Kendall GT-1 20/50 --2009 HD TC 96

[OnTheFence]

This is Kendall GT-1 dino. I guess they can't all be winners. The sample to the right is Brad Penn 20/50.

 

[meangreen01]

I don't understand what you mean when you say they can't all be winners? Identical mileage, identical wear metals. I guess TBN is slightly lower, but unless you're getting these UOA's to test extended OCI's I see no difference in one over the other. Go with the cheaper of the two.

 

[jsharp]

Does the Kendall start out that thin or did it just shear that much?

Was that oil in the bike all winter in Illinois? If so that means it probably spent quite a while sitting. If it was stored in a non climate controlled area it makes the report look even better.

Overall, it looks fine. As good as the Brad Penn anyway. We make a big deal about +- single part per million differences here but I think most of that is needless worry. I seriously doubt you could identify the difference in engine life.

 

[OnTheFence]

The no winner comment was more in regards to the Viscosity. Not sure where is started out. I'd rather stick with oils that stay in grade.

 

[whitesands]

Looks good to me...It's barely out at 5,000 miles.

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: OnTheFence
The no winner comment was more in regards to the Viscosity. Not sure where is started out. I'd rather stick with oils that stay in grade.



I understand. I've always felt the same way. I wonder though, if the wear numbers look good does it really matter? Here in the M/C section there seems to be a lot of worry about it, almost to the point where viscosity retention takes precedence over the rest of the report.

I certainly don't think that that's the right way to look at it.

 

[OnTheFence]

Originally Posted By: jsharp
I understand. I've always felt the same way. I wonder though, if the wear numbers look good does it really matter? Here in the M/C section there seems to be a lot of worry about it, almost to the point where viscosity retention takes precedence over the rest of the report.

I certainly don't think that that's the right way to look at it.


I agree with you on the wear numbers. Logic would dictate that no wear is a good thing no matter what the viscosity is.


I may be the biggest pile stirrer on the viscosity thing. Mostly just to poke Amsoil in the eye. Amsoil went through a lot of trouble to put together a white paper. In which they tout their stbility. Only to find out it shears in applications where the engine and transmission share the oil. And gets thick in a Twin Cam. If I use that against them, I have to be fair and use it against the other brands as well.