• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DigilubeJay

  1. It seems like with every thread concerning chain tension comes around, you see the same old answers. The majority of suggestions are given because a rider finds that their method seems to work for them. Actually, giving a person the recommendation to use the 3 finger method is quite silly. I mean, we all have different sized appendages, and 3 fingers for one may be 4 fingers for another. Also, when we have a chain tensioned correctly, there is a very fine line..and only about a 1/4 turn of the tension adjuster, to take the chain into way too tight. Providing pictures of your bike and claiming a person should tension it the same is crazy. The tensioning procedure is far to easily hosed up to simply look at someones picture and be able to make anything at all from it. I have studied the proper adjustment of chains and sprockets for years. I find that one of the biggest problems folks have is misinterpreting the manuals suggestions. For an example, the latest Yamaha 450 manual gives a check range of 1.9-2.6 inches from the back of the top chain slider to the bottom of the chain. After doing a check, I find that this measurement range is about right on. But, do you check this while the bike is on the ground, or while the bike is on the stand? And there lies one of the discrepancies I mentioned.... But where do these moto engineers get the proper recommendation for chain tension in the first place? They use standard engineering practice for chain tensioning...and they pass that textbook information along to the owner, taking into account the length of chain on that particular model bike. The engineering practice they use is the very same for each and every bike, but what changes is the numbers due to how long the chain is...or closer yet, to how long the distance between shafts is...which is what actually determines how taught a chain should be. If you were to use the engineering standard to tension your chain properly, you could then go back and check the measurements that the manual gave you. And you would find that they are indeed very close to what you found. But only if you interpreted what the manual was trying to convey to you properly. I see so many folks who will swear that stock OEM chains are nothing but cheap junk and should be shucked immediately. But that is not really fact. Yes, the OEM chain may not be the top shelf quality chain that your moto supply may want to sell you, but it is almost assuredly of a good quality that will last a rider for many rides before it is trash...IF the rider has it adjusted and maintained it properly. An improperly adjusted chain can only live so long..and even the high-dollar choices will be trash fast if they aren't properly mounted. I'd have to say that the biggest mistake I have seen over the years is folks having their chains too tight. When a chain that is too tight lands a jump and compresses the shock, the overly taught chain eats away at the sprocket teeth, the chain itself, wheel bearings, CS seals, and on and on.... SO many times a rider will then swear his stuff is crap, and start looking for harder and more robust equipment that can handle their improper adjustments better. I contend that if you properly adjust your equipment from the get-go, you will find that even the OEM equipment will provide many hours of riding. Your high dollar replacement equipment will also last longer. The Procedure: You first need to put the bike on the stand and remove your shock. Before you do anything, simply take the swing arm through it's motion of travel from top to bottom. This is the point where many are convinced something is amiss right away, as they often find that there is a point in that travel that the chain gets completely tight. Bowstring tight in many instances. This often will open a persons eyes who has thought they were tensioning their chain properly, but were in reality over tightening it. The tight spot will be when the CS, swing arm, and rear shaft are all in perfect alignment. When you have the bike in that position, you want to use a cargo strap around the seat and the rear wheel to hold the swing arm in that tightest position. Once you have the swing arm in the tightest position, you can then adjust the chain tension. The engineering standard for chain tension is to have between 1%-3% of the distance between the front and rear shafts in total up-and-down chain movement when the chain is at it's tightest point. For instance, if we have a bike that is 24" between the CS and rear shaft, the correct tension for the chain will be between .24" and .72" of total up-and-down free play of the chain when at it's tightest position. Knowing this measurement, you can initially adjust the chain to the .24" mark, and retention once you get to the .72" mark. If this is done, the chain will always be within the recommended tension rage, according to engineering standards. Some may find they feel more comfortable staying within the 2%-3% range. Let's assume you want to start out with the 2% mark and retention when you reach 3%. At 2% of total up-and-down free play would be .48" Note that the tension on the illustration shows the chain having .24" of free play when it is pushed down. And as such, it will also be able to move when pulled up by the same .24" This means that you have a total of .48" in total up-and-down free play in the chain. You are tensioned at the 2% mark. Once you have the tension proper, you want to make certain you still have proper alignment if the sprockets. When everything is nice and aligned, and you are satisfied that you have the proper tension on the chain, you want to make certain everything is buttoned up tight, and you can replace the shock. It is best to recheck everyting before you replace the shock, as things can change a bit on you once you have the adjusters and axle bolt tightened. Take the time to check and recheck until you have it spot on when tight. Once the bike is adjusted properly, and back in running condition...THEN you can check to see what that properly tensioned adjustment gives you when the bike is on the ground...or on the stand for that matter. What you want to do at this point is have some sort of reference so you can check the tension without going back through the shock removal procedure again. If you find that the properly tensioned adjustment gives you three fingers under the chain, behind the slider, when the bike is on the ground...then fine. Use that to determine if you are properly tensioned. But don't tell anyone else that is where they should have their adjustment, it simply may not be correct. To take this further, which is what I do whenever I get a new bike, is to first tension the chain at the upper limit of tension or the 3% mark. I then button everything up and check to see what measurement that gives me when the bike is on the stand. I can from then on see with an easy check when my chain reaches a point that it needs to be re-tensioned. I then go through the whole thing again adjusting the tension to the 1-2% mark, and recheck to see what measurement that gives me when the bike is on the stand. I now KNOW what measurement I should have for properly tensioned chain and chain that needs to be re-tensioned, when the bike is on the stand. I never have to go through the painstaking procedure of removing the shock to properly adjust for tension again. Some will actually cut a GO/NO GO block of wood or plastic to use as a gage. And a proper gage block will have the distance of a properly adjusted chain on one side, and a larger measurement on the other side that will tell when the chain has gone further than the 3%. Many folks have gone for years improperly adjusting the tension on their chains. Many simply accept that their equipment wears out fast...and some find excuses for it like, the chain is junk, or their beastly bike simply is too much for the chain and sprockets to handle...but neither is the usually the case. The truth is that their tensioning procedure is placing undue stress on their equipment, and if they would take the time to do things a bit differently, they may well find that stuff starts lasting a lot longer.
  2. 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?
  3. 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)
  4. 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?
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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 ....
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. And if proper forensic investigatins were made in each one of those instances, we would find the true mechanical culprit of those clutch problems.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. I think that you will find the prowess of these "older vehicle" oils is not with their remaining formulated as past oils were, but rather with added components that would benefit an older motor with worn seals, etc...ZDDP, which I assume you are refering to when you talk about a "group" of anti-wear/boundary lubricants, is still used in oils marketed towards cars. I think you will find that perhaps molybdenum performs as you have stated these types of additives do, but other additives, including ZDDP use a slightly different mechanism in how they work. As an example, some boundary lubricants (sacraficial) allow the shearing off of the initial layer of the metals molecular structure, yet will use the resulting pure Fe in a chemical reaction to create a super hard iron hydrate, that will then "coat" the surface with a full layer of the hydrate, rather than provide a layered "sliding on a deck of cards" type of mechanism. Actually, the EPA didn't order a reduction of phosphorus, but rather made the lowered level part of the "Energy Conserving" certifications criteria.And only when the formulator found that when his oil did have the ZDDP levels reduced, it would put it below the threshold of passing other tests that are critical to gaining the certification. So, the slack created by taking out some ZDDP had to be taken up by something. And there were then, as there are now, LOADS of other additives and compounds available for use that would suit the bill just fine. But many variables come into play when a formulator is deciding on what to use. Finding a synergistic combination of fluids and additives is a never ending stuggle, which is always being improved upon. And even when a suitable combination is found, raw material price, production costs, and availability also play a critical role in the recipe decision. The simple fact that "moly" turned up in many dubious moto writings, and the association of knowing that the component molybdenum disulfide will absolutely make a wet clutch...ANY wet clutch slip, has twisted itself into the daily warning to not use an oil with the Energy Conserving rating. The partially informed consumer has heard a few stories about "moly" and has turned them into a plethora of myths. Often times the more intelligent of the partially informed takes what information they have, and form their own conclusions as to how things really are, but really do nothing more than perpetuate what is allready a rediculously unfounded continuation of those myths. The truth is, engine oils do not contain molybdenum disulfide. If they contain moly at all, it will be of a soluable type that has been proven to work well with wet clutch situations of all flavors. The very same moly used in Mobil1 15w-50 and Racing 4T, as is in Redline, and Motul, and a plethora of others both in the boutiques and on the shelf. The EC certification of oils isn't what folks think it is. Sure, the certification criteria states that there must be a ceiling on phosphorus levels, but there are lots of other additives available, both well known additives, as well as some not even detecable by analysis, that can do the job of the slight amount of missing phosphorus. Other than molybdenum disulfide, which isn't used to begin with, not many of these items will cause any detriment to your clutch action whatsoever. The myth that we shouldn't use EC rated oils has been blown way out of proportion, and most everything that is warned about, is simply unfounded.
