Well Im trying the rotella synthetic oil in my suzuki Katana 600 I got it used with 7,000 miles and have been using the regular rotella dino oil in my other water cooled kawasaki 250 & 500 ninjas But this suzuki is air/oil cooled wirh a small oil cooler I know some on the Kat riders site say their bikes run kinda warm. So I hoping the blue bottle Rotella synthetic will be just the ticket.!! Love this site!
Diesel Motorcycle oil
- Thread starter nobobody
- Start date
- Status
You'll be fine ... the blue bottle Rotella synthetic is *probably* still the old CI-4 Plus formulation which is proven in lots of bikes for lots of miles.
Good luck ... are you going to pull a sample and UOA it in the future?
Good luck ... are you going to pull a sample and UOA it in the future?
JHZR2
Staff member
didnt know they made diesel motorcycles 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
didnt know they made diesel motorcycles
uummm, they do
http://www.m1030.com/
didnt know they made diesel motorcycles
uummm, they do
http://www.m1030.com/
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
didnt know they made diesel motorcycles
Yeah - and the kids turn up the injectors and cut off the mufflers......
didnt know they made diesel motorcycles
Yeah - and the kids turn up the injectors and cut off the mufflers......
Originally Posted By: tom slick
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
didnt know they made diesel motorcycles
uummm, they do
http://www.m1030.com/
That place is right around the corner from my shop
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
didnt know they made diesel motorcycles
uummm, they do
http://www.m1030.com/
That place is right around the corner from my shop
Yep. That RTS 5-40 Synthetic has just about reached cult status with a lot of guys - the V-Strom guys are just gaga over it. My nephew ran the RTS in his 600 Kat for years with no problems.
Re: the CI-4 designation, so far every jug I've seen has had the CI-4+ designation in the API donut. The CJ-4 stuff is supposed to be in the pipeline, but I haven't run across any, at least at Wally's.
Re: the CI-4 designation, so far every jug I've seen has had the CI-4+ designation in the API donut. The CJ-4 stuff is supposed to be in the pipeline, but I haven't run across any, at least at Wally's.
For some pointers on using diesel oil in bikes, check here:
http://www.shellusserver.com/qa/answerresult.php?rowid=239
http://www.shellusserver.com/qa/answerresult.php?rowid=169
http://www.shellusserver.com/qa/answerresult.php?rowid=239
http://www.shellusserver.com/qa/answerresult.php?rowid=169
The bottom line -- Rotella T (and others like it) are not limited to diesel engines. They're universal oils, formulated for diesel and gasoline engines.
What limits them from operating in most modern automobiles is those cars typically call for oils that carry the "Energy Conserving" starburst, which I *think* (I could be wrong) means they have friction modifiers. Rotella does not have friction modifiers, which is a good thing because those are bad for wet clutches.
I think cars typically call for oils that meet ILSAC, and I don't think Rotella even tries to meet that. I wish I knew what ILSAC compliance really meant. It's clear Shell doesn't seem too concerned with that, but why that is I can't say.
What limits them from operating in most modern automobiles is those cars typically call for oils that carry the "Energy Conserving" starburst, which I *think* (I could be wrong) means they have friction modifiers. Rotella does not have friction modifiers, which is a good thing because those are bad for wet clutches.
I think cars typically call for oils that meet ILSAC, and I don't think Rotella even tries to meet that. I wish I knew what ILSAC compliance really meant. It's clear Shell doesn't seem too concerned with that, but why that is I can't say.
"Shell doesn't seem too concerned with that, but why that is I can't say. "
Shell Rotella is, for the most part, marketed toward heavy duty trucks (semis). So they aren't that concerned about 'european ratings'.
They just recently realized that Rotella is popular among cycle riders of all stripes, so they ran the JASO tests.
Shell Rotella is, for the most part, marketed toward heavy duty trucks (semis). So they aren't that concerned about 'european ratings'.
