What is a good oil to run in a Harley Twin Cam 88

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't claim to be an expert, I only share my own observations, based on the wealth of UOA's we have here at BITOG. I do believe that petroleum oils have closed the gap on synthetics. I don't really believe there is much difference in performance between the group IV and V and group II+ and III oils anymore. Castrol and now Mobil now call group III oils "synthetics." The distinction is really blurry...

Terry, I appreciate your not getting as aggravated with me as you do have a right to (based on the tone of my previous post)...

But let me ask you this: How much real world difference can one expect to see in engine longevity (we'll stick with the v-twin Harley Davidson engine to stay on topic) between the best synthetic oil on the market, and say, Havoline 20W50 petroleum oil. I realize that this will only be an educated guess on your part, but you're more qualified than any of us to posit such a guess.

Would the synthetic protected engine last 10 percent longer? Or 20 percent? Just hazard a guess, because I'm genuinely curious as to your opinion on this.

Dan
 
Terry,
I am not trying to question your personal knowledge of lubricants. I'm eager to learn whatever I can from others. I never intended to present myself to be an expert in the field of lubricants (but you don't have to be to sell lubricants, you just hand out to potential buyers all these inconclusive tests which they are not qualified to interpret and hope they are bamboozled by them enough to buy your product
grin.gif
). I'm primarily extrapolating the logic which is prevalent among the synthetic oil marketers in relation to UOAs. They use the UOA data when it suits their marketing purposes for extended drain intervals; but when it goes against their promotionals they say the results are inconclusive. They push their wares with salesman who often have a knowledge of lubricants that is limited to their sales papers. This is not directed at you personally, but against the logic which is often seen here on this board.

Let me use another example:
Amsoil (using them since I was a former saleman for them) references the 4 ball wear test results. This is certainly a simulated test and not an actual test in an internal combustion engine. So basically I can say that if 6 or 8 balls were used (instead of 4) the results might be different. Or unless those exact pressures and metals were duplicated in an engine environment, the test shows nothing of value. So in reality the 4-ball wear test is only an indicator of how well Amsoil does with 4 balls of a certain metallurgy under certain pressures for x amount of time. On the basis of this logic I could call every method of testing inconclusive which they promote. Yet to be honest I would have to admit that it might be a very good indicator that Amsoil has a strong film strength under high presssure whether that level of film strength is a measurable improvement in an engine or not.
Again to all Amsoil dealers i am not disputing the quality of Amsoil's product, as I still use some of them, but rather that the logic they use in their promotionals about their product is applied inconsistently in order to sell it. The same could probably be said for most other lubricant salesmen as well. The idea here was to challenge the basis upon which synthetics can be demonstrated as significantly superior to the "current" dinos (years ago syns were markedly better) in normal applications.

The same holds true of the UOAs. Yes they cannot be extrapolated into broad-brush categorical statements; but most any thinking man can gain a general understanding that a high iron number is not good for an engine and a low iron number is usually a good sign that wear is low. That is not very hard to figure out. So when syns cannot turn in signficantly better iron numbers in the same application, most thinking people would ask the question, how it can be proven that synthetics are superior for that application? This is just basic deductive reasoning without any need for a tribological degree.

Looking at those numbers and trying to determine the whys of those number...well that is where we defer to people such as yourself.

Let me ask you straight out on the other side of the coin, is there any conclusive evidence from your tