Honda F6B

Status
Not open for further replies.
MOst of my bikes see a lot of rpm and Ive seen lobe wear develop with thirty weights over long periods of miles at high rpms, and that's with high end oils,. My topend run tests show, on a fully warm engine, heavy weights do not sacrifice power, there comes a point with high rpm that thicker film becomes an aid to less friction than a thinner oil.

If you really want to run car oil, go to target and buy the standard mobil oil (blue bottle) 10w40 $2.99, it works pretty good in a bike, Ive ran it several times in my post 110,000 mile clutch. My experience with straight 30 weights in a motorcycle, I was not to impressed, 10w40 a much better choice IMO.

But I generally don't run car oils other than short periods of time, those times that I have chosen that route.
 
To tell ya the truth, Ive never seen any oil on the market with a stronger clutch grip than Rotella, its like a known good clutch test oil. I can deal with the 5w40 stuff but really hate the 15w40, too much grip on the clutch.

THe problem with the 5w40, it holds up no better than a regular car oil 10w40 in a motorcycle, and costs twice as much.
 
Mackelroy:

I'm wondering if the cam wear you observed would have been there anyway with a 40wt. oil. It's tough to draw broad conclusions from a single example.
My experience has been the opposite. My used oil analysis on my Sportster showed a significant drop in wear metals going from Rotella 15-40 to Amsoil Motorcycle Oil 10-30. I am not making any broad statements either since I'm only using that bike as an example.

Dave
 
Originally Posted By: Mackelroy
MOst of my bikes see a lot of rpm and Ive seen lobe wear develop with thirty weights over long periods of miles at high rpms, and that's with high end oils,. My topend run tests show, on a fully warm engine, heavy weights do not sacrifice power, there comes a point with high rpm that thicker film becomes an aid to less friction than a thinner oil.



Mercy Mac... between my 0w30 and your 5w40 at operating temp is only 3.6 cSt but thats
not 3.6 cSt thicker rather thats 3.6 cSt less in gravity flow... 3.6 cSt will cost you HP
but I doubt the manufacture designed an engine that operates withing 3.6 cSt margin of
wear and no wear...

viscosity_test.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Mackelroy
To tell ya the truth, Ive never seen any oil on the market with a stronger clutch grip than Rotella, its like a known good clutch test oil. I can deal with the 5w40 stuff but really hate the 15w40, too much grip on the clutch.


I believe you believe but how many and what oils have you tested???
 
Yes I don't have conclusive evidence that a 50 weight will substantially decrease lobe wear over a 30 weight, My case was actually a 5w40 PAO that sits just above a high 30 weight. This was natural lobe wear I saw over 40 thousand miles when first became noticeable around 25,000. The bike sustained a lot of rpm.

What I do know, a thicker film between the lobe and bucket will not hurt in this regard.
 
In the clutch, enough to say no oil on the market is stronger than rotella in the clutch, but I think the stuff sucks.

I have ran Mobil 1 High Mileage car oil, no out right slippage, but I could definitely detect the lack of plate friction when freewheeling with the clutch disengaged. That would be one of those oils, that would definitely have clutch issues long before a known good one would. In some cases like your earlier pictures certain oils can build up plaque on the plates over time.
 
Last edited:
One of the reasons, I haven't monitored lobe wear in the last 110,000 miles, is I haven't pulled a valve cover. I just bought a new KTM 500, so that will see more lobe and valve checks, and it does require 50 weight oil. Will it see a 30weight or a 5w40, [censored] no.
 
Originally Posted By: Mackelroy
Yes I don't have conclusive evidence that a 50 weight will substantially decrease lobe wear over a 30 weight


Noted...

For your inspection Mr.RC45's gear driven cams at 50,000 miles mark just so you know its
possible to have zero cam lobe wear using Mobil 1 0w30 EC/AFE in a 12,000 rpm race bred engine...

MrRC45 Cam Gears
MrRC45CamGears.jpg
 
Last edited:
The only problem you may have lobe wear, a picture in that case is not enough to say. I mean if I took a pic of my motor that had lobe wear it would be as good or better than your pic. >G

Most car engines do okay on 30 weight, and Id say motorcycles that see than kind of sub 5,0000 rpm would be okay too.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Mackelroy
The only problem you may have lobe wear, a picture in that case is not enough to say.


A picture is just to show condition like no pitting or galling... I'm here to testify under
oath that Mr.RC45 has 0.0 cam lobe wear and I can say that under penalty of perjury because
I always Mic them when ever I check valve clearance...
 
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Originally Posted By: Mackelroy
The only problem you may have lobe wear, a picture in that case is not enough to say.


A picture is just to show condition like no pitting or galling... I'm here to testify under
oath that Mr.RC45 has 0.0 cam lobe wear and I can say that under penalty of perjury because
I always Mic them when ever I check valve clearance...


Just out of curiosity, have you checked your gears for wear? As I said in another thread, that is where I saw the first and almost immediate signs of excess wear due to a too thin viscosity oil for the application.

I realize the two examples are not directly comparable, (LSR bike vs a stock or near stock RC45) due to the vast difference in power flowing through the respective transmissions, but I'm still curious how the gears are holding up, considering the relatively low ZDDP levels in an SN spec Mobil 1 0w30 oil.
 
Originally Posted By: 02SE


Just out of curiosity, have you checked your gears for wear? As I said in another thread, that is where I saw the first and almost immediate signs of excess wear due to a too thin viscosity oil for the application.

I realize the two examples are not directly comparable, (LSR bike vs a stock or near stock RC45) due to the vast difference in power flowing through the respective transmissions, but I'm still curious how the gears are holding up, considering the relatively low ZDDP levels in an SN spec Mobil 1 0w30 oil.


I don't know what you need to see but I'll compare gears with anyone
in here on the question how well they are holding up and we are talking
about Mr.Honda's race bred V4 that sports gear driven cams with 60,000
miles not in moderation...


I'm confident in SN Mobil 1 0w30 total additive package because it is
their new and improved 30wt... its ZDDP levels are actually marginally
higher than the older Mobil 1 5w30 and 10w30... but according to 4
independent Industry sources that nothing to brag about because more
zinc does NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer
wear protection...

0w30 847 phosphorus 955 zinc and 75 moly...
5w30 737 phosphorus 819 zinc and 68 moly...
10w30 749 phosphorus 827 zinc and 69 moly...

My ZDDP confident is validated and backed-up by a total of FOUR other
independent Industry sources. They are as follows:

1. Well known and respected Engineer and Tech Author David Vizard,
whose own test data, largely based on real world engine dyno testing,
has concluded that more zinc in motor oil can be damaging, more zinc
does NOT provide today’s best wear protection, and that using zinc as
the primary anti-wear component, is outdated technology.

2. The GM Oil Report titled, “Oil Myths from GM Techlink”, concluded
that high levels of zinc are damaging and that more zinc does NOT
provide more wear protection.

3. A motor oil research article written by Ed Hackett titled, “More
than you ever wanted to know about Motor Oil”, concluded that more
zinc does NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer
wear protection.

4. This from the Brad Penn Oil Company: There is such a thing as too
much ZDDP. ZDDP is surface aggressive, and too much can be a
detriment. ZDDP fights for the surface, blocking other additive
performance. Acids generated due to excessive ZDDP contact will
“tie-up” detergents thus encouraging corrosive wear. ZDDP
effectiveness plateaus, more does NOT translate into more protection.
Only so much is utilized. We don’t need to saturate our oil with ZDDP.
 
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Originally Posted By: 02SE


Just out of curiosity, have you checked your gears for wear? As I said in another thread, that is where I saw the first and almost immediate signs of excess wear due to a too thin viscosity oil for the application.

