier posted story about 0W-20, oils are getting thin as can be. Not just for fuel mileage reasons either. Engines now have lots of tiny screens placed through out for turbo feed, vanos units that adjust variable cam sprockets, and vacuum pumps. People won't be able to sludge engines anymore, they will simply plug these screens. The engine will fail to run properly, won't run at all, or it will lock up turbo or cause plastic internals of vacuum pump to break.
The soot that is created by stratified charges with D.I. gas motors will wear timing chains out if oil isn't changed enough. Look at new GM 3.6, chain stretches till tensioner is at max and then chain slap occurs (public knowledge, lots of tsb's), of course the early chains were made in France when they should have been made here, tight asses
Once the add pack breaks down an engine's oil will go south very quickly. Oil degradation is not linear. This is one of the reasons why I would love to see the test that Rat blog guy posted done with engine testing, but that would truly cost a fortune. Average engine test being 50 grand times 100 oils = 5 million bucks
Probably not going to happen anytime soon. So, as I mentioned before, I still think the test he posted has some good info in it, and something can be learned and gained from it. Is it the be all end all of motor oil comparisons? Certainly not.Just to clarify, I don't necessarily think he is trying to hide his identity, he is a frequent poster at speed talk and can be found under the user name 540 RAT.
Last edited:
burns
OWG
I'm sure you are familiar with the AMSOIL data http://www.enhancedsyntheticoil.com/New_Motorcycle_Oils.htm
which is motorcycle specific (and self-serving I'm sure)
GGJ raises the empirical vs acedemic issue, i.e. testing results in motors vs testing for specific properties of oils. The former obviously better informs the consumer since the bottom line is engine wear not good numbers on a chart.
I think the reason diesel motor oil got to keep its Zinc was that the zinc was pulled from auto oil because it is a cat killer and the diesels of the time put out so much particulate emission that they couldn't run cats anyway. I think that is changing and the diesels are running cleaner; are getting cats; and their oils are losing some of their zinc (I'd need to check that though).
As to identity, what does it matter if the Rat guy posts all over the place if he never uses his real name?
BTW, what the heck does "semi-heterogeneous fuel mixture" mean?
No doubt lubrication technolgy will continue to march on, though meeting the lubrication requirements of a pistion motor designed just after the fall of the 3rd Reich and manufactured with the material science and metalurgy of over a half-century ago probably don't benefit much from stuff fit for Ram Jet applications.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for pure science research and knowledge for knowledge sake. But if you go that route you have to play by the rules of that game, which require full disclosure of your methodolgy.
Otherwise it is just chit chat.
which is motorcycle specific (and self-serving I'm sure)
GGJ raises the empirical vs acedemic issue, i.e. testing results in motors vs testing for specific properties of oils. The former obviously better informs the consumer since the bottom line is engine wear not good numbers on a chart.
I think the reason diesel motor oil got to keep its Zinc was that the zinc was pulled from auto oil because it is a cat killer and the diesels of the time put out so much particulate emission that they couldn't run cats anyway. I think that is changing and the diesels are running cleaner; are getting cats; and their oils are losing some of their zinc (I'd need to check that though).
As to identity, what does it matter if the Rat guy posts all over the place if he never uses his real name?
BTW, what the heck does "semi-heterogeneous fuel mixture" mean?
No doubt lubrication technolgy will continue to march on, though meeting the lubrication requirements of a pistion motor designed just after the fall of the 3rd Reich and manufactured with the material science and metalurgy of over a half-century ago probably don't benefit much from stuff fit for Ram Jet applications.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for pure science research and knowledge for knowledge sake. But if you go that route you have to play by the rules of that game, which require full disclosure of your methodolgy.
Otherwise it is just chit chat.
goodgollyjosh
XS650 Addict
Yes it is just chit-chat...chit chat in the lounge. Guys love to argue about oil like women love to argue about cupcakes
, so I see all sides. My point about him posting is this: he clearly isn't hiding, send him a PM, maybe he'll respond. I don't go around posting my first and last name in forums, do you? So, I wouldn't blame this guy one bit for doing so. I don't want some dude calling me at 3am to argue with me or show up at my door and want to see my credentials.
I agree with you about the diesels, lack of cat was main reason to let them keep the zinc. I guess I was looking at it from a wear standpoint, they run some pretty aggressive valve train designs. Toomanyxs1b's brings up a good point about the psi ratings too, never really considered that. Probably a bad idea to open a valve with an area less than the tip of a ball point pin.
Semi-heterogeneous just means a mixture of homogenous and heterogeneous fuel. Homogenous being a good emulsion and heterogeneous being non-uniform or less than ideal.
, so I see all sides. My point about him posting is this: he clearly isn't hiding, send him a PM, maybe he'll respond. I don't go around posting my first and last name in forums, do you? So, I wouldn't blame this guy one bit for doing so. I don't want some dude calling me at 3am to argue with me or show up at my door and want to see my credentials.I agree with you about the diesels, lack of cat was main reason to let them keep the zinc. I guess I was looking at it from a wear standpoint, they run some pretty aggressive valve train designs. Toomanyxs1b's brings up a good point about the psi ratings too, never really considered that. Probably a bad idea to open a valve with an area less than the tip of a ball point pin.
Semi-heterogeneous just means a mixture of homogenous and heterogeneous fuel. Homogenous being a good emulsion and heterogeneous being non-uniform or less than ideal.
burns
OWG
thanks for the vocab. I was wondering about them generous homos.
And my comments about anonymity just go to the value of the data not to this fellow in particular (you don't think my REAL name is burns do you - haha)
its all just chat. ain't that what the Lounge is all about?
And my comments about anonymity just go to the value of the data not to this fellow in particular (you don't think my REAL name is burns do you - haha)
its all just chat. ain't that what the Lounge is all about?
goodgollyjosh
XS650 Addict
For sure!
