Follower scar oil tests (2018)

Status
Not open for further replies.
rvich said:
I keep hoping this effort will reveal some mid-priced oils that will keep my stock motor happy. We don’t really know what this journey is going to teach us.

It has drastically changed some of my notions about oil, oil temps, and my riding.

It has definitely challenged my belief about what is “good enough”. In the end each of us will have to decide this for ourselves. But having some data sure beats reading the ads.
Click to expand...


Until things are tested against one another you have no idea what's what. The old testimony, "I rode 6 blocks to grandma's house and my bike didn't blow up", is hardly any proof of oil performance. Nor is a manufactures claim of how great their oil is.

Without scientific testing, which is what Jim Comstock is doing, most of us based our oil choice on subjectivity rather than objectivity, or price.

Google definition: An objective perspective is one that is not influenced by emotions, opinions, or personal feelings - it is a perspective based in fact, in things quantifiable and measurable. A subjective perspective is one open to greater interpretation based on personal feeling, emotion, aesthetics, etc.
 
Last edited:
Well after pulling out a fresh bottle of MPT and running it on the shaker for 60 seconds I did a new test. It closed the gap significantly.

It still did not quite hold as much load at the end as the highest tested, but the heat produced by the MPT was approximately 1/20th of the heat made by the highest tested.

And the highest tested load capacity so far is held by .....Castrol GTX 20W50...

It was black and well used looking by the end of the test.

Graphs are coming -as soon as I can be sure they are accurate and have enough bandwidth to cover all the oils.
 
I'm too far of even to consider the oil cooler situation, but I've just dug out a T160 cooler from the garage & offered it up, don't look that difficult to mount.... late next year:(
 
comnoz said:
Well after pulling out a fresh bottle of MPT and running it on the shaker for 60 seconds I did a new test. It closed the gap significantly.

It still did not quite hold as much load at the end as the highest tested, but the heat produced by the MPT was approximately 1/20th of the heat made by the highest tested.

And the highest tested load capacity so far is held by .....Castrol GTX 20W50...

It was black and well used looking by the end of the test.

Graphs are coming -as soon as I can be sure they are accurate and have enough bandwidth to cover all the oils.
Click to expand...

Well this is good to hear as I am one of those brand loyalty guys. I spoke with a lady at Castrol last week and she said to either run Actevo Power 1 V-Twin 0r Go 4T V-Twin (something like that) but Jim are you testing both of these Castrols?
I kinda like the Actevo as she said, IIRC, that it had 1200 ppm of both Zn & P; also when you make your spreadsheet will it include recommendations for the various types of riding, i.e., stock to racing or what have you. I just have a stock 71 750, wet clutch but would be willing to use what tests the best for my bike.
Thanks for everything you're doing and if you need either of these oils LMK.
 
Fast Eddie said:
Wow, Castrol GTX, who’d a thought it...?

Not me...!
Click to expand...


Well, not me either.

But one thing I have noticed SO FAR is that when I am testing the API-SN oils is they are either high load capacity or low friction, but not both. That and they have been pretty well blackened by the end of the test.

But I have a lot more testing to do.
 
Last edited:
comnoz said:
Well, not me either.

But one thing I have noticed SO FAR is that when I am testing the API-SN oils is they are either high load capacity or low friction, but not both. That and they have been pretty well blackened by the end of the test.

But I have a lot more testing to do.
Click to expand...

Great stuff Jim.

BTW... you got around to any Redline yet?
 
my caveat with GtX back in the day was that the piston speed of a Commando would chop up the additatives package , so what has changed?
 
oldmikew said:
my caveat with GtX back in the day was that the piston speed of a Commando would chop up the additatives package , so what has changed?
Click to expand...

One thing about API approved oils is they change to keep up with the new requirements regularly. So it's not likely to be the same old oil that it was 20 years ago. Not to say it's better or worse.

And I still would not say the GTX is a good choice in a Norton. It looked pretty well used up in a 1 hour test.