I realize the two examples are not directly comparable, (LSR bike vs a stock or near stock RC45) due to the vast difference in power flowing through the respective transmissions, but I'm still curious how the gears are holding up, considering the relatively low ZDDP levels in an SN spec Mobil 1 0w30 oil.


I don't know what you need to see but I'll compare gears with anyone
in here on the question how well they are holding up and we are talking
about Mr.Honda's race bred V4 that sports gear driven cams with 60,000
miles not in moderation...


I'm confident in SN Mobil 1 0w30 total additive package because it is
their new and improved 30wt... its ZDDP levels are actually marginally
higher than the older Mobil 1 5w30 and 10w30... but according to 4
independent Industry sources that nothing to brag about because more
zinc does NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer
wear protection...

0w30 847 phosphorus 955 zinc and 75 moly...
5w30 737 phosphorus 819 zinc and 68 moly...
10w30 749 phosphorus 827 zinc and 69 moly...

My ZDDP confident is validated and backed-up by a total of FOUR other
independent Industry sources. They are as follows:

1. Well known and respected Engineer and Tech Author David Vizard,
whose own test data, largely based on real world engine dyno testing,
has concluded that more zinc in motor oil can be damaging, more zinc
does NOT provide today’s best wear protection, and that using zinc as
the primary anti-wear component, is outdated technology.

2. The GM Oil Report titled, “Oil Myths from GM Techlink”, concluded
that high levels of zinc are damaging and that more zinc does NOT
provide more wear protection.

3. A motor oil research article written by Ed Hackett titled, “More
than you ever wanted to know about Motor Oil”, concluded that more
zinc does NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer
wear protection.

4. This from the Brad Penn Oil Company: There is such a thing as too
much ZDDP. ZDDP is surface aggressive, and too much can be a
detriment. ZDDP fights for the surface, blocking other additive
performance. Acids generated due to excessive ZDDP contact will
“tie-up” detergents thus encouraging corrosive wear. ZDDP
effectiveness plateaus, more does NOT translate into more protection.
Only so much is utilized. We don’t need to saturate our oil with ZDDP.



I don't NEED to see anything. I was just curious if you have inspected your transmission gears for wear. They experience more load than the gears driving your cams.

Since you didn't answer that question, I'll assume you have not inspected your transmission gears.

As far as ZDDP levels. It makes one wonder why bike specific oils which are presumably created by qualified, competent Engineers, have much higher levels of ZDDP, if higher levels are indeed damaging as alluded to in your post.
 
Quote:
My experience has been the opposite. My used oil analysis on my Sportster showed a significant drop in wear metals going from Rotella 15-40 to Amsoil Motorcycle Oil 10-30. I am not making any broad statements either since I'm only using that bike as an example.


Lurker here.
That part is interesting. Could you show us that used oil analysis?

Quote:
more zinc does NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer wear protection...

Makes sense to me. Otherwise we could buy ZDDP and pour in to have zero wear!
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: 02SE
I don't NEED to see anything


Are you sure you wouldn't like to visit me out here in California and inspect Mr.RC45's gears???

Originally Posted By: 02SE

As far as ZDDP levels. It makes one wonder why bike specific oils which are presumably created by qualified, competent Engineers, have much higher levels of ZDDP, if higher levels are indeed damaging as alluded to in your post.


It makes me wonder too given that higher levels of ZDDP does NOT provide more wear
protection, it only provides longer wear protection... I think we agree that extended
oil intervals beyond the recommended OCI is not a big selling point with motorcyclist...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Originally Posted By: 02SE
I don't NEED to see anything


Are you sure you wouldn't like to visit me out here in California and inspect Mr.RC45's gears???
Larry, do you mind if I call you Larry? It was not my intention to call you out, but simply to inquire if you have ever inspected your transmission gears for wear. By your response it seems clear you haven't, and don't intend to. As for California, it offers some great places to ride. It would be cool to meet another Motorcycle enthusiast and ride some of those fantastic roads you have there.

