Oil testing - why's this not add up?

[Novelldude]

Found what appears to be the closest thing to an independent study that I've yet run across:

http://www.xs11.com/stories/mcnoil94.htm Motorcycle Consumer News
February, 1994



Motorcycle Oils vs. Automotive Oils

Surprising New Evidence on the Viscosity-Retention Question

Their basic conclusion is that not enough difference in viscosity breakdown nor the percentage of inhibitor agents present to be able to tell a difference between motorcycle or automotive oils, either dino or synthetic versions.

So is it the fact that this research was done back in 94 that makes it irrelevant or am I missing something here? Looking at the testing methodology, it looks to be pretty sound, but I admit I'm moving faster through this than I should. I'm just not seeing a neon sign saying "here's why the testing is invalid."

Thoughts?

ND

[Newbie2it]

One big flag is unlike a car, Motorcycles clutches sit in that same oil, the additives in the oil will impregnate the clutch plates and cause slipping. CyberPoet will probably add a few more reasons. He has done more research on this topic.

[arsenic]

a automotive oil has friction modifiers that will make the clutch slip, period.

[hardlydangerous]

mineral oil and it's byproducts oxidize and breakdown much faster then the synthetic additives in most oils, these oxidized byproducts cause the gum and sldge deposits in engines and will also cause clutch plates to clog up and glaze.
Don't use automotive oils
Don't use oils with solids like Teflon

I recommend a Group IV~V synthetic for the best engine protection, best performance and longest clutch life.
Amsoil and Redline are the only 2 that I know of anymore.
Mobil 1 was years ago but now hydrocrack their crude base stocks and use synthetic additives much like Syntec and just about every other group III oil out there.

[ctandc]

Some motorcycles (like our Kats) use a clutch that is 'wet'...(submerged in engine oil). MOST (NOT ALL) automobile engine oils have 'friction modifiers', which translated means they've added chemicals to make the oil 'slicker' for EPA reasons. (MPG etc). These additives can get in the clutch plates on a wet clutch bike and cause the clutch to slip or not function correctly.

The other thing to consider is that our bikes are air and oil cooled...so the oil temp in our Kats tends to get MUCH hotter on a regular basis than liquid cooled bikes / cars.

Do some digging, there are several good synthetic and non-synthetics that do NOT have friction modifiers, and do not affect clutch operation.

Check this thread.

http://katriders.com/vb/showthread.php?t=78163

Lots of reading / links here...

HTH

[Novelldude]

Guys, I'm getting the feeling you're commenting without reading the link before commenting.

If you go back and read the article I linked to, you'll find the testing was done with a Honda Motorcycle. He was using a wet clutch and all that goes with it, and still came up with results that don't jive with all that we've known and read.

His conclusion was that synthetic is better than dino. That was in 94 so I'm sure it's true today too. I'm not contesting that synthetic is better. What surprised me is his claim, with scientific evidence to support it, that there's no difference in viscosity breakdown.

Read that again...
.
.
.
The evidence presented in the report says that there's no difference in how the auto oil breaks down when compared to how the motorcycle specific stuff breaks down. Effectively the evidence is saying that anything that claims "superior breakdown protection" or anything like it because it's motorcycle specific, is nothing more than MARKETING!

Realize why I'm asking. I want to believe that motorcycle oil is better and that I should use it, but I have an itchy mind. I attempt to rarely find myself in a position where I have to ask, "why?" I want to understand and have some logic and proof behind my beliefs. If the scientific testing that I can get my hands on says there's no difference, then I have to question if the corporate machine is just trying to squeeze more dollars out of my wallet, or if there's something I truly don't understand.

What I really want to avoid here is yet another oil thread that ends up with links to Cyber's defacto post about it. His oil manifesto is what I'm using as my starting point for understanding. I found something that challenges those accepted truths. I'm attempting to validate where reality lies between. Otherwise known as the traditional scientific process.

Thanks,
ND

[viper7016]

I'm assuming that Suzuki motorcycle oil is perfectly suitable for kat's...?

I bought some 20w-50 with SF/SG; SH/SJ and JASO MA certifications like CP suggested.

[steves]

My concern would be that formulations change over time... and that what they wrote 14 years ago may not be true today.

I'd like to see MCN revist the topic...

[brooder]

Quick glance through talks about viscosity only. It's not about the viscosity. It's about the effect the oil has on the clutch. In fact, a search of the page didn't show the word clutch anywhere. If the bike didn't have a wet clutch, then I could see where this research would be valid.

[ctandc]

Guys, I'm getting the feeling you're commenting without reading the link before commenting.

If you go back and read the article I linked to, you'll find the testing was done with a Honda Motorcycle. He was using a wet clutch and all that goes with it, and still came up with results that don't jive with all that we've known and read.

His conclusion was that synthetic is better than dino. That was in 94 so I'm sure it's true today too. I'm not contesting that synthetic is better. What surprised me is his claim, with scientific evidence to support it, that there's no difference in viscosity breakdown.

Read that again...
.
.
.
The evidence presented in the report says that there's no difference in how the auto oil breaks down when compared to how the motorcycle specific stuff breaks down. Effectively the evidence is saying that anything that claims "superior breakdown protection" or anything like it because it's motorcycle specific, is nothing more than MARKETING!

Realize why I'm asking. I want to believe that motorcycle oil is better and that I should use it, but I have an itchy mind. I attempt to rarely find myself in a position where I have to ask, "why?" I want to understand and have some logic and proof behind my beliefs. If the scientific testing that I can get my hands on says there's no difference, then I have to question if the corporate machine is just trying to squeeze more dollars out of my wallet, or if there's something I truly don't understand.

What I really want to avoid here is yet another oil thread that ends up with links to Cyber's defacto post about it. His oil manifesto is what I'm using as my starting point for understanding. I found something that challenges those accepted truths. I'm attempting to validate where reality lies between. Otherwise known as the traditional scientific process.

Thanks,
ND

Sure that's great. But that Honda wasn't AIR / OIL COOLED like our Katana...it was liquid cooled. The original "motorcycle specific" oil formulations came out when many of the current bikes were air / oil cooled. That makes a HUGE difference in oil temp, which in turn buts a much higher temp stress on the oil that causes viscosity breakdown.

[Glitter Gulch Cowboy]

just use a good bike oil and forget about it. the few cents you'll spend are not worth it.

[Novelldude]

Sure that's great. But that Honda wasn't AIR / OIL COOLED like our Katana...it was liquid cooled. The original "motorcycle specific" oil formulations came out when many of the current bikes were air / oil cooled. That makes a HUGE difference in oil temp, which in turn buts a much higher temp stress on the oil that causes viscosity breakdown.

Just looked it up. The study cites the following for a test bike, "Each of these oils was run in the same motorcycles 1984 Honda V65 Sabre."

Based on this:

http://www.bikez.com/motorcycles/honda_vf_1100_s_sabre_v65_1984.php

Your exactly right about liquid vs. air. That temp difference would go a long way to explain the differences in "typical breakdown" and why his charts didn't show the decrease I'd expect to see.

His study could be flawed *IF* oil formulation is created for air cooled bikes *AND* doesn't show it's true protective characteristics until higher heat ranges are reached. If that postulate stands true, then his testing was null and void because the oil would have never reached the point of making a difference.

What that does tell me however is that if you have a liquid cooled engine, this whole topic is most likely less of an issue.

Would very much be interested in seeing them redo this testing effort with air cooled, liquid cooled, and also with current oil formulations!

Thanks much ctandc! I was missing the liquid cooled knowledge that helped snap this closer into place.

ND

[ctandc]

Blame CP not me.........LOL