Pelican Parts Forums - Blackstone results...please comment

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Porsche 911 Technical Forum (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/)

- - Blackstone results...please comment (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/372672-blackstone-results-please-comment.html)

Your oil looks fine.

Also, I have info on Staveley Services if you need.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnavarro (Post 3584336)

Staveley is much slower. The sample from my 911 with 2400 mi on the Brad Penn is going in tomorrow - I'm not expecting results back until probably after Thanksgiving.

PM me on this - your best bet is to use the Staveley lab in KC - turn around in 48hrs.

Forgot to mention (in answering your question) that ,..let's not forget what RP said it should be.....assuming truth from their mouths , this would, in fact, be a considerable point of reference in and of itself, eh?

Throw in the other commentary from the people who have lived it,......and a lab that shows dead on,..........well,......what's left (other than conspiracy theories)? Maybe one more test would put it to bed for me (and I'll certainly do a few more...) I just pray that RP never does what Mobil 1 did,..and that's not tell anybody about it (at least the public at large,..but even then: how many of those people will understand (((generally))))) and how many will give a rat's arse?

You're engine will not die because of Brad Penn and you will find both Charles and Steve seldom wrong...if they are, they'll surely agree to it.........under the same rules as me: facts, not: fiction (or worse) silence.....

I will post my upcoming results with the RP MC 20W50.

My best,

My 89 goes in this AM for an oil change. NOW that I have a "correct" baseline on my virgin RP Max Cycle (from Staveley's), I feel better in being able to gauge it's performance vs. mileadge. The last oil change made use use of the max cycle (about 10.3 quarts) with the previous oil change using RP street version 20W50. (I guess this means that today's sample from the engine will, in fact, have a bit of the street stuff that was remaining in the engine, mixed in with the Max Cycle). I'll drive her for a solid hour before showing up for the change although the temps outside are quite cool and I may not be able to get above 180 deg. F so early in the AM.

Inanycase, I'll get my sample off to Staveley's TODAY and report back to this group. Today's engine sample will have about 3500 miles on the Royal Purple Max Cycle, 20W50.

Finally found where I can get the RP Max Cycle without having it special ordered through Advanced Auto Parts. I drove about 40 miles yesterday to get a case from Summit Racing...damned near $11 per quart!! Around $140 for the case (with tax)...GEEEZE!

On a side note: what would one expect on a VOA when you've added a bottle of Techron into the last tank of gas just before changing the oil? (Charles?)

Thanks to all,....Best

To be honest, I have never seen the effect of adding Techron or any other cleaner to the fuel in UOA. I guess you would see fuel dilution or insolubles maybe? Your guess is as good as mine.

I'll be curious to see how the copper levels look in the UOA for the Royal Purple. I have probably at least a half-dozen UOAs with RP with abnormal copper levels. I have had a few coversations with Bob Cousimano (CMW Motorsports / CMW Oil) about how moly in engine oil is bad, and he has seen the same problem of copper leaching in oils with high moly levels, like RP.

BTW, my spintron for oil testing of cam/lifters and bearings is finally done. What is not shown is the steel tank we fabricated around it (holds 10 qts of oil). I'll shoot some vid of it in operation. I also put a tap to draw samples during operation for oil analysis. We will be running Castrol GTX as the control for ~50 hours.

http://www.lnengineering.com/spintron.JPG

Nice piece,..well done.....way cool.

Copper,..Moly,..(I my goddy)?

Guess I've some reading to do,..review, as well. On these items, please engage me:

COPPER
I would assume that the Copper level measurement on a virgin sample would (always?) be zero. Then one would see a certain measureable amount in a 3K mile sample. What exactly IS this process of leaching, avoiding atomic verbage? Is this leaching process the sole contributor to the measured copper levels? WHERE is this copper being leached FROM?Although I never tested a VIRGIN sample of RP 20W50 STREET, I DID test this street version on a 2800 mile sample and Blackstone recorded a copper level of 7..what IS the proper range of levels? I will certainly report back here with Copper levels on the RP MC.

MOLY

So, RP has lots of moly (relatively)? Is IT the main source of a leaching process, thereby producing higher Copper levels? What is the relation of Moly/copper, interactively?
Is moly prone to produce MORE deposits (of ANY kind)? In other words, HOW is moly bad, in the opinion of CMW Motorsports???????????????????

Like I said earlier, I've some reading to do. I'll recheck your site for information. Hopefully, the UOAs you mentioned are listed on the site.

Charles, thanks for your time and efforts. Sorry for SOOOOOOO many questions. I'm sure that these questions have been answered by the oil experts within this group, your expertise INCLUDED......no doubt the mighty LubeMaster has touched on Moly............. It's one of those things I've taken to in learning sections, as it is complicated. One (I) must draw a conclusion that will be completely holistic. Rest assured that I integrate the opinion of the engine guys, in the trenches,...SEEING it everyday.

'nuff.

Best,

Yep,....found the section on Moly at your website...now: off to the suggested sites for further information......

Thanks again,

Still awaiting the lab results,..I've concern about the expected Copper levels....(I know,..wait for the results). As well, I'm off to read as much as possible about Moly and the interactions......

For insurance, I've ordered my case of BP from Charlie,..as obviously this oild doesn't contains the same Moly levels....

Had a conversation (albeit brief) with a P-wrench today (30+ years experience) who soke badly of elevated Moly content...............

.............I'm loosing sleep now.......As the RP Max Cycle 20W50 is loaded with it, eh?

........deep breath,..continue your studies?

Best,

Still no lab results from Staveley's on the used RP MC (hopefully, this week?).

I DID rx' my case of BP from Charlie (man,..that's less than 1/2 of what I pay for a RP MC changeout, even with the $15.00 shipping included). Something told me to order this oil, as a standby while awaiting the RP test results....

I sampled the new BP 20W50 and have mailed it to Staveley for virgin baseline analysis.

Charles,..have you heard of someone changing from RP MC 20W50 to BP 20W50 for any reasons OTHER THAN cost? If so, what would be those reasons?

Speak to me of Moly content w/in the BP. a different animal?

Will report back (as always) with the analysis data.

My best to all........Happy Holidays!

Doyle - which Staveley lab did you send your sample to?

As for Moly - stick with the oil soluble kind. The black MoS2 will drop out or worse, clog oil gullies. The test results are mixed as far as the effectiveness is concerned. I will say that I do know a bunch of folks that run equipment with oil containing moly and they swear by it. We have been able to get a nice 15W40 API approved for CJ4 by using a stout amount of an oil soluble moly add in place of the reduced ZDDP. The thing is, we also had to do a number of other things as well.

The engine oil technology that is being developed now really is very interesting unfortunitly there is little if any truth to the advertisments you see, read or hear. When I give seminars I ofetn spend a fair amount of time talking about engine oil technology - not that I want to but every one seems to be thirsty for info.

Lets face it, every oil blender is buying their add packs from one of three companies. If you look at their tech sheets on-line you can make a pretty acurate guess which ones are the same. They list out the various OEM spec approvals beyond the API. The things you should look for that are not readily visable would be a level of consistency in production (sometimes ISO certification can drive that - not always). This is so difficult for the average person to get to. Unless you had access to their SPC charts and the QC manifest you would not know the truth. Even then some companies fudge the data.

The things that really seems to be pushing engine oil technology forward is not so much the add packs - they are mostly all the same rather the base oil technology. If you can lower the volality you can effectivily improve the viscosity stability and in the long term inprove its longevity. This means that the cuts have to cracked and a narrower molecular weight distribution made. The other thing that has to be done is to take out all the waxes. This improves its cold weather stability buit will also in the grand scheme of things, the waxes will contribute to sludge build-up over time. I wrote a paper on this years ago. The last thing that has to be done to the base oils is to have a higher level of hydrogen sateration on the carbon chains. This will have a humongous effect on stabilizing the oil for extended life and oxidation stability.

The sad thing is, most folks think that the add packs have the direct influence on performance when infact they play an important roll but not the most important - only because they are all working the same way. Little is available that is truely different.

One thing that an engine oil producer can do by way of the add packs is to use the max levels allowed. The three add pack mfgs have a suggested blends range with a low end meeting the API specs. When we blend, we juice it and use darn good base stock and make sure the SPC is tight as a ducks arse.

Most fuel companies that make oil are making better product now then ever before because they have to not because they want to. These companies have some amazing engineers and scientists working for them but they are not focused on developing the best product but rather reducing the cost to produce a product.

LUBEMAN!! WHATZUP?

I appreciate your reply (and many posts....your are quite generous with your knowledge and experience)...it's like reading a good novelist,...very well spoken.

Although an electronics engineer and NOT a LUBE engineer, I have to appreciate your patience with the masses. Obviously there are MANY complexities within this equation, requiring a very specialized knowledge....your patience in sharing your information is very impressive...and I respect that in every way......