  18. sr, Yes, there are benefits from using an ester ladened fluid, no matter what the ambient temperature is. The thing is this...esters, and specifically polyol esters, are very, very expensive. One of the most expensive components a mfg will use. And the prices of oils that contain these items often reflect the cost of those components...and then some. and, Yes...a well balanced additive package, that works in a synergistic manner with the rest of the components of the oil, can provide as good of protection as can be had. Just because an oil contains some esters, does not automatically make it a good oil, or a better oil than another than does not utilize esters in it's package. Many oils that are PAO based will utilize esters only to counteract the effect that the PAO base fluid has on elastomer (rubber) seals. It's quite possible, and most probable, that an organic oil with a heavy duty additive package, yet no esters, will outperform a synthetic based fluid with esters that has only a mediocre additive package. Using an ester based 2T premix is essential, IMO. Esters aren't used in premix oils to counteract any sort of seal problems, they are used to protect the metal sufaces. And there are very few components that can rival the performance of esters based premix. Castor bean oil can hold it's own, but it can still pose problems with buildup, and is really only suited for one type of riding style...balls out. Synthetic ester based fluids can, and will, perform fantastic and clean for any level of rider. And the Price and performance of Mobil1 Racing 2T makes it the very best choice for me. Not because it is an American company...but rather because it is one of the best ester based fluids on the market, with a boat oil price. Rcannon, I have to give a big thumbs up to Chevron Supreme as a great choice for auto use. As Chevron owns the company that makes a majority of additive packages, that are bought and used by many of Chevron's major competitors, you have to assume they are providing their own fluids with top notch components..and the are, as published test results prove.
  19. Sr, I don't think I have seen this "motor oil bible" that you speak of. Nor do I know what application it wouldn't rate Rotella very high on. Rotella T has been proven to be a good performer, and at a very economical price. I also think Mobil Delvac is a great choice, as is Chevron Delo 400. All three are Heavy Duty Engine Oils (HDEO's), marketed towards the diesel fleet crowd, but are very acceptable fluids for racing dirt bikes. A couple of PCMO's (passenger car motor oils..ar ot least marketed to that niche) that I would choose are Chevron Supreme 10w-40 and Mobil/Exxon Superflow 10w-40 and 20w-50. When it comes to synthetics... If you see Rotella, or any of the other HDMO's, in a grade of 15w-40, they are organic oils. These oils in a grade of 5w-40 will be the group III type synthetic, which is basically hydroprocessed organic oil. A synthetic of this type can and will perform a bit better than a group I-II organic oil in that it can fight off heat degredation similar to how a PAO group IV synthetic (Mobil Racing 4T, Amsoil, etc...) does. And as a result of the ability to fight off heat degredation, they tend to last longer than their regular organic counterparts. However, we should be changing out our fluids before the benefits of a full synthetic group III or IV oil can be seen. These oils make great choices for autos that plan on going through extended periods of time and miles before change-out, but are a bit of overkill for the dirt bike engine. I can say that using a group V type of synthetic, which means that your oil will contain either an ester, or another type of truely synthesized type of fluid, can provide some benefit. Especially for riders who ride in the dead of winter. When it is cold out, the oil will tend to thicken up...making it hard for the oil to get to the wear points fast when you first kick over the engine. And the more times your piston moves without ample protection, the sooner it will produce wear. There may well be some benefit by using a full on polyalphaolefin (PAO), like a Mobil 0-w20 to produce flow in cold temps at a faster rate, but the jury is still out on the newer thinner oils for racing bikes. But, using a group V type fluid, that contains esters, is probably the best thing to do for a bike that sees multiple starts and stops in frigid temps. Esters are very polar fluids, which means that they tend to be attracted to oppositely charged things..such as piston walls, rings, bearings and races, etc... and even once you've stopped the engine, some of the esters will remain on the metal surfaces and will be there to help protect all of the friction points when you first start up the bike. The other groups of oils cannot perform at this level without the help of the additive package.