Originally Posted By: 02SE

As far as ZDDP levels. It makes one wonder why bike specific oils which are presumably created by qualified, competent Engineers, have much higher levels of ZDDP, if higher levels are indeed damaging as alluded to in your post.


It makes me wonder too given that higher levels of ZDDP does NOT provide more wear
protection, it only provides longer wear protection... I think we agree that extended
oil intervals beyond the recommended OCI is not a big selling point with motorcyclist...


Well, your statement that higher levels of ZDDP does not provide more wear protection, is contrary to official comments I've seen repeatedly from oil companies. Mobil touts the higher levels of ZDDP in their Mobil 1 15w50 formulation as being key in improving the anti-wear characteristics of the oil, especially in flat-tappet engines.

Brad Penn claims their 1500ppm of zinc as being key to anti-wear characteristics of the oil. Here's a press release from Brad Penn, posted here at Bitog:
Bitog LINK

From the press release:
Originally Posted By: Richard Glady from American Refining Group
Prior to January 8, 2008, Penn Grade 1® High Performance Oils were blended with zinc levels below 1500 ppm. This was in part dictated by the API service classification SJ which limited the phosphorus level to 1000 PPM max for catalyst compatibility. It was only after a decision was made to depart from the API performance classification that it was possible to increase the phosphorus level to 1340 to 1400 range of the current product. This corresponds to the advertized zinc concentration of 1500 PPM.

Being the former Kendall Refinery located in Bradford, Pa., we process 100% Pennsylvania Grade crude oil. From the crude oil, we obtain a unique base oil cut which builds a stable oil film that withstands high pressure, high temperature and scuffing associated with race and older, high performance engines. The product provides double protection (layer of lubricant with the zinc and phosphorous protection) to critical engine parts especially for flat tappet and roller cams. In fact, a majority of the cam manufacturers’ tested and now recommend our High Performance Oils before we reformulated the product.


From the same press release regarding the reason for the lower level of ZDDP anti-wear additive in their Break-in oil:
Originally Posted By: Richard Glady from American Refining Group
The Brad Penn® Penn Grade 1® Break-In oil is designed specifically with a lower level of ZDDP and other select additive components as a Break-In oil. Since break in is a wearing process high levels of an anti-wear additive may be counterproductive. The type of ZDDP used in this oil is also more suitable for break in applications. This product is highly recommended by a number of engine builders for use when breaking in newly assembled engines to lubricate and assure proper sealing of components.


So, we have seemingly contradictory comments from oil manufacturers. The comments you posted, and the comments I posted. The last VOA I saw on here for Mobil 1 10w40 4T Motorcycle specific oil, showed zinc at 1700ppm. They do not claim it is intended as an extended OCI oil. Presumably the Engineers at Mobil who also formulated the Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy 0w30 oil you use, know what they're doing.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 02SE

Larry, do you mind if I call you Larry?

So, we have seemingly contradictory comments from oil manufacturers.


No problem "O" I like first name bases and I like to have fun too...
if you can't kid you can't kid live but yes I've not only inspected my
transmission gears but also my dogs and forks... my high stressed transmission
gears look as new as my low stressed cam gears... I'll post a photo if
I ever perform open case surgery...


Yes we do have contradictory comments... on the one hand we have
manufactures marketing their oil at the old ZDDP levels to arrest
wear... on the other we have engineers and lab reporters who have
tested the oil at the new ZDDP levels and discover that more zinc does
NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer wear
protection... Its funny that no one worries about their automatic
transmission gears despite the fact that ATF viscosity range is only 5.1 to
7.0 cSt and the ZDDP level can be as low as 6ppm and high as 500ppm...

GM%2520Auto%2520Trak%2520II.JPG
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: DrDave
Uncle Larry:

What's your airport identifier?

Dave
W16


Hiya Dave...
Take your pick L36 Rio Linda or McClellan KMCC
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom