• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Good

About DigilubeJay

  • Rank
    TT Silver Member

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. Of course you don't, but you should. Dale is only one of the most respected tuners in the motorsports industry. What qualifications do you hold that would allow you to credibly disagree on such issues with a proffessional engineer and tuner such as Lineweaver? I've yet to see you priovde any sort of backing up of your assertions. And as many times as you chime in on the subject, isn't it about time you provided a bit of something more than just your opinion? Perhaps folks like Lineweaver are all wet...and I am willing to concede that I am wrong..but only if you can provide me with at least a little bit of evidence that would back up your assertions. Do you have anything past your opinion to bring to the table here?
  2. OK, reconranger...list for us the oils not to use. You know...the ones that are known to cause problems with both performance and longevity. Or are you saying that there are no other oils that compare with JASO MA rated fluids? Are all of these types of oils better than the rest of them on the shelf? And if so, why? Also, if these certifications are so important, can we only trust those that are actually certified, or can we simply trust a statement telling us that the oil will meet the certifications..even though it hasn't endergone the testing and expense of actually carrying the certification logo? (this is a futile exercize, but I am trying to make a point to those who actually are looking for the truth)
  3. youngwerth, I think that Chevron has to remain on the same plane as you when you make your official recommendation. (we know CYA always comes into play) I think it was with the CI-4plus cert. that they started adding MoDTC to the mix, as many shelf car oils as well as moto specific oils do. There have been published tests (Rotax being one, and I can't find it) showing that if an oil is ladened with more than ~700-800ppm of MoDTC, AND the oil has sheared down to water, it is possible that the clutch will slip. But then most any motorcycle clutch will slip if the oil has sheared all the way down and allowed the plates to glaze, no matter it's additive chemistry. The CI-4 rated Delo 400 15w-40 had ~195ppm MoDTC, and I am curious to see if the level changes at all with the CJ-4. I'd be willing to bet that a VOA of the new formula would show the same level of moly, and less ppm's of zinc and phosphrus, but an increase in boron and calcium. Dwight, What you should also think about is the blanket recommendations you give. I have already shown you either here, or at other forums, where you can't tell the difference in one oil from another chemistry wise, and the only distinction is that one touts being able to pass JASO MA and the other not even being marketed towards the moto niche. Both almost identical in makeup. Only big difference is the marketing spin placed on them, and the price. So, if there are oils that are not moto specific, and yet are chemically identical to their heavy duty oil counterpart (which is actually a misnomer because Moto specific oils ARE heavy duty engine oils just like the so called "diesel" oils are)...why would anyone want to risk their investment on the words of a marketeer? Or the words of some internet blogger? The fact is that just as any other products out there..some are better than others, and a simple marketing badge does nothing but lead you to "think" things. Case in point... Mobil1 Racing 4T is a very, very robust heavy duty engine oil. It is formulated with an extreme additive package, and utilizes the best of basestocks. To place some sort of product like it's Motorex counterpart on the same level is simply not fair to Mobil, as they have a real heavy duty oil, and Motorex is marketing a mediocre group III base fluid. Mobil Delvac, Rotella T, and Delo all show they are better built oils than the Motorex synthetic, and carry MUCH lighter pricetags. To tout MA rated fluids only just isn't good advice, as many of them are not up to task. Besides, a large majority of oils you see touted for motorsports are not certifed to begin with. They simply state that they can pass...or that they meet the requirements. You must take the formulators word on this, as they have not certified their oil. Also, IF a man like Dale Lineweaver recommends a product, would you go into your speil about MA Rated fluids only, or would you ask the man questions and try to learn something?