They just recently realized that Rotella is popular among cycle riders of all stripes, so they ran the JASO tests.
Originally Posted By: dwendt44
Shell Rotella is, for the most part, marketed toward heavy duty trucks (semis). So they aren't that concerned about 'european ratings'.
When looking at stuff like oil certifications, I always try to figure out where the oil falls relative to:
A) Meeting the specification
B) Being certified as meeting the specification
The difference being that an oil might physically meet the requirements of a particular specification, but the producer has chosen not to spend the time and money to seek the approval claim the specification.
And that's what I wonder about Rotella and ILSAC. It may be that Rotella CJ-4 10W-30 (for example) meets the requirements of ILSAC-whatever, but (as you say) since Shell views the market for Rotella as primarily heavy truck it doesn't bother seeking ILSAC approval.
Originally Posted By: dwendt44
They just recently realized that Rotella is popular among cycle riders of all stripes, so they ran the JASO tests.
According to an e-mail I received from Shell when I asked about JASO, they ran the JASO-MA friction test on the 15W-40 CJ-4 oil. It passed. They did not mention the other JASO-MA requirements.
Now here's a good example of the distinction I was drawing earlier between meeting a specification and seeking official approval. The older CI-4 Plus Rotella probably meets JASO-MA friction as well. But they never tested for it. The older CI-4 Plus would have failed on the ash content, so why bother spending time/money to test for friction? But not testing does not change the fact the oil itself has properties that meet a certain test.
I did an informal and amateur study of the new Rotella CJ-4 to see if it met all the JASO-MA tests. Near as I can figure it does meet it. There were two tests I wasn't sure about -- friction and anti-foaming. Shell answered the friction test. I don't know about the foaming.
I have to believe Shell would not have wasted the time testing for JASO-MA friction if they knew for certain JASO-MA foaming was a failure. That tells me that the foaming tendencies of Rotella likely meet JASO foaming specs.
I know ... JASO-MA is not that stringent a set of requirements. The issue here is not the quality of the specifications, but the binary pass/fail issue.
Shell Rotella is, for the most part, marketed toward heavy duty trucks (semis). So they aren't that concerned about 'european ratings'.
When looking at stuff like oil certifications, I always try to figure out where the oil falls relative to:
A) Meeting the specification
B) Being certified as meeting the specification
The difference being that an oil might physically meet the requirements of a particular specification, but the producer has chosen not to spend the time and money to seek the approval claim the specification.
And that's what I wonder about Rotella and ILSAC. It may be that Rotella CJ-4 10W-30 (for example) meets the requirements of ILSAC-whatever, but (as you say) since Shell views the market for Rotella as primarily heavy truck it doesn't bother seeking ILSAC approval.
Originally Posted By: dwendt44
They just recently realized that Rotella is popular among cycle riders of all stripes, so they ran the JASO tests.
According to an e-mail I received from Shell when I asked about JASO, they ran the JASO-MA friction test on the 15W-40 CJ-4 oil. It passed. They did not mention the other JASO-MA requirements.
Now here's a good example of the distinction I was drawing earlier between meeting a specification and seeking official approval. The older CI-4 Plus Rotella probably meets JASO-MA friction as well. But they never tested for it. The older CI-4 Plus would have failed on the ash content, so why bother spending time/money to test for friction? But not testing does not change the fact the oil itself has properties that meet a certain test.
I did an informal and amateur study of the new Rotella CJ-4 to see if it met all the JASO-MA tests. Near as I can figure it does meet it. There were two tests I wasn't sure about -- friction and anti-foaming. Shell answered the friction test. I don't know about the foaming.
I have to believe Shell would not have wasted the time testing for JASO-MA friction if they knew for certain JASO-MA foaming was a failure. That tells me that the foaming tendencies of Rotella likely meet JASO foaming specs.
I know ... JASO-MA is not that stringent a set of requirements. The issue here is not the quality of the specifications, but the binary pass/fail issue.
- Status
