Two-cycle oil Formulations

MolaKule

Staff member
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
24,127
Location
Iowegia - USA
In case you missed this topic, here is a write-up on two-cycle oils:

While this may be your first set of analyses for 2-C oil, there is really nothing controversial or strange about the analysis.

There are different strokes for different folks - pun intended. There are various approaches to formulations for each type of application.

In a two cycle oil you want the least amount of organo-metallic components in order to keep the ash deposits to a minimum.

A one-pass lubricant must provide a lubricating oil film with a sufficient film thickness to keep parts wear at a minimum, yet the lubricant must not leave sticky deposits that will gum-up the rings and exhaust ports.

This requires a mix of base oils that will not only burn clean (since the lubricant is mixed in with the fuel), but also lubricate sufficiently. The base oils must be the purest of base oils, so in the early years, highly refined Group I and Group II base oils were used.

Today, and in order to get the lean mixtures required for clean exhaust gasess, a minimum of Group III through Group V base oils must be used.

Now to the additives. As others have stated, no low-cost analysis will tell you all of the chemical components included, only the basic organo-metallic components that can be detected.

The calcium and the magnesium combo is a mild friction reducer but primarily serves as a detergent that minimizes carbon deposits, but not all deposits. In modern 2C oils, this is up to the synthetic base oil mix, usually comprised of one of more ester base oils.

One anti-wear component seen is the low treatment level of ZDDP, the zinc and phosphorus. This is a special ZDDP ester with a low level of sulfur. A cold-start anti-friction/anti-wear additive containing a boron compound may be added.

The Tin is usually tin napthenate or Tin dithiocarbamate (DTC), another anti-friction component. Mobil uses a Titanium DTC for the same reason.

A high-flash solvent is incorporated to keep all of the components in solution and to make it miscible ("mixable") with the fuel. Now if higher ester levels are used, less of this solvent is needed.

Another anti-wear/anti-galling component, that also is used to thicken the film, is a polyisobutylene Group V base oil.

A small amount of a sodium compound is used to inhibit rust on the steel components. Not seen is something called a dimercapto 1.3.4thiadiazole compound, an anti-corrosion additive.

The last component that is used that does absolutely nothing is the Blue organic dye.

With respect to using motor (PCMO) oils in modern 2C engines, I wouldn't because the organo-metallic additive levels are too high (too much ash deposits, as on the valves and or ports and spark plugs), the base oils will tend to form sludgy deposits, and the PCMO does not really have a sufficient level of solvents to keep the rings and exhaust ports void of deposits in an air-cooled 2-cycle engine.

How hot does the bottom end of a 2 stroke get?

From the combustion temperature profiles of pistons from the crown to the bottom skirt, the piston wrist pin location is at about 320F. So this thermal energy will Conduct down from the Gudgeon Pin (wrist pin), down the connecting rod, and then to the crank, bearing, and pin bearings at that approximate same temperature.

We have to keep the big picture in mind: This is a "once-through" lubrication system. No oil sump, no oil cooling, only a thin film of lubricant passing through with approximately the same viscosity as gasoline, about 0.6 cSt@100C.

I would not use two-cycle oils in any 4-stroke engine because the additive package in two-cycle oils was not designed to protect 4-stroke engines.
 
Last edited:
Is there the same government "push" for 2-stroke equipment manufacturers to go to leaner oil / gas mixtures, like there is to thinner oils for the automotive industry?

Once 50:1 mix was considered to be very lean oil / gas mixture. (Most saws ran on 32:1). And many 2-stroke racing engines, (dirt bike and go karts), ran on 16:1.... And still do. Today we are seeing mixtures as lean as 100:1. Just like we are seeing automotive oils getting thinner and thinner.

First it was 0W-16. Now it's 0W-8. Then there is the camp that says it's because the oils have gotten so much better. But when you talk to automotive mechanics and engine builders they tell you to avoid those water thin oils like the plague. And also avoid long OCI intervals that always seem to accompany these super thin oils.