As to your comments:

I send my stuff to the Lab in Atlanta.

As to Moly: What is the "oil-soluble kind"? And how do I know THAT's what's being used? Clogging oil gullies is EXACTLY what I intend to avoid at all costs. I'm sure there exists amny users who use it in there "equipment" and swear by it. However, I'm speaking (and quite strictly) about my 911 and it's 1989 design.

I can buy cat converters all day long, should it be determined that high ZDDP packages (of old) will do fine......but if someone approaches me as to Moly concerns (P-wrenches w/ trench experience), or discussions as to leaching processes,..GEEZE,..what next? So, you add Moly and HAVE to change something else......understood that it's a "reactive" package yielded a composite result, at least for newer cars for sure. I think ALL of the 911 owners here (most non LUBEMASTER certified, I might add) want to be sure about what oil they're using and try to understand much of the "why". I realize that all the information presented is not quite "on", as I would say. Thank God that there are people such as yourself who help us NON-OIL EXPERTS (slowly, I might add) understand the processes/data.

I must say, that even after having read much on oil topics, I still felt uncomfortable being challenged by the frikin' Advance Auto counter person (mullet-head) as to why I was ordering motorcycle oil for a Porsche........First time ever I had to unload by saying just order the frikin' oil, please Mr. mulllet-head, as I've not much time for oil chit-frikin'-chat with you. Driving home, it pissed me off even more: this oil thing.

Being now on my second pass with RP Max Cycle 20W50, I'm curious as to where the sampling may fall....if there's no real need to run an oil that's HIGH in Moly (and Z&P, too),..then why would I? What would say as to leaching as related to Moly content?

Sorry to be winded,...I truly appreciate your time.....

Awaiting results,..will report back,

BEst

Doyle,
Thanks for you kind words. It is interesting that you will be willing to put motorcycle oil into the crank of your Porsche. I think I understand the reasoning but without offending you, Mullithead may actually be right (without actually knowing it).

I think (correct me if I'm worng) the reasons you are going with the motorcycle engine oils in your car is because you want to:
1) have better wear prtection and engine oils have reduced antiwear adds (ZDDP) and motorcycle oils actually have a higher concentration beacuase they also have to lube the gears?
2) motorcycle engine oils are designed to take higher heat and keep their viscosity because the motorcycle engines acually run hotter than regualr engines?

Well, to tell you the truth, there is no difference between car engine oil and motorcycle engine oil. I know this may come as a shock but some companies (including motorcycle companies) will spin an interesting tale in order for you to buy a product. One thing is certain, they know how to get into your wallet becuase they know how to get between your ears!

The tests run by our labs as well as others indicate that there is no didferenc ein wear protection and no difference in heat stability and no difference in viscosity stability.
There was some very significant work done by several reasearch instituations as to figuering out if infact there was a performance difference - none could find a difference.

One thing that did make a difference was the comparison between mineral based oils and sysnthetics. Synthetics do hold viscosity better (but I covered that before somewhere). The drawback with synthetics is the price and that with older seal technology you may see some leaks.

Another thing with synthetics (although it is not important to Porsche owners yet) is that with the use of bio-based diesel fuel, there appears to be a greater affinity for the biobased fuels to actually dissolve synthetic oils resulting in piston wash and oil blow-by. Not and issue unless your haul truck for your track car is running B20 to B100!

As for the moly goes, just stay away form any oil that looks black coming out of the can. The moly disulfide used in greases is black and does a great job but is not oil soluable. Oils that are transparent with a green color or even a red amber and state that they use moly are OK. That m,oly is safe on the gallies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LubeMaster77 (Post 3638546)

The tests run by our labs as well as others indicate that there is no didferenc ein wear protection and no difference in heat stability and no difference in viscosity stability. There was some very significant work done by several reasearch instituations as to figuering out if infact there was a performance difference - none could find a difference.

Which test sequences are you referring to? Can you point to the published results in the SAE or similar journal?

I am willing to agree that for most modern dohc engines like what you find in your Ford Focus or Chevy Cobalt, water-cooled 986/996 engines included, that the levels of Zn and P provided for in an API SM spec oil is probably sufficient. Given an ACEA A3/B3 approval and a Porsche approval, and it's probably fine for your new Porsche. I also agree that synthetics as a whole are better than most non-synthetics, but again, given enough refining, petroleum base stocks with the proper additive packages are fine too. Also noack volatility is important, as blow-by and combustion byproducts (pentane insolubles), have been documented as a good source of wear.