  20. Steel sprockets are a good way to mask bad adjustments and worn out chains. Recommending a steel rear sprocket is fine, but to warn against using aluminum because they will simply wear out in a short time is just wrong. Bad adjustments and worn/stretched chains are what cause sprockets to deform at the teeth. If you keep your drive adjustem properly, and only use the chain when it is in useable condition (stretched less than 1.5-2% over new length), then you will see many good hours out of an aluminum rear sprocket. Actually, if you are performing proper maintenance and adjustments, you can run a standard aluminum sprocket for multiple chains, without any visible damage to the teeth at all. Again, steel sprockets can be a bandaid for worn equipment and/or bad adjustments, as they will resist the energy placed on them and will not wear near as fast as an aluminum sprocket when they see bad adjustments and worn chains. But what they will do is help to wear the stretched chain even faster. A rider who never measures his chains, and depends only on the condition of the teeth to decide when the drive is worn out, may well be riding with a dangerously worn chain, ready to break, and not even know it.
  21. If the sprocket had worn teeth, the chain was either stretched out or it was adjusted way too tight. It's chains that have stretched past spec., or bad adjustmens, that wear the sprocket teeth out. How did you decide that the chain was not stretched at all? The only way to know that is to measure it properly. If it measures 2% or more longer than new, it is worn and will damage sprockets. KX250 over the years have used both 13 and 14 tooth CS sprockets, and normal rears are 48-49 tooth. If your bike has a 13t CS, you could enjoy a bit taller gearing by changing to a 14t. What is on there now, and what do you not like about it?
  22. I already told you how...thin as you can spread it. OK, kidding aside...Motul Transoil contains MoDTC, not MoS2 (molybdenum disulfide).Now, their MotylGear product may well contain MoS2. Gear oils fall into the catagory of fluids that will get forified with molybdenum disulfide, motor oils do not.
  23. Not sure about Repsol, but Motul transoil exp. contains MoDTC. I would be a bit leary of using a MoS2 rich product in the gearbox. But if your manual calls for it, then you could always simply coat the part with a moly grease, which will be MoS2. Easy to find at any sort of parts house/auto store. That's put a thin 'coat' on not thick 'glob' on. To be effective, the coating ony needs to be about .001-.002" thick. (thin as you can spread it). In fact, with a MoS2 rich fluid or paste, all you need do is wipe it one, and rag it off. The good stuff will still be there waiting to do it's job.
  24. Mobil Racing 2T is a fine product, and it is one of the best values on the market. Mobil Racing 4T is also a very fine product, but it is one of the worst values on the market. It is just way too expensive to justify using it in a 2T. There is good reason that Rekluse recommends the use of Rotella T 15w-40, and that is because it is just what the others are saying, a very well built, robust oil that will do a fantastic job, for a very economical price.
  25. I realize that you are just trying to be helpful, Firedude, but some of these warnings are way off base, and simply not true. Don't feel lonely, though...as each and every time a thread like this pops up, there will always be at least one person providing the very same warnings. Folks seem to get all worked up over oil, and very few folks really have a clue as to what they are talking about. The infomration that has become "comman knowledge" or "conventional wisdom" has been tainted over the years. Several reasons for this tainting of information...and one of the biggest reasons is that the mfg's just sit back and let the track myths and dealerspeak BS fly, because they often times see greater profits by simply allowing the consumer to remain ignorant to the real deal. First off, An oil that carries a certification symbol is simply stating that the mfg has paid a fee to certify the oil to pass certain tests and conditions. An oil that states it is for Gasoline Engines, means just that...it will work in a gasoline engine. And more than likely, it will be fine and will protect the working parts of your bikes motor. There are no "special" additives placed into motorcycle specific oils to keep them from breaking down. Some oils have a higher TBN (total base number) than others, and the higher this number is, generally the longer it takes for the oil to become acidic, which leads to oxidation and the oil wearing out. HDEO's (heavy duty engine oils) have a very high TBN, and as a result tend to last a longer time than an oil with a lesser TBN. But, the differences we are talking about when considering the TBN of an oil, is only pertinent if you are using your oil for extended periods of time. I'm talking about one oil being able to stay in grade and healthy in a car engine for a period of 7000 miles and another with a healthy additive package, and a resulting high TBN being able to stay in grade and healthy for 10,000 miles or more. This has nothing to do with dirt bike engines, since we should be changing out our oil long before it will actually wear out. Especially when these oils are used with a wet clutch, where fibers and lots of particulate can be produced in a short period of time. Considering that we should really only leave any engine oil in the bike for no longer than 6 hours of run time or so, even the cheapest oil on the shelf will more than likely remain able to keep the parts protected just fine. And probably just as well as the high-dollar boutique oil. Let's talk about the friction modifier scare... First we have to understand that ALL engine