Mobile 1 Synthetic 15w/50 - Not what it used to be?

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Brian553

SonOfJoe did mention in post #5094916 :

Originally Posted by SonofJoe

The memory's beginning to fade now but as I recall, most of the Euro 10W30 PCMOs I formulated (even the lowly ones) passed the JASO friction test to MA.

it's no stamp of approval, and is most likely only MA1, but is a tiny keyhole to where PCMOs stand in terms of wet clutch performance. Better than no keyhole.

Originally Posted by BusyLittleShop

JASO has approved 1,537 oils as of Dec 2019 which covers virtually everything on the market... From 0w to mono grades... from 30 to 60 multi grades... from Auto to Cycle oils and yet not a single oil is JASO tested to have defeated a wet clutch... in fact the results of their market surveys are in a manner such that particular names of submitters and their oil products are not identifiable... so NO I don't see JASO as valuable as you do...

I'll throw the two quotes above together because my comment below will address both. If all these passenger car motor oils could supposedly pass JASO MA, and they've supposedly tested them to know that, then why don't they do the paperwork and pay JASO $400 to file the oil as officially meeting motorcycle JASO T 903 4-cycle oil requirements? Don't you think doing something so simple might enable the passenger car motor oil manufacturers to sell more oil to motorcyclists if their oil will also pass JASO T 903 specs? BLS - that list of JASO oils is world wide, and not a whole bunch of them are available in the USA. Does that RC45 manual actually call out 5W-30 SN? Viscosity "doesn't matter" ... ? Don't listen to Blackstone, they are not tribology experts, only oil testing experts ... the two are not always connected.

 

[BusyLittleShop]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix

Does that RC45 manual actually call out 5W-30 SN?

The manual shows grade guide and calls for oil certified to meet or exceed API SE, SF or SG... SN is desirable because it exceeds those out dated API classifications...

 

[ZeeOSix]

I'm surprised they actually show the option of 10W-30. Personally, I wouldn't run it based on it giving less MOFT and HTHS insurance due to lower viscosity. I've always used 10W-40 in my bikes since it rarely gets over 90 F here.

 

[Bonz]

My 1980 Yamaha XS1100 specified 20w40 for what we would consider fairly normal temperatures for motorcycle riding, 10w30 for colder temperatures, and the XS1100 was first made in 1978. Even though modern motorcycle oils in many cases have reduced zinc levels compared to regular passenger car oil of 40 yrs ago, motorcycle oils today still have higher amounts of zinc and phosphorous on the whole versus modern passenger car oils. Regardless of viscosity range, isn't that saying zinc and phosphorus do benefit most modern motorcycle engines which are still flat tappet? Otherwise wouldn't the oils be made with less? Or is it just the dreaded marketing hoax?

 

[NorCalHD]

Wow - the last couple of you on this thread discussing MA/MA2 have possibly helped in my next endeavor. Im looking for a primary fluid for a Harley primary - not shared. Have been using HD Formula+: ----------------------------------------------------------- Harley-Davidson Formula + ( Virgin oil analysis* Blackstone Labs) Petroleum based. (Made by Citgo) Ca 169 P 230 B 210 Zn - none No other elemental additives. Viscosity - within SAE 50 range. Listed as a GL-1, does test out as a GL-3. Published specs: Specific Gravity: 0.857 Pounds per Gallon: 7.14 Viscosity, ASTM D 445, cSt at 40�C: 168.04 cSt at 100�C: 20.10 Viscosity Index, ASTM D 2270: 139 Brookfield Viscosity, ASTM D 2983, cP at -26�C - 28,800 cP at -40�C - n/m Pour Point, ASTM D 97, �F (�C): -60 (-51) Flash Point, ASTM D 92, �F (�C): 507 (264) ------------------------------------------------------------- I'd like to keep the viscosity similar to the F+ due to riding on hot temps. My year of bike is known to have a questionable compensator in that many have had to replace and upgrade. Not sure if going with a lighter weight would be helpful. Also, HD now has a 80w/140 gear lube that is also recommended for the primary. So thicker seems to be the direction. Trying to find something readily available that will work and is cheap;) Many use Rotella 4T 15/40 in the primary which is thinner then the Formula+ and the HD gear lube. I came up with Valvoline 4-Stroke Motorcycle SAE 20W-50 Conventional Motor Oil. Its at Wallys for $4.50. One concern is, I cant find anyone else that uses it for the primary. And, some say to not use a detergent motor oil in the primary and I have no idea if this qualifies, or if it matters. Any suggestions are again appreciated. Also BSL - that riding pc reminds me of Hi 49 heading to Georgetown.

 

[Bonz]

It would be considered a detergent oil simply because it's meant for use in a modern engine and carries modern specifications. I don't understand why it wouldn't be suitable if it has detergents. Non detergent oil is typically in the straight grades like 30w and I used it most recently to break in an engine with new pistons and rings for the first 50 miles or so. I'm debating whether it matters or not but I did it and accomplished my goal. If I had run a multi weight detergent oil I would have still changed it after the first 50 miles or so. Just a question whether or not non-detergent really provides any benefit. Have others used oil of 20w50 weight , just maybe not the Valvoline brand? Seems to me someone would have tried 20w50 in a primary at some point and can report.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by NorCalHD

Wow - the last couple of you on this thread discussing MA/MA2 have possibly helped in my next endeavor. Im looking for a primary fluid for a Harley primary - not shared. Have been using HD Formula+:

Did you see this thread? https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4987215/1

 

[BusyLittleShop]

Originally Posted by NorCalHD

Also BSL - that riding pc reminds me of Hi 49 heading to Georgetown.

I know H49 bendy bits but this is H28 on the Nevada side of Tahoe where busting 100 is the old 55$ infraction whereas busting 100 in California is likely go straight to jail misdemeanor...

 

[NorCalHD]

Originally Posted by BusyLittleShop

Originally Posted by NorCalHD

Also BSL - that riding pc reminds me of Hi 49 heading to Georgetown.

I know H49 bendy bits but this is H28 on the Nevada side of Tahoe where busting 100 is the old 55$ infraction whereas busting 100 in California is likely go straight to jail misdemeanor...

Some of the best riding in our backyard. Three passes in a day - Ebbetts, Carson, Monitor. La Port Rd, Mosquito Ridge...

 

[benjy]

besides additives mobil I oils were PAO, thanks to the castrol scam using group III refined CRUDE illegally as synthetic mobil like others cheapened their oils to compete!!

 

[R1jake]

Originally Posted by Analyzer

Just to clarify, there's a simple reason why Mobil 1 V-Twin 20W50 and Redline motorcycle oils are not JASO approved, and in the official list of verified oils. Both brands can effortlessly afford the testing and fees, but even if they met every other requirement, they would instantly fail the Physicochemical Properties of the oil which state phosphorus content cannot exceed 1200 PPM. JASO Engine Oil Standards (Please scroll down to Table 4―Physicochemical Properties) Mobil 1 Product Data Chart (Scroll to the bottom of the chart for Mobil Moto Oil) Redline Motorcycle Oil (Scroll to the bottom of each motorcycle viscosity, and click on Physical Properties) Both show that with Mobil V-Twin having 1600 PPM, and Redline Motorcycle oil having 2100 PPM of Phosphorus, they would instantly be disqualified from meeting one of the most simple requirements for the JASO certification and would be a waste of time and money. Now, I believe both oils will provide motorcycles with excellent protection against wear and tear, but then again they aren't technically meeting the standards that JASO has developed, hence the lack of certification.

This is the exact reason these boutique oils don't get the certification, nothing to do with badge of honor, they clearly can't meet the spec even if the oil was to outperform the others who did meet and have the spec. So while I agree the oils are just fine for wet clutch applications this is the most solid evidence I've seen personally that shows why they don't get some of these specifications. I personally think it should have nothing to do with limits of additives and concentrate only on specific test of the oils regardless of they're blends. Perhaps being over the limit of phosphorus can be countered with other additives that produce the best of both worlds. So I definitely don't agree on specifications that put a cap on additive amounts. These boutique oils skip the whole cert and go with what they test that works best. Perhaps the extra phosphorus could cause a clutch to slip a few hundred miles earlier while also preventing wear to vital and much more costly components in the engine. Redline is definitely top notch in every aspect in my opinion. I don't tend to use it due to it being a bit harder to get.

 

[alarmguy]

The only reason I think people think Red Line is good is because of marketing. I have never seen Redline produce better wear numbers then any other oil of the same rating.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by alarmguy

The only reason I think people think Red Line is good is because of marketing. I have never seen Redline produce better wear numbers then any other oil of the same rating.

? Nor would you expect to do so.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by R1jake

This is the exact reason these boutique oils don't get the certification, nothing to do with badge of honor, they clearly can't meet the spec even if the oil was to outperform the others who did meet and have the spec. So while I agree the oils are just fine for wet clutch applications this is the most solid evidence I've seen personally that shows why they don't get some of these specifications. I personally think it should have nothing to do with limits of additives and concentrate only on specific test of the oils regardless of they're blends. Perhaps being over the limit of phosphorus can be countered with other additives that produce the best of both worlds. So I definitely don't agree on specifications that put a cap on additive amounts. These boutique oils skip the whole cert and go with what they test that works best. Perhaps the extra phosphorus could cause a clutch to slip a few hundred miles earlier while also preventing wear to vital and much more costly components in the engine. Redline is definitely top notch in every aspect in my opinion. I don't tend to use it due to it being a bit harder to get.

Hence illustrating my point that it is indeed a badge of honor since "more" is not always better, unless one is personally impressed by certain numbers on a PDS.

 

[Bonz]

Originally Posted by alarmguy

The only reason I think people think Red Line is good is because of marketing. I have never seen Redline produce better wear numbers then any other oil of the same rating.

I've said this before it's not about wear numbers. It's about shift quality holding up for an OCI. All the oils are going to provide similar wear numbers, it's no secret. Redline oil holds up about as well as anything out there in a shared sump engine. A Harley engine without a shared sump is relatively easy on the oil and I would expect stellar numbers. Parameters for choosing an oil in a non shared sump are very different (pretty much base it on wear numbers and call it good if the oil meets the specs you need) than why others with a shared sump are choosing their oil. If shifting is going south and a gear is missed when I need to be hitting a gear downshifting or accelerating, a few extra parts per million of additional wear or less wear are immaterial. Experience says that a conventional oil does not hold shift quality as long as a synthetic oil. Mobil 1 20w50 V-Twin or M1 10w40 4T make it 5,000 miles in a shared sump in my experience, could have been left in longer. Redline, while I haven't used it, has a similar stellar track record for holding shift quality. As do most of the "boutique" brand synthetic motorcycle oils such as Motul, Maxima, Silkolene. To be clear, what I am saying below had nothing to do with the oil, just to be clear on that. Definitely not an oil issue. Only time I ran Mystik JT8 15w50 in my ZRX, #3 piston broke an oil ring at the 3,200 mile mark on the OCI, as I started to see a quart go in 500 Miles whereas the bike had never used a drop of oil before. I found the broken off section of the ring on the magnetic drain plug. Sent a sample to Blackstone and wear numbers looked excellent. But I had a broken piston ring in my hand and shavings of the Nikasil plated cylinder bore and aluminum piston in the filter. To me, wear numbers are immaterial based on that experience. All kinds of misbehavior can be going on in an engine that analysis will not pick up. Therefore in my experience, synthetic "higher cost" oils allow longer oil change intervals with desirable shift quality, that has nothing to do with marketing if I was to offer anything to finish my post with.

 

[David_g]

Originally Posted by Bonz

Only time I ran Mystik JT8 15w50 in my ZRX, #3 piston broke an oil ring at the 3,200 mile mark on the OCI, as I started to see a quart go in 500 Miles whereas the bike had never used a drop of oil before. I found the broken off section of the ring on the magnetic drain plug. Sent a sample to Blackstone and wear numbers looked excellent. But I had a broken piston ring in my hand and shavings of the Nikasil plated cylinder bore and aluminum piston in the filter.

I had been debating switching from Mobil 1 Advanced Synthetic 15W50 to Mystik JT8 15W50 for my R1200R (air/oil cooled, separate sump, dry clutch, 87k miles). Was a little unsure as I run a 6k mile OCI, and UOAs I saw for JT8 were half that. But your post convinced me to stick with what I've been using. UOAs seem pretty limited in not showing metal particulate. I expect some of the chemists or tribologists here have ideas how glitter in used oil might be detected or measured. As an engineer who knows far too little chemistry, I wonder if filtering the sample and simply reporting the weight of the filtered matter (possibly with a photo or simple description such as shiny, non-ferromagnetic) would be a good, cost-effective solution. It would alert customers to the likelihood something went very wrong.