Just as small engine mechanics tell you to avoid lean 2 stroke oil / gas mixtures. I don't run anything on 50:1, and would never even consider 100:1. Most every landscaper I've talked to here in town, run their trimmers and blowers on 32:1.

They run their equipment hard, and for several hours a day in 3 digit temperatures. I'm of the belief if the government stayed out the auto industry, and the EPA out of the lawn and garden business, crankcase oil would be thicker, and 2-stroke mixtures would be a lot richer.
 
Is there the same government "push" for 2-stroke equipment manufacturers to go to leaner oil / gas mixtures, like there is to thinner oils for the automotive industry?

Once 50:1 mix was considered to be very lean oil / gas mixture. (Most saws ran on 32:1). And many 2-stroke racing engines, (dirt bike and go karts), ran on 16:1.... And still do. Today we are seeing mixtures as lean as 100:1. Just like we are seeing automotive oils getting thinner and thinner.

First it was 0W-16. Now it's 0W-8. Then there is the camp that says it's because the oils have gotten so much better. But when you talk to automotive mechanics and engine builders they tell you to avoid those water thin oils like the plague. And also avoid long OCI intervals that always seem to accompany these super thin oils.

Just as small engine mechanics tell you to avoid lean 2 stroke oil / gas mixtures. I don't run anything on 50:1, and would never even consider 100:1. Most every landscaper I've talked to here in town, run their trimmers and blowers on 32:1.

They run their equipment hard, and for several hours a day in 3 digit temperatures. I'm of the belief if the government stayed out the auto industry, and the EPA out of the lawn and garden business, crankcase oil would be thicker, and 2-stroke mixtures would be a lot richer.
To be fair, ALL of the 100:1 and 80:1 recommendations I have seen have come direct from the oil manufacturer themselves, not the equipment manufacturer or EPA.
 
To be fair, ALL of the 100:1 and 80:1 recommendations I have seen have come direct from the oil manufacturer themselves, not the equipment manufacturer or EPA.
And if you run a 100:1 oil at 50:1 you will be OK, but will be oil rich.

Lemme see.......Amsoil Saber for 25+ years, over 100°F and all that...........man there are not many (none) oil related failures. You would think..............well anyway people get hyped in both directions here with zero proof or actual, you know data.
 
Polyisobutylene is a common base stock in synthetic 2 stroke oils. It is generally found in EG-D / FD rated oils. It is used due to a nice set of qualities, such as adequate lubrication, thermal stability, minimal exhaust deposits, low smoke and so on. In the end, EG-D / FD oils are my fav.

Trimethylolpropane is supposedly the basis for the environmentally friendly Stihl Ultra 2 stroke oil. I don't have any significant experience with it, other than to say that many chainsaw guys hate the stuff and blame it for engine damage.

Bright Stock, a high viscosity generally clear oil, is still used in less expensive two stroke oils. Provides good lubrication, but tends to smoke and produce exhaust deposits. Certainly a generalization as there are many factors, but if you see a two stroke engine that is well tuned and always smoking, it might be using a cheap oil with Bright Stock.

Conventional 2 stroke oils may also contain straight 30 or even 50 viscosity dino oils, generally with a solvent.

A lifetime ago, I was a new tech, involved in some outboard race engine two stroke oil testing. Our 150HP engines made north of 300HP. The testing was with the goal of making more power and winning more races, but had a wear/lifespan related component. I was not the engineer or driving force behind the testing. I simply installed powerheads, drove or rode along on the boats, removed the powerheads, helped disassemble and measure. We learned a lot, and much of it still applies.

This is why I always recommend 32 to 1 for those here. Wear increases with less oil, especially at high RPM. Power increases with more oil. Put another way, the oil mix ratio should really be related to operational RPM. The OPE we often talk about are fairly high RPM engines. Some chainsaws reach 14,000RPM
 
Last edited:
Wear increases with less oil, especially at high RPM. Power increases with more oil.
But there are implicating questions here that need to be asked

Why does power increase with more oil?
Why not run 1:2?
What happens to fuel:air when oil (to gas) ratio INCREASES?
Can an oil be designed to run 100:1 and not increase wear? How does Opti-2 do it?
 
But there are implicating questions here that need to be asked

1) Why does power increase with more oil?
2) Why not run 1:2?
3) What happens to fuel:air when oil (to gas) ratio INCREASES?
4) Can an oil be designed to run 100:1 and not increase wear? How does Opti-2 do it?
1 The general consensus was that the oil didn't just markedly improve ring sealing, it also contained energy. As is the case with many engines, diesel included, when two different fuels are combined (diesel and propane for example) a bit more power can be produced.

2 We settled on 8 to 1 for maximum output. It was difficult to manage the engine this way. The spark plugs were those extra special surface gap plugs that could supposedly fire properly under any conditions, ugh.

3 Obviously, adding more oil dilutes the fuel. Major jetting changes exist between 8 to 1 and 100 to 1.

4 Sure, an oil can be designed to operate in certain engines at 100 to 1. Reducing solvents is one way to add a bit more lubricant to the overall mix. Increasing viscosity is another way to ensure oil migration through the crankcase is slowed. Other factors may include flash point alterations and base stock choice. Motul 800 is a current product that seems to use a few of these tricks.

Back then, we also tried a number of the high viscosity, high film strength motorcycle products such as the original BelRay MC1, Klotz special formula, Golden Spectro and others. None of which worked well for our purposes, as none reduced wear, improved power or ran cleaner. In fact the BelRay claimed 100 to 1 was possible, and we tried it. NOPE, not good in our racing engines.

EDIT: The BelRay MC1 is/was a 50 viscosity oil, and that was the basis for their 100 to 1 claim.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, ALL of the 100:1 and 80:1 recommendations I have seen have come direct from the oil manufacturer themselves.....
Well sure. But so has thin oil, along with extended OCI's. We're told that came from well educated laboratory lubrication engineers in white coats, who know what they're doing.

So what? If it weren't for CAFE, (i.e. government), they would have no one pushing them to do so. By basically bribing them with financial $$credits$$, that amount to millions.

Can anyone here prove the EPA isn't doing much the same thing with the lawn and garden industry? Or else flat out forcing them, by banning their products if they don't. Look at personal watercraft and outboard motors.

They used to be all 2-stroke. Now they're going to 4-stroke because the DNR, (and / or other government entities), in many states has flat out banned both on many lakes and waterways.

When is the last time you saw a 2-stroke street bike? They didn't go away because customers didn't like them. Or manufacturers no longer wanted to make them.

The government forcing emissions control is obviously the reason why. It's much the same with all of this idiotic, Start / Stop "technology" they're now putting on new vehicles being sold.

That was also designed by smart, educated engineers who know better as well. But is anyone going to tell me the automakers took it upon themselves to do this, without any government, (CAFE), interference, or credit bribery?

The government FORCES the manufacturers by offering these same financial incentives, to employ a Start / Stop system that can not be turned off permanently by the vehicle's owner. Everyone I know who has that "feature" on their vehicle, hates it.

It sure as hell wasn't created and installed because of customer demand. I can tell you that. CAFE is all pretty much based on a financial "reward" system.

If the manufacturers meet the goals / guidelines, they get big financial bonuses. If they don't, it ends up costing them millions. And there is no better way to corrupt an industry, and get them to do what you want, than with money / bribery.

Be it thin oil, extended OCI's, Start / Stop, or super lean 2-stroke mixes. It all comes out of the same rotten barrel. And that's a fact, not some wild, "conspiracy theory".

"The Environmental Protection Agency offers incentives to manufacturers who force their auto stop/start systems to switch back on.

 
When is the last time you saw a 2-stroke street bike?
Not long ago. RD400 in traffic:
I was amazed, and the bike sounded great.

pY3VD2y.jpg
 
The pollution issue with two-strokes is not oil, it is HC because when the piston is down both ports are open and much fuel blows through the engine unburned.

The regulations the EPA makes are public. There isn't a secret "do this because otherwise we'll ban you" negotiation, it is simply "do this."

A specification to use less oil is attractive to most owners since oil costs them money. Lower cost of operation is also why 4-cycle outboards have taken over the market as their technology got into place.
 
Last edited:
The pollution issue with two-strokes is not oil, it is HC because when the piston is down both ports are open and much fuel blows through the engine unburned.

The regulations the EPA makes are public. There isn't a secret "do this because otherwise we'll ban you" negotiation, it is simply "do this."

A specification to use less oil is attractive to most owners since oil costs them money. Lower cost of operation is also why 4-cycle outboards have taken over the market as their technology got into place.
If you go into parts of Asia(more so Southeast and South Asia) where 2-strokes are still popular, they still have a problem with air pollution despite cleaner JASO FC/FD oils. Japanese clone scooters and 2-stroke engines are predominant there. Granted, new 2-stroke OPE does run much cleaner, you can still smell unburned fuel in the exhaust.

While Piaggio can still make a two-stroke Vespa, four strokes are more user-friendly. Honda’s Super Cub, off imitated in Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam by Chinese and Korean companies has been 4-stroke from the start.
 
I Purchased my 2013 Kia Optima in 2019 with 18,000 original miles. I was aware that GDI could cause cylinder wall washing issues, so I’ve been using Walmart TCW-3 2-stroke oil in the fuel tank since pretty much day one. I refill the little 2.8-3.0 ounce “one shot” 2-stroke bottles and keep them in my trunk. I add one each time I fill up, which is typically 12-15 gallons.

The engine now has 220,000+ miles on it…
And it does not consume more than .5 quart of oil per 5000 mile oil change interval. Yes, 5K between oil changes.
I generally don’t run any premium synthetic oils… I only use motor oil that I have purchased on clearance. . . Including some CF-2 SAE 30 oil that was on clearance (designed for Detroit Diesel two strokes).

I’m a believer.
I know my story is anecdotal,
but I have no real good reason to believe the engine would have lasted this long - - if I had never added any 2-stroke oil to the fuel.
 
I Purchased my 2013 Kia Optima in 2019 with 18,000 original miles. I was aware that GDI could cause cylinder wall washing issues, so I’ve been using Walmart TCW-3 2-stroke oil in the fuel tank since pretty much day one. I refill the little 2.8-3.0 ounce “one shot” 2-stroke bottles and keep them in my trunk. I add one each time I fill up, which is typically 12-15 gallons.

The engine now has 220,000+ miles on it…
And it does not consume more than .5 quart of oil per 5000 mile oil change interval. Yes, 5K between oil changes.
I generally don’t run any premium synthetic oils… I only use motor oil that I have purchased on clearance. . . Including some CF-2 SAE 30 oil that was on clearance (designed for Detroit Diesel two strokes).

I’m a believer.
I know my story is anecdotal,
but I have no real good reason to believe the engine would have lasted this long - - if I had never added any 2-stroke oil to the fuel.
I believe a little 2-stroke oil in the gas won't hurt. But what did it do to your Catalytic Converter? Ever had it emissions tested?
 
Well sure. But so has thin oil, along with extended OCI's. We're told that came from well educated laboratory lubrication engineers in white coats, who know what they're doing.

So what? If it weren't for CAFE, (i.e. government), they would have no one pushing them to do so. By basically bribing them with financial $$credits$$, that amount to millions.

Can anyone here prove the EPA isn't doing much the same thing with the lawn and garden industry? Or else flat out forcing them, by banning their products if they don't. Look at personal watercraft and outboard motors.