  4. Dwight rarely gets involved in oil issues on this board, but often does on other boards...and I have never, not once, seen him provide any credible information that would back up his assertions. All opinion, and IMO, misguided opinion.And he does not hesitate to point out what he thinks is my "expertise", which is always a dergatory exercise, as he only states my credentials in an attempt to disqualify my offerings. (no matter how it is sugar coated or presented, that is a personal attack) I think it is fair, and clear, to say that he is an expert at riding motorcycles in certain venues. I agree with you, Ud...we should provide more than a simple opinionated spout off when concerning these issues. It is comman knowledge that motor oils have gotten better and better over the years. I could provide you with the results of researching the specific test procedures and how they have become increasingly more stringent, and have placed greater, and greater demands on the oil for it to pass the certification standards. But it all boils down to what most folks assume, and all lubrication experts know, in that oils are improving, and will continue to improve in performance. As for proof to my assertions that motor oils have been improving with every new certification evolution...all one has to do is reasearch the standards of these certifications and the proof is there. I suggest those who assert differently carry the burden of proving their claims, especially since they go against the grain of what is already comman knowledge. It seems that there is contention that motor oils that carry certifications newer than the SG types have lost "the good stuff" if you will, when a reduction of zinc and phosphorus was required as part of the Energy Conserving certification. The misconceptions are that the oils were less able to protect, since they had less of the anti-wear(AW) additive ZDDP(zinc dithiophosphate, an AW additive compound that contains both zinc and phosphorus). And that the additives used, in an attempt to bring the frictional qualities of the oil back up to what is was before the ZDDP removal, are detrimental to the action of a wet clutch, and would cause the mechanisim to noticibly slip and allow a loss of performance. The facts are that the additive ZDDP has always been a favorite of oil manufacturers because of it's great ability to perform well as an anti-wear/scuff protectant, and because it is CHEAP. It was known that there were several other additives and compounds that could be used instead of ZDDP that would allow the oil to perform at the same level, but these additives were either more expensive to produce, or the availability was not to the required levels. But with the reduction of ZDDP, it meant that some of these less favorable (profit wise) additives were now going to have to be used, if the formulator wanted to continue to pass the latest more stingent certifications. Specifically, boron and calcium were being used in increasing ppm's, as were soluable organo-metallic compounds like zinc/molybdenum/antimony dialkyldithiocarbamates (this is where the misguided moly scare originated). But the additive that is most used are synthetic esters, which if truth be known, are probably being used today in most all certified engine oils on the shelf. And these additional components were needed for the EC certification, as the main jist of the thing is the reduction of friction and increased fuel mileage, and the test for the friction charectoristics of the oil was harder to pass than the previous certifications criteria. And as science and chemestry tends to be evolving things...the newer formulations that came to be due to a change in certification requirements, forced the study of lubrication protection even further, and it is being found that interactions of certain components are creating conditions not once known about. As a result, tribologists are finding that not only will some of the additives, not once used in abundence, would perform quite well...they are also finding that interactions between some of these additives are yielding even further advancements and understanding of how to better protect metal from wear. One such study done in 1999 found that interaction between ZDDP and Calcium Borate yielded a much better mechanism for protection than either of the adds could provide on their own. http://www.springerlink.com/content/qm2l338jj3045324/?p=66ac287246e64eaab718e2077468609eπ=3 ...The main result, when ZDDP and CB additives are used together, is the formation of a calcium and zinc borophosphate glass tribofilm. The overall data confirm the general friction‐induced glass model as being a unifying concept that explains the mechanisms of antiwear additives under boundary lubrication. Moreover, the analytical results strongly suggest the role of viscous flow of the magma state glass tribofilm above its glass transition temperature to be a main contribution to the antiwear mechanism under mild wear conditions. The recent update of standards to universal heavy duty engine oils, like Rotella, means the reduction of ZDDP in its formulations just as