oils have friction modifying additives of some sort. Oil is simply a fluid that contains additives. The carrier fluid has the ability to keep the parts seperated and keep them from wearing in certain conditions, and the additives are in place to do the very same thing, but in conditions where the fluid (base oil) cannot do the job. Oils are always being put through testing and certifications, and the oils are constantly changing from year to year. Many times these changes are due to the mfg wanting to provide an improved product that he can produce for a cheaper price. But other times the changes come about as a result of some sort of regulatory group mandating that the changes be made. A few years ago, the EPA decided that from test results, that oils with a higher level of an additive called phosphorus could possibly cause the catalytic converter on a car to clog up a bit. When a cat. converter clogs up, it can no longer do what it was intended to do...which is reduce the carbon monoxide put out by the motors combustion process. The EPA stated that oils that had a reduced level of the phosphorus additive could be certifed as EC or "Energy Conserving". Now, the EC certification meant that the oil could only have so much phosphorus in the mix, so the mfg may have chosen to put another similar additive in it's place so it would still meet other criteria of the certification testing. Some mfg's used an increased level of molybdenum to take up the slack of the lost phosphorus that the EC certification called for. Many folks, with a limited true knowledge of the topic, knew from hearsay that molybdenum could cause a wet clutch assembly to slip, due to moly's fantastic ability to reduce friction by using a plating action on the metal surfaces. This half-baked knowledge of moly turned into what is the biggest misconception about engine oils in the motosports world today. The truth is this... Yes, the form of moly that is used in industrial gear oils, greases, and chain lubes (molybdenum disulfide, MoS2) is in fact an additive that can and will make a clutch plate slip easily. However, this is NOT what motor oils have in them. Many motor oils have moly in them...which are indeed called "friction modifiers", but the moly that is used in motor oils is a soluable form of the element called molybdenum dithiocarbamate (MoDTC). This form of moly is in many, many engine oils today. Including many of the moto specific boutique oils...even the ones that claim the do not contain friction modifiers! Just seeing the EC certification on an oil bottle does NOT mean it will cause your clutch to slip if you use it. It most likely will not do this. Sure, one oil may actually have a different feel when shifting that another oil. And yes, it is possible to find an oil that will make your clutch slip...but not very likely. And the oil mfg's that do have motorcycle specific oils are not going to go out of their way to help us, the consumers, to really know and understand the truth about this matter. And the main reason for this is because these mfg's all make an oil that they are elevating the price on. The oil may well have a cousin of it's own brand on the shelf, marketed to cars, that is almost the identical oil that is in the motorcycle bottle, but at a lesser price. If you learn that they are really not offering you much of a value product with their moto specific offerings, you may start speding less on their products...so they want you to remain ignorant, and listen to all the rumor passers, and clueless dealers, and myth passers, about how using other than moto specific oil is a bad thing and will cause you problems. As long as we remain dumbed-down, the motocycle specific oil manufacturer will enjoy increased profits. That's not to say that all moto specific oils aren't good oils. Many of them are very good oils, with very robust additive packages...and will do a fine job. But, there are also many, many oils on the shelf at Walmart that are as good or even better than the moto specific fluids. And there are also moto-specific oils that are not much to brag about. Very comman oils that have mediocre additive packages, BUT they are marketed towards the moto crowd...hoping for the elevated profits, and the uneducated consumer figures that since it has a bike on the label, and it is MA rated, and the guy at the dealer told them that it was the shiznit of oils, and that if they chose to use a lesser "For Cars Only oil",(which doesn't exist), they shell out the $10-12 a quart. Not only could you easily be using an inferior oil, you may also delay your change-outs because your oils costs so darn much a pop. They guy who decided to use $1 a quart Havoline 10w-40 and change it out every 2-4 hours, will enjoy a FAR better protected and longer lasting engine than the guy who spent $10 a quart for his moto oil and runs it for 10-15 hours. There are stories of how a person, or their "buddy", used one of these "car" oils and their clutch started slipping like hell, and the bike just didn'st shift right. That may well be the situation they experienced, but 99 times out of 100 when this happens, it is more than likely due to another mechanical issue that simply hadn't shown itself yet. There are slight frictional differences in just about any oil or fluid, and if your bike is suffering from sacked out clutch springs, and smoked clutch plates, the use of a different oil may well bring these mechanical issues to light. But, often times the problems are blamed on the oil used, rather than the real culprit. If the bike were in top mechanical condition to start, the slight frictional differences from one oil to another are almost undetectable in most instances. This includes the difference between a $2 10w-30 EC rated car oil, and a $12 moto-specific boutique oil.