They used to be all 2-stroke. Now they're going to 4-stroke because the DNR, (and / or other government entities), in many states has flat out banned both on many lakes and waterways.

When is the last time you saw a 2-stroke street bike? They didn't go away because customers didn't like them. Or manufacturers no longer wanted to make them.

The government forcing emissions control is obviously the reason why. It's much the same with all of this idiotic, Start / Stop "technology" they're now putting on new vehicles being sold.

That was also designed by smart, educated engineers who know better as well. But is anyone going to tell me the automakers took it upon themselves to do this, without any government, (CAFE), interference, or credit bribery?

The government FORCES the manufacturers by offering these same financial incentives, to employ a Start / Stop system that can not be turned off permanently by the vehicle's owner. Everyone I know who has that "feature" on their vehicle, hates it.

It sure as hell wasn't created and installed because of customer demand. I can tell you that. CAFE is all pretty much based on a financial "reward" system.

If the manufacturers meet the goals / guidelines, they get big financial bonuses. If they don't, it ends up costing them millions. And there is no better way to corrupt an industry, and get them to do what you want, than with money / bribery.

Be it thin oil, extended OCI's, Start / Stop, or super lean 2-stroke mixes. It all comes out of the same rotten barrel. And that's a fact, not some wild, "conspiracy theory".

"The Environmental Protection Agency offers incentives to manufacturers who force their auto stop/start systems to switch back on.

I read an article somewhere recently that talked about 2 vs 4 stroke dirt bikes in the ama pro arena cross races. Apparently up until about 1996 or so 2 strokes dominated the races. A number of manufacturers were experimenting with 4 strokes and eventually I think Honda but not sure came up with a 4 stroke bike that could beat the 2 stroke bikes. Supposedly they're all 4 strokes now. A study that has been going on in Colorado for years concluded that roughly 8 percent of the air pollution emissions comes from outdoor power equipment.
 
I read an article somewhere recently that talked about 2 vs 4 stroke dirt bikes in the ama pro arena cross races. Apparently up until about 1996 or so 2 strokes dominated the races. A number of manufacturers were experimenting with 4 strokes and eventually I think Honda but not sure came up with a 4 stroke bike that could beat the 2 stroke bikes. Supposedly they're all 4 strokes now. A study that has been going on in Colorado for years concluded that roughly 8 percent of the air pollution emissions comes from outdoor power equipment.
I read that a small to medium sized 2-stroke chain saw burning a single tank of gas / oil mix, produced more hydrocarbons and emissions, than a modern 4 cylinder vehicle driving coast to coast.
 
I read that a small to medium sized 2-stroke chain saw burning a single tank of gas / oil mix, produced more hydrocarbons and emissions, than a modern 4 cylinder vehicle driving coast to coast.
To be honest……

A few unburned hydrocarbons really don’t damage the environment much at all

But all the unnecessary emissions controls on modern vehicles add tons and tons and TONS of extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere,
just to chase down a few hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen emissions………

I wish the EPA would dictate to auto makers to shoot for “maximum MPG (fuel economy)
……
NOT “lowest emissions”
 
I believe a little 2-stroke oil in the gas won't hurt. But what did it do to your Catalytic Converter? Ever had it emissions tested?

It is not required in my county.
The exhaust “smells normal” for a vehicle that has a “Normally functioning” catalytic converter

Another anecdotal observation…
It still has the original oxygen sensor!

If there was any fouling occurring in the exhaust system, I would honestly predict that the oxygen sensor would fail - - long before the catalytic converter does.
 
To be honest……

A few unburned hydrocarbons really don’t damage the environment much at all

But all the unnecessary emissions controls on modern vehicles add tons and tons and TONS of extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere,
just to chase down a few hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen emissions………

I wish the EPA would dictate to auto makers to shoot for “maximum MPG (fuel economy)
……
NOT “lowest emissions”
I agree. Lower fuel consumption translates to lower emissions in anyone's language.
 
Back
Top