the EC criteria did for passanger car oils. And the reason is the same...to reduce the chance of fouling the elements of a catalytic converter. There is also a requirement to reduce sulfated ash to a level of what is acceptable for MA motorcycle specific standards. As ZDDP can contribute to ash, simply the reduction of it alone helped things that concern bikers, such as ring land buildup. But just as the EC certification did for PCMO's, it is now doing for HDEO's, and that is improving their ability to protect engines better, and for longer periods of time. Why is it that I need to prove this assertion, when ALL of the heavy duty universal oil manufacturers are stating that their oil is now better han the previous catagory oil? Surely their assertions carry more weight than that of those who state that these oils are being downgraded...when they have absoultely nothing at all...ziltch, zero, nada...to back up their asserions? No, these types of myths started with the EC certification, and they continue today with CJ-4. More a result of folks misunderstanding the information provided them by sometimes misleading marketing propaganda, and also by taking the warnings and myths provided by the less learned, and simply accepting the misinformation they pass along as fact. http://www.apicj-4.org/faqs.html http://www.delobike.com/Chev%20CJ4%20Q_A.pdf http://www.shell-lubricants.com/CJ4/cj4_faq.html http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=721645&page=0&fpart=1&vc=1
  5. You guys who claim failures will occur by using oil with "friction modifiers" in them...TELL US WHAT THESE FRICTION MODIFIERS ARE! We are mostly adults, and we can probably mouth the words even if we cant pronounce it...so go ahead, name these dreaded friction modifiers for us. The fact is that there are not many products at all that are in motor oils of any flavor that will be detrimental to your engine or wet clutch assembly. The products that most folks know about that will cause a problem, aren't used in motor oils to begin with. And Rotella T has undergone an UPGRADE, not a downgrade. It is a better fluid that it was previously, as evident by the tough current standards it has to pass. The reduction of zinc in the fluid is slight ( I think it went from .14% to .12% zinc content), which is hardly a massive reduction of the additive. But real oil mfg's like Shell know what they are doing, and you can bet they are providing a synergistic fluid that is even more robust than it was previously. To warn against never using an automotive oil in a motorcycle is rediculous, and there is nothing at all that would back up such a warning as being valid.
  6. A dino oik with a robust additive package will take care of an the engine just fine when it is layed down. In fact, there are multiple additives that will protect the metal at the barrier level far past what the base oil can, and that includes polar diesters. The new CJ-4 standards for universal oils is a definate upgrade of the fluids, and not a downgrade. To think otherwise is simply mistaken. That also goes for passnager car oils, that have also been increasingly improving with each upgrade of standards. It seems those who continued the misguided myths about the Energy Conserving certification of passanger car oils, are also the ones who would like to create the same myth about universal oils. Problem is...too many folks are learning the truth about these issues, and the myth passers tend to look less learned all the time.
  7. Dwight Rudder, you have no idea of my background, and you really have no business implying that you do. And why must you continue to insist that motor oils have been degrading over the years? That is far from fact. The truth is that with every upgrade of certification, both passenger car oils and heavy duty universal oils, have been improving. The standards get tougher and tougher to meet, and it only stands to reason that fluids are also improving to be able to meet these increasingly tough standards. Yes the newer CJ-4 criteria for universal oils requires a ceiling of .12% zinc content, but that is only .02% lower than the current zinc content of Rotella 15w-40. And the wear properties of the oil must perform bettter than the previous fluid to meet the newer CJ-4 requirements. Also ash content has been reduces with the new CJ-4 standards, which is another upgrade of the fluid. You guys who claim these oils are getting worse and worse need to study up and stop providing folks with nothing but your obviously misguided information. Either that or, state what you will...but qualify it as simply your opinion, and nothing based on any research or facts of any sort. Being sponsored by an oil hardly makes one a "field tester" of products. And racing a bike hardly qualifys one to provide any sort of intelligent input on oil dynamics, past reporting on how the bike runs. Although these sponsored riders often have the misconception that they are actually some sort of an authority. But I suppose in our waning years we tend to grasp at the last straws of stardom and recognition, even if they are dubious credentials at best ....
  8. You really need to answer this question, or at least think about it, before you lose any more ground. Marketing gimmmickry seems to be all that you can point to. Seems you equate how a mfg markets the product to it's worth...which is exactly what clever marketing strategy counts on. It needs people of your same mindset You are also making claims using nothing but wild assumptions you have gathered from published, or unpublished, marketing data. Do you really want to discuss and share knowledge on this issue, or do you just want to provide everyone with a marketing speil or two about your favorite oil, and a few claims based on nothing more than your own dubious assumptions? We can discuss things fine...but your demand of me to "once and for all" stop claiming an ester present in a product is too much. I suggest you prove your assumption, Jr. I provided some evidence to back my claim, yet you have failed to acknolwedge it. Why must you smell up the place with all of your condesending crap?...which btw has been spewing out of each thread you've addressed me in. I've tried to be as cordial as I can, considering the ignorance that you have provided, but enough is enough.
  9. dtkiki, From what the MSDS stated prior to last year, was the MX2T an ester product or not? Mobil claims the formula has not changed save for the coloring. And they are not stating that they are switching to ester basestock. Not once did I say that. If you were paying attention, you would realize that I only state that Racing 2T is using esters (both has been, and is). Although most of their other motor oils are more than likely using esters as well, both organic and synthetic. Pal, you have gone from inquisitive debate, to rediculous ignorance.
  10. dtkiko, it's clear that you are on a marketing mission here. If your information were valid, we could possibly continue a discussion, but as it turns out your side is turning into the rediculous. So, you just keep on thinking what you do and you will be happy. The 15w-40 grade of Rotella is an organic petroleum formulation, the 5w-40 grade is hydroprocessed petroleum synthetic. If you are changing out your oil often, then there probably isn't a whole lot to be gained by using the higher priced synthetic version of Rotella. A mfg provides the MSDS sheet because he is mandated to by law. But unless the substance is hazardous, they may or may not, list any or all of the ingredients. IF we look at the percentages of the examples I provided for Racing 2T we see that even if we ad up the high side of the given numbers, there is still percentages missing. And with the examples I gave, the fluid didn't have to change one bit to be able to post up what they did. The numbers just aren't there to show an obvious change of chemistry. What is obvious is that prior to Jan 2005, the fluid was definately a product that utilized an ester as a base fluid. They no longer show the presence of the ester, but that for certain does not mean it isn't exactly the same as it were. There are many reasons a mfg will choose to list or not list their ingredients. And there is always leeway given when publishing MSDS numbers, so they can have the ablility to tweek the fluid at their pleasure, as long as they stay within the posted range of numbers. Now, there is no physical evidence of a change, other than the dye. The viscosity, smell, and performance of the fluid hasn't changed. And the Mobil helpline states it hasn't changed. And BTW...many oils DO provide a recommendation of what ratio to mix with fuel, however Mobil1 Racing 2T recommends you mix at the bike mfg's recommendations. The hydroteated light ditallate that is being used in Racing2T is not PAO. That sort of product is closer to kerosene or jetA fuel. The esters are in place for their ability to lubricate at the barrier level, and not because of a seal issue. I run Mobil1 Racing 2T in all two cycle fuels. On small bore bikes I will run from 20-26:1, and on larger bore bikes (250cc and up) I like to mix no less than 32:1 I run Type F ATF in my 2 cycle trannys. I have used this product from different mfg's for years and years. I change it out after a full day of riding, or after a few days of 1/2-1 hour motos.
  11. And if proper forensic investigatins were made in each one of those instances, we would find the true mechanical culprit of those clutch problems.
  12. dtkiko, We can debate...and even argue if you like...but do try to stay on topic. There are two different types of oil we are discussing here, one goes in the trany case and the other goes into the fuel. It's the motor oil line that that Exxon/Mobil is replacing PAO with group III basestock. And apparently not all of them are being changed. My understanding is that the Racing 4T, and some of the ultra-low viscosity oils (0w-20) will remain PAO. Mobil1 Racing 2T, is premix 2cycle oil. It is the product I am reffering to when I talk about an ester based 2T oil. And I never said anything about any oil being a mixture of group III and group IV. I think you need to pay closer attention, both to what is posted, and what you read elsewhere. I am fairly certain the whole center of your confusion is like many others', in that you have made the mistake of thinking that the term Mobil1 always means the product is made with PAO. That has been, and is, incorrect.
  13. Oils formualted using hydroprocessed petroleum are group III oils, no matter how you slice it. If an oil is no longer formulated using PAO, which is the only group IV fluid there is, then it will be of the group that corrosponds to what the majority of it's base consists of. No, that point didn't make it so...and there are plenty of other fluids using the very same bases as those oils.There is more to life than marketing rhetoric, mate.
  14. Qualifying your claims as "to the best of my knowledge" should have been the first thing you posted. First off...oils that have a base of PAO do not depend on it's viscosity to provide lubrication. Viscosity comes into play, but only to the extent of the required viscosity of a fluid used in an engine with certain clearances may be different from another engine with different clearances. The viscosity prowess of a fluid has little to do with it's lubricating ability, past the clearance of the engine parts issue. You should study up and find out what the real advantages of PAO are in engine oils for certain applications. You will find that group IV PAO's and other group V base fluids do the exact same job as their group I-III counterparts do. They seperate the metals and create a buffer that keeps the metal parts from touching, and consequently wearing at one another. The only other things that a synthetic base such as PAO can offer, is the ability to provide lower viscosities without the addition of easily sheared polymers. Also, the PAO and other synthetic bases can provide extended service, as they fight off heat degredation far better than their organic counterparts can. Now the group V esters can do a bit more than PAO or other group V bases can, in that they perform past what a simple base oil fluid film can. Esters, as has been explained, work at the "barrier" level, similar to how the additives in the mix such as ZDDP, moly, antimone, or calcium work. They do not have to keep the flim between the metal parts to work, as all other basefluids do, including PAO. Now, as I have stated, if there is PAO in the formula, then you can bet money that there is also an add of an ester. And esters do contribute to the lubrication of the parts past what any otehr base fluid can. And to give you a bit more insight... Yes, the logo of "Mobil1" has been synonomous with polyalphaolefin (PAO) base. Most everyone who has interest in oil will tell you that Mobil1 is a clear sign that the fluid made my Exxon/Mobil is in fact a PAO based product. Thing is...Mobil has just recently went back to the drawing board, and decided to reformulate many of their Mobil1 lineup using group III hydroproccessed organic oil as their base. This puts them on the same level as Castrol, since Castrol's "full synthetic" lineup has always been formulated around group III hydrocracked petroleum oil, rather than a truely synthetic base like PAO. Mobil doesn't have to tell the consumer this to keep their marketing and disclosures the same. And unless there were insiders, and those who take new oils apart for sport, we consumers would never know of half the things that the oil mfgs do. Mobil even sued Castrol years ago for marketing their group III products as "full synthetics", but the courts found in Castrol's favor, and now anyone who produces an oil using group III base fluid can legally call it "full synthetic". I think may would be suprized to see just how many oils they thought were made of one thing, end up being something else. I know for a fact that all of the synthetic offerings of heavy duty engine oils, like Rotella T in the 5w-40 grade, are in fact formulated with group III organic oil. I think Motorex and many others also follow this court approved deception of consumers. But, that is not to say that the group III organic oils do not provide the same level of performance as their molecularly sound group IV cousin. It's been shown that these base oils do quite a great job, and on par with PAO. And since hydroproccessed organic oil is far cheaper to process than PAO, more and more formulators are using it. If all you do is read marketing flyers and prod. info sheets to gather your information, then you will be flabbergasted with miracles, once you dig in and find out some truth.