There are indeed motorcycle oils that are no different than car oils, but I would have to say that lumping all of them together is wrong. How about the JASO MA and MB specification, as some oils can't be friction modified to prevent clutch slippage. Mobil 1's V-Twin and MX4T oils are definately different than their other oils, with higher HTHS viscosities than their car oil counterparts, as well as significantly different detergency and anti-wear additives used and their levels. In fact, they are basically thicker versions of Mobil's old Mobil 1 R Nascar oil, which is no longer sold. That's just one example.

That said, some of the sequences developed through SWI for evaluation of lubricants poorly correlate to how they would do in an aircooled engine or a 911, for that matter. That's why I'm asking what tests you were referring to. Most, if not all modern engines, when considering cam wear, use significantly lighter valves and valve springs, which reduces the need for Zn and P allows for the substitution of other low SAPS oils that do a satisfactory job protecting these engines. That is why there are manufacturer specific specifications and oil formulations, Porsche included, that don't allow for a low SAPS oil as it doesn't meet the wear requirements, among other specifications. Same with energy conserving or GF-4 oils, I lump them in the category as just as bad for an aircooled Porsche, but ok possibly for new cars. In some cases, a lower detergency oil with more anti-wear additives is needed for a performance engine which is significantly different than engines and oils evaluated in taxi fleets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dshepp806 (Post 3637245)

Charles,..have you heard of someone changing from RP MC 20W50 to BP 20W50 for any reasons OTHER THAN cost? If so, what would be those reasons?

Speak to me of Moly content w/in the BP. a different animal?

No, not really. I still have alot of customers running Royal Purple Max Cycle or Mobil 1 V-Twin, or even the Amsoil Harley. All very good oils regardless, but there are still tons of good oils out there, if just not that easy to get your hands on.

Brad Penn has no moly nor friction modifiers, at least in their multi-grade oils. The SAE 50 and 70 have friction modifiers, but have very low detergency, and even a bit more Zn and P, as they are intended for racing. In speaking to Brad Penn, even though the multi-grade oils are advertised as racing, they are really designed for high performance street engines rather than a race car that is going to have frequent oil changes and doesn't need the detergency and that can benefit from a few more HP from the friction modifiers.

Charles,
One study that I did find was work from John C. Woolum, Professor of Physics, California State University, Los Angeles. I have similar work done here as well. I also spoke to some friends at Lubrizol and Afton concerning add packs for motor cycles - all confirmed. The reason I did this was that at one time we considered making a motor cycle engine oil.

Quote:

Comparisons Among Five Brands of Automotive and Motorcycle Oils

The central dogma of motorcycle oil manufacturers and distributors has always been that motorcycles put different demands on their lubricants than do automobiles. In particular, they point to the facts that motorcycles run at higher temperatures and use the same oil in their transmissions as in their engines. The transmission gears supposedly put extreme pressures on the oil molecules, thus causing the long oil polymers to break down. High temperatures can have the same basic effect, as well as additional effects such as the increase in oxidation products.

When the size of the oil polymers decreases ("cut up by the transmission gears," as at least one manufacturer claims), the oil thins. In other words, its viscosity decreases, as well as its ability to lubricate properly. For example, what started out as a 40-weight oil could effectively become a 30-weight oil, or even a 20-weight, after prolonged use. What this means, effectively, is that if the claims of the motorcycle oil producers are valid, they can easily be verified through measurement of viscosity changes on various oils as they are used in different applications.

Measuring the viscosity drop in oils did not seem like too difficult a task, especially since measuring viscosity of solutions of large molecules is a common practice in many biophysics laboratories - mine included. My lab had all the correct equipment - in fact the viscometers that I normally used for solutions of DNA and proteins were originally designed for oil measurements.

Setting the Stage
Viscosity is a measure of the friction between two layers of a liquid sliding relative to one another. It is usually measured in poise, or grams per centimeter per second (g/cm. sec). The basic principle of many viscometers is to measure the time required for a known amount of a liquid to pass through a capillary tube under gravitational force. The time taken will depend on the viscosity and the density of the liquid. The more viscous or less dense the liquid. the longer the time it will take to flow through the capillary.

Therefore in reality, this kind of viscometer does not measure viscosity directly, but rather the ratio of the viscosity to the density of the liquid being tested. This ratio is called the kinematic viscosity. and the common unit for expressing it is in stokes or poise cm^3/gram.

The viscometer used for my measurements was an Ostwald-type, Cannon-Fenske 200, designed to measure kinematic viscosities in the range of 10 to 100 centistokes (a centistoke is one-hundredth of a stoke). The oils being measured had kinematic viscosities between about 10 and 25 centistokes.