I have been saving the oils used in the tests. I will probably do some simple oxidation comparisons eventually.

One thing I might add. My testing setup has quite a lot of cooling ability with heat sinks for the oil and a high powered blower.

With some of the high friction oils I have tested, the cooling blower is necessary.

Shutting it off would allow the oil to heat itself to the point of failure in just a few minutes. The GTX is one of those oils.
 
Last edited:
"One thing about API approved oils is they change to keep up with the new requirements regularly. So it's not likely to be the same old oil that it was 20 years ago. Not to say it's better or worse."

I'd say the proof of that is the high mileage today's auto engines achieve. 200,000 miles without a teardown is not unheard of. Whereas, the auto engines of as late as the 80's, and certainly before that, hardly ever exceeded 100,000 miles without at least a top end freshen up. Many an independent shop owner in the 60's sent his kids through college with revenue from ring and valve jobs. Spun rod and main bearings were somewhat common, too. I don't give all the credit to today's oils, but certainly they account for a large share of the long life of production engines available from all manufactures today.

Only car I ever lost a lower end was my new 1965 Olds 442. Spun a rod bearing which piled up on top of the other shell on the top of the rod journal and smashed a piston into the head. This happened at 24,500 miles. The warranty was 24,000 miles. Fortunately, the dealer took care of me. My dad was a frequent customer. Oil being used: Quaker State. Never bought or used another drop of Quaker State since. Lost the bottom end to my 1969 Commando. No oil in the tank. My ex and I were splitting up at the time. I think her new bf may have had something to do with that.
 
Last edited:
JimC said:
"One thing about API approved oils is they change to keep up with the new requirements regularly. So it's not likely to be the same old oil that it was 20 years ago. Not to say it's better or worse."

I'd say the proof of that is the high mileage today's auto engines achieve. 200,000 miles without a teardown is not unheard of. Whereas, the auto engines of as late as the 80's, and certainly before that, hardly ever exceeded 100,000 miles without at least a top end freshen up. Many an independent shop owner in the 60's sent his kids through college with revenue from ring and valve jobs. Spun rod and main bearings were somewhat common, too. I don't give all the credit to today's oils, but certainly they account for a large share of the long life of production engines available from all manufactures today.

Only car I ever lost a lower end was my new 1965 Olds 442. Spun a rod bearing which piled up on top of the other shell on the top of the rod journal and smashed a piston into the head. This happened at 24,500 miles. The warranty was 24,000 miles. Fortunately, the dealer took care of me. My dad was a frequent customer. Oil being used: Quaker State. Never bought or used another drop of Quaker State since. Lost the bottom end to my 1969 Commando. No oil in the tank. My ex and I were splitting up at the time. I think her new bf may have had something to do with that.
Click to expand...

The oil may have helped but I don't know of any API updates that were designed to improve the durability of an engine. Not in the last 20 years anyway.
Now they just want to make the oils meet requirements for emissions.
 
comnoz said:
The oil may have helped but I don't know of any API updates that were designed to improve the durability of an engine. Not in the last 20 years anyway.
Now they just want to make the oils meet requirements for emissions.
Click to expand...


I wasn't thinking API updates specifically, just overall better lubricating qualities. Of course, as htown 16 posted, better machining and finishing contributes to longevity, too.
 
And here we go again.
All set to start a group of oil tests. Tried the first 3 and they all failed immediately.
Went to the hardness tester with the newly opened batch of 100 arbor races.
They are all soft..............or at least the first 20 or so.
The last batch of races were RHC65 to 68
The new races are RHC54 to 55
Finest quality import.*%&^%%&(
 
comnoz said:
And here we go again.
All set to start a group of oil tests. Tried the first 3 and they all failed immediately.
Went to the hardness tester with the newly opened batch of 100 arbor races.
They are all soft..............or at least the first 20 or so.
The last batch of races were RHC65 to 68
The new races are RHC54 to 55
Finest quality import.*%&^%%&(
Click to expand...


Cheena? (China)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top