  15. dtkiko, I am curious where you get your information, or how you came to the conclusions you did? First off, Mobil does not have a patent on PAO. Thre are differing process' used to mfg PAO that may well be patented, but many of the major oil players, as well as small time blenders use PAO in many of their applications. However, many of these mfg's and blenders do buy their polyalphaolefin basestock from Exxon/Mobil...Amsoil for one. And many formulators use esters in their oils....lots of different esters. Motul may have been the first to use and market ester based fluids, but they are not alone anymore. And just because an oil has 5% PAO would not disqualify it as an ester based fluid. I am fairly convinced that there is absolutely NO PAO in Racing 2T. I have not seen any evidence of that being true, nor would it make much sense. But just so you'll know...any motor oil that has PAO in it, will also contain esters. PAO alone will swell seals to a point that they can degrade. But esters tend to shrink the seal materials, and when used in conjunction with PAO the seals seem to stay as normal. The MSDS sheet that Mobil provided prior to January 2005 showed that the fluid is indeed an ester based oil. HYDROTREATED LIGHT DISTILLATE (64742-47-8) 15-25% -------------- ----------- HYDROXYALKYL CARBOXYLIC ESTER 35-45% The latest MSDS has changed, and now shows only these ingredients: CALCIUM PHENATE 1 - 5% -------------- ----------- HYDROTREATED LIGHT DISTILLATE (64742-47-8) 10 - 20% When a mfg presents an MSDS to the public, he doesn't have to list all the ingredients of the fluid. Actually, he doesn't have to list any of the ingredients unless they happen to be carcinegens, or a known potentially health hazardous chemical. Only on rare occasions will an oil mfg provide a full disclosure MSDS, and it will not be provided to the general public. Now, if you call the Mobil Hotline, you may well be told that Racing 2T is the exact same formula as the former MX2T. And at first glance, that would be enough to satisfy most folks who were curious if they changed the formula. But, how can it be the same formula as before when it was MX2T that had absolutely NO coloring added, yet now it clearly has red dye of some sort added to the mix. The thing is...they help line man can tell you that the formula is the same, even though there are slight bit of differences, such as the addition of dye, and still be totally lawful in what he is telling us. Mfg's have some leeway in what they have to say, and how they have to say it. Now, if the formula had changed to a point that the base fluid had drastically changed, they still wouldn't have to tell you anything specific about the changes, other than they occured. I guess what I'm saying is this...the best guide we have to find out a fluids composition is the MSDS that the mfg provides. Rarely will this MSDS sheet contain all of what you are looking for...such as the final recipe, but it is often times a great guide as to the makeup of a fluid. Like seeing PAO listed as an ingredient...the learned will be able to tell you that if there is PAO used, it more than likely will also contain esters...even if the MSDS doesn't tell us that. Product Information Sheets are also a good way to find out a bit about a fluid, but we must remember that a PIS, although technical in nature, is a marketing tool. Sometimes it is the most concentrated on marketing tool the mfg has. He can lead and persuade the consumer into thinking what he wants the consumer to think simply by the words he chooses to use, and how he presents them. ALWAYS second guess a Product Information Sheet and NEVER take it as gospel truth. It is merely a guide, and not always forthcoming. I can tell you that from what I found, as I was concerned about the formula change...Mobil1 Racing 2T has indeed remained as it were before Jan 2005. Viscosity is exactly the same, and the performance is the same. Even the smell has not changed one bit. The only change I can confirm, is that the fluid now has a red dye. sr, I think that in very cold temps you could possibly be better off with a lighter grade fluid like a 10w-40. Once the bike is up to temp, there wouldn't be much difference. And yes, I think that the add packs in the Rotella fluids are very robust and will rival that of just about any heavy duty engine oil, which is what Rotella is. Many call Rotella and similar oils "diesel" oils, but that isn't really the truth. They are Heavy Duty Engine Oils...marketed toward the diesel fleet niche. Even the wimpiest of engine oils, that gets changed out on a very frequent basis will rival the protection of the most expensive oil on the market, that is left in for extended periods of time. Don't dicount an oil simply because it is not using an ester or any other synthetic. The additive packages of many group II organic oils will perform at the level of an ester, or even better. And yes, I am a big fan of esters...but I also know that there are other items that can, and will, provide a superior oil without the use of esters.