For the test samples, I decided to use two types of oils designed specifically for motorcycles and three types of fairly standard automotive oil.

The automotive oils were Castrol GTX 10W40 (petroleum based, $1.24/qt.), Castrol Syntec 10W40 (synthetic, $3.99/qt.) and Mobil 1 15W50 (synthetic, $3.48/qt.). The motorcycle oils were Spectro 4 10W40 (petroleum based, $4.99/qt.) and Honda HP4 10W40 (petroleum/synthetic blend, $5.99/qt.).

Each of these oils was run in the same motorcycles 1984 Honda V65 Sabre-under as near to identical conditions as possible. The oils were sampled for testing at 0, 800 and 1500 miles each.

As temperature has a strong effect on viscosity, I had to make certain it was carefully controlled for the experiments. Using a laboratory temperature control chamber, all measurements were made at 99 degrees Celsius (error factor of plus or minus 0.5 degrees), which is about 210 degrees Fahrenheit. This is the most common temperature used for oil viscosity measurements. It usually took about 15 minutes for each sample to achieve equilibrium within the chamber.

Each oil's kinematic viscosity was compared with its own kinematic viscosity at 0 miles to establish the viscosity ratio. In addition, measurements were made of each oil's density at each state of the tests. The densities were found to change by less than one percent, which is about the limit of the accuracy of the measurements. Therefore, a ratio of the times taken for the oils to pass through the viscometer effectively gives the ratio of their actual viscosities, since the densities cancel out.

What this all means in layman's terms then, is that the ratio established for each oil at the end of each test is a percentage of the amount of original viscosity retained at that point. For example. the Castro] GTX sample at 800 miles showed a relative viscosity of 0.722, meaning it had retained 72.2 percent of its original viscosity. Or, if you want to look at it the other way, the Castrol had lost 27.8 percent of its viscosity after 800 miles of use in the motorcycle.

Just for comparison sake, I also tested the viscosity drop of the Castrol GTX automotive oil after use in a 1987 Honda Accord automobile. At 3600 miles of use, the Castrol GTX showed a relative viscosity of 91.8 percent.

As the Mobil 1 had retained so much of its viscosity after the 1500 mile test, it was the only oil I allowed to run longer in the motorcycle. After 2500 miles, the Mobil 1 recorded a relative viscosity of 79.1 percent.

Also, it is worthy of note that from a testing standpoint, the two most similar oils were the Castrol GTX automotive oil and the Spectro 4 motorcycle oil. By similar, I mean that they tested as having almost the same absolute kinematic viscosity and density right out of the container. So starting out as equals, the Castrol maintained its viscosity several percentage points higher than the Spectro, under the same use in the same motorcycle yet the Spectro costs about four times the price of the Castrol.

The Error Factor
As a scientist, I must always ask myself. Are there possible errors in these measurements that would make them invalid? One possibility here would be that there was more particulate matter (contaminants) in some oil samples than in others, which would increase the viscosity numbers of that oil. Particulates disrupt the streamline flow and so increase the viscosity. (Einstein was the first to derive the quantitive expression for the increase in viscosity due to spherically, shaped particles.)

Large particulates should have been removed by the oil filter, and a new filter was used for each test. Still, to determine the effect of smaller particulates the oil samples were centrifuged at 11,000 g (11,000 times the acceleration of gravity) for a period of 10 minutes. A considerable amount of particulate matter was found and removed in all of the 800 mile and 1500 mile samples. However, the change in viscosity made by eliminating these particulates was found to be negligible.

Another possible source of error would be that the conditions to which the oils were subjected were different. In all cases, the distances were comprised of approximately 70 percent city riding and 30 percent freeway riding. The range of temperatures and the average ambient temperature during which the motorcycle was ridden were approximately the same. If anything, the average ambient temperature was higher during the operation of the motorcycle with the Mobil 1 oil, which should have put it at a disadvantage, yet it scored the highest overall in the viscosity retention tests.

Of course the motorcycle did age somewhat during the testing period, which took place over a year-long span. It registered about 4000 miles at the beginning of these tests and about 14,000 at the end. The order in which the oils were tested was:
1) Castrol, 2) Spectro, 3) Mobil and 4) Honda.

Other Criteria
The motorcycle oil producers have suggested that other criteria. such as the amount of wear metals and contaminants, might be unacceptable when using automotive oil in a motorcycle. To test this theory, I sent a sample of the Castrol GTX at 1500 miles to SpectroTech. Inc., for a complete oil analysis. Their findings were that all contaminants (water, dirt, coolant and sludge) were normal.

SpectroTech also reported that all wear elements (antimony, titanium, silver, copper, lead, tin, aluminum, nickel, chromium, cadmium, sodium and boron) were normal except for iron, which was reported as "mildly above normal" at 51 parts per million.

SpectroTech lists acceptable levels for all of the above listed metals except iron, for which they state, "values vary greatly with systems and parts." so it is not clear what exactly is meant by "mildly above normal." Perhaps it was in comparison to cars with 1500 miles on the oil. Also, this could have been due to cam wear, since the early Honda V-4s were known for excessive cam and rocker arm wear.

In any case, again I could find nothing to support the argument that automotive oils were somehow less effective than motorcycle-specific lubricants when used in a motorcycle.

Bottom Line
It could appear from this data, then, that there is no validity to the constantly-used argument that motorcycle-specific oils provide superior lubrication to automotive oils when used in a motorcycle. If the viscosity drop is the only criterion, then there is certainly no reason to spend the extra money on oil specifically designed for motorcycles. There does, however, appear to be a legitimate argument for using synthetic and synthetic-blend oils over the petroleum based products.

and to finish up his report...

Quote:

MCN's Conclusions
In speaking to a number of people involved in the production, marketing and distribution of motorcycle-specific oils, we could not find anyone who could present a valid argument for discrediting the testing done by Dr. Woolum. In general, they all tried to turn the conversation another direction by bringing up other possible advantages to using their products, while ignoring the viscosity-retention question. Yet without exception it is their own advertising that consistently brings the subject up, touting the special shear-stable polymers as the primary reason motorcyclists should purchase their products.

It is this practice to which we take exception, as we have been unable to find evidence to support these claims. In short, it seems to be nothing more than a clever marketing ploy designed to enhance their products' image and separate motorcyclists from their money.

MCN is ready to print any research or test results provided by the oil companies to support their claims of superior viscosity retention, with this one proviso: The comparisons must be against actual, SG-rated oil products that can be purchased off the shelf at the average auto parts store. Tests against generic, basic-stock mineral oil or against the lower-rated SE and SF oils would lack any credibility in a real-world context.

Despite more than six months of research, reading all the claims and counter-claims printed by dozens of industry experts and lubrication experts, MCN cannot and does not purport to know all there is to know about the differences between automotive and motorcycle oils. However, what we do know is that we can find no substantive evidence that using a high-quality, name-brand automotive oil in an average street motorcycle is in any way harmful or less effective in providing proper lubrication and protection than using the more expensive, motorcycle-specific oils.

Something else that I found that backs this up as well...

Quote:

From Motorcycle Consumer News
Motorcycle Oils vs. Automotive Oils
Surprising New Evidence on the Viscosity-Retention Question
Walk into any motorcycle dealership parts department and you are virtually guaranteed to see prominent displays of oils produced specifically for use in motorcycle engines. Since dealers are not about to waste valuable floor or counter space on a product unless it produces a decent profit, it is obvious that motorcycle-specific oils have become one of the premier parts department cash cows of the 1990s.
Of course advances in lubrication technology have resulted in some fairly expensive premium, synthetic and synthetic-blend products for automobiles also. But as you can see from our pricing research at a half-dozen auto parts and cycle parts stores, the average purchase price for the motorcycle-specific lubricants runs about 120 percent higher for petroleum products and 185 percent higher for synthetic products than do their automotive counterparts. (See Figure 1)

The companies marketing these high-priced motorcycle lubricants would have us believe that their products are so superior to the automotive oils as to justify paying two and three times the price. But are we really getting the added protection promised when we purchase these products? MCN decided to look beyond the advertising-hype, specifically to see if the claims of prolonged and superior viscosity retention could be verified. What we found may very well change your mind about what should go into your motorcycle's crankcase in the future.

So The Story Goes ...
Many motorcyclists have long doubted the need to pay the inflated prices asked for most motorcycle-specific engine oils. An even larger number of us have harbored at least some degree of skepticism about the claims made for motorcycle oils, but have been reluctant to turn away from them, for fear of damaging our precious machines if the claims should happen to be true. Most of this fear comes from very successful marketing campaigns mounted by the manufacturers and distributors of motorcycle-specific lubricants.

For example, a monthly trade publication for motorcycle dealers recently published an article suggesting, "negative selling techniques" to "educate customers" against purchasing automotive oil for their bikes. The example in the article begins with the benevolent dealer looking the poor, dumb customer in the eye and asking, in an incredulous voice, "You're not really using that in your motorcycle, are you?"

The idea, of course, is not so much to educate as to frighten the customer into paying for the more expensive motorcycle oil that only guess-who sells. Such techniques have played on our fears with great effect, to the point where high-priced, motorcycle-specific lubricants have become staple profit producing items in the majority of motorcycle dealership parts departments throughout the country.

The campaigns promoting motorcycle-specific oils have successfully indoctrinated an entire Generation of motorcycle riders and mechanics. The doctrine is now so ingrained in the industry that questioning its veracity instantly marks you as an ill-educated outsider. Even MCN has fallen victim to the hype, espousing the superiority of such products in these very pages. Our own technical experts from the American Motorcycle Institute have repeatedly advised our readers against the dangers of straying from the straight and narrow path.

What we, as well as the AMI, your local mechanic and all the other motorcycling publications have been doing is simply repeating what we have been carefully taught to believe over the years. The only problem with this approach is that our only source of information has been the people who stand to profit from our faith in the superiority of motorcycle-specific oils.

Stretching the Truth - Just a Bit
Motorcycle oil producers make a multitude of claims for their products, some of which are extremely difficult to substantiate, and others which are simply outdated and no longer applicable. This is not to say that all claims made for the superiority of motorcycle oils are necessarily false, only that the actual differences between them and their automotive counterparts may be considerably less than we have been lead to believe. For example:

Claim - Since the introduction of catalytic converters in utomobiles, the best anti-wear agents have been limited by law to the amount that an be used in automotive oils, but are present in greater concentration in motorcycle oils.

Fact - Phosphorous deteriorates the catalyst in converters and is therefore restricted to a very small percentage in automotive oils. Phosphorous is also an essential element in one of the best anti-wear agents, ZDDP (zinc dialkyldithiophosphate), which is a primary component of such over-the-counter engine additives as STP Engine Treatment.

While it is true that slightly increased concentrations of ZDDP are found in some motorcycle oils (such as Spectro products), it is also true that these concentrations still fall under the governmental limits, otherwise these oils could not be used in the new converter-equipped motorcycles from BMW and Yamaha. Also, it should be noted that ZDDP is a "last line of defense"-type additive, generally only coming into play under extremely severe conditions where actual metal-to-metal contact occurs within an engine, something that should never happen under normal operating conditions.

Claim - Motorcycle engines run hotter and rev higher than automobile engines, therefore requiring oils with more expensive, shear-stable polymers and additives than automotive oils.

Fact - This is one of those statements that was much more true in the 1970s than in the 1990s. The big, slow-revving Detroit automobile engines of the past have mostly been replaced with smaller, higher-revving four-cylinder and six-cylinder engines that have much more in common with their counterparts running on two wheels. Keeping pace with the development of the small, high-revving, automobile engine, automotive oils have improved considerably, to the point where the newer, SG-rated automotive oils are nearly identical to motorcycle oils.

In most cases where motorcycle oil producers show comparisons between their products and automotive oils, you will find them using SE- or SF-rated oils as the "automotive standard." These are oils that were designed and rated for the cars of 10 to 20 years ago. We have yet to see a motorcycle oil compared in testing to the 1990's standard, SG-rated premium automotive oils.

The Viscosity-Retention Claim
By far the loudest and most-believed claim made for motorcycle oils is that they retain their viscosity longer than automotive oils when used in a motorcycle. The standard claim made in most advertising is that motorcycle-specific oils contain large amounts of expensive, shear-stable polymers that better resist the punishment put on the oil by the motorcycle's transmission, thus retaining their viscosity longer and better than automotive oils would under the same conditions.

This quote comes directly from the back of a bottle of Spectro 4 motorcycle oil, and is similar to the advertising line used by nearly all motorcycle oils: Because of its special polymers, Spectro 4 maintains its viscosity, whereas the shearing action of motorcycle gears quickly reduces the viscosity of automotive oils.

We've all heard it a thousand times before. Our transmissions are the culprits that force us to buy special, $6-a-quart motorcycle oil instead of the 99 cent special at Pep Boys. We hate to have to do it, but we all know that it's true--or is it?

The question begged an answer, so MCN went looking for evidence that motorcycle oils really are more shear-stable than their automotive counterparts.

and to add to that...

Quote:

The Oil Companies Reply
At Spectro Oils we talked to three different company spokesmen, all of whom were helpful and provided us with a great deal of information about their products. Unfortunately, despite our repeated requests for the testing data on which their advertising claims were based, the 15 pages of "Lubrication Data" they supplied us contained nothing that could not be found in their regular advertising and marketing packages. No verifiable testing data has been forthcoming.

The Spectro spokesmen were not pleased when informed of our test results, but when pressed, none could come up with a valid reason why their product should have scored the lowest, either. The only comment we got was, "We only wish you had tested our Golden Spectro synthetic instead of the petroleum-based Spectro 4."

Undoubtedly the Golden Spectro would have outscored the regular Spectro in our tests, though how well in comparison to the Mobil 1 and Castrol products we can only guess at this point.

When asked why the Spectro 4 petroleum product sold for $5.00 a quart when comparable automotive oils could be found at less than $1.50 a quart, a Spectro spokesman insisted theirs was "a superior, premium petroleum product, with expensive, shear-stable additives that should outperform automotive oils." That being the case, it should have been the perfect product for our testing.

We made a half-dozen calls to several different divisions within American Honda, but could find no one willing to make any statement regarding their HP4 motorcycle oil. All of the Honda employees we reached were friendly, and tried to help as much as they could, but you must keep in mind that Honda is a huge conglomerate and sometimes the person with the right answers to a question is difficult to track down through the corporate maze. Their Accessories Product Management Division noted that they had a lubrication expert that might be able to help us, but also that he was out of the country on vacation for the next month and could not be reached before this article went to press. Should someone from Honda wish to comment at a later date, we will certainly make room in a later issue.

Spokesmen at both Mobil and Castrol were a bit surprised at our questions, since neither makes any claims for their products in a motorcycling context. However, when we explained the test results, neither company spokesman seemed the least bit surprised, both noting that automotive oils in general had made a quantum leap in viscosity retention technology in the past five or six years. Both companies claimed to be using the very latest in shear-stable polymers for viscosity retention, and while claiming no knowledge of the motorcycle-specific oils' formula, expressed serious doubt that they could contain some type of additive that was superior in this context to that already being used in their automotive oils. Our test results support their assertion.

oh ya, I forgot to address your other concern...motorcycle clutches are multi-plate affairs and are actually designed for motor oil - or more accurately stated would be that the recent technology used in engine oils lend themselves to used with high success in motorcycle transmissions.

I think we can thank the early work of Ford and Allison and the C-1, C-2 and C-4 push!

Thanks Lubemaster77. Very interesting reads, for sure.

I'm speechless, for now. At the going prices for RP max C,..geeze,..VERY expensive oil WHEREVER you may find it.

Mullethead "don't know Jack ****":,..although I have met him before. Aside from costs, why would mullethead be right? I guess I'm asking "what harm would be done by putting in my engine"?

I've always paid attention to the posts speaking of the DIFFERENCES with our engines (spring pressures, temps,etc.) vs. others (esp. newer cars). These are VALID differences, I must say. Still trying to draw the correlation to all of the concerns with Z & P reductions, molys, etc. And achieve a resting state on product selection...if I knew what you guys knew, it would be a bit easier for me,...4sure.

I don't think I got a response as to Molys related to shearing. Could you comment on that please, LM77?

As stated, I've rx'd my BP case from Charlie and am considering changing to this selection. A few somments have me wondering about Moly (or subsequent elevated Copper levels on my upcoming VOA from Staveley on the RP MC 20W50). Should I see it, I would certainly ask: why? I have a feeling that maybe Charles has seen this before (only a feeling)....

so,...now on to Brad Penn.....

I'm a 3K oil changer, religiously. She is NOT a 3K miles/year car. I drive this 911 more than this, for now. First year logged 14K miles! That's a few oil changes for sure! I'm told that the BP has much less of a detergent package and no moly. Detergency question is, products aside, (as always?): what's the starting TBN and how long can it run before getting anywhere near 1/2 of it's original starting value....It seems to me that 3K changeouts render this question irrelevent? As well, Moly absence won't matter, right?

Straight up, Lubemaster: what do you think of the Brad Penn oil? Especially as related to "Porsche engine" concerns? Specifically....

Thanks, again, for your shared information....it greatly contributes to my datapoints. (I like to call it my "neccesary holostic approach"..) I'm far less concerned about costs versus protection...... I just need to make the right decision and stay with it (which is what Charles has said from day one...)

Thanks, in advance, for your answers to these questions (patience and forebearance, as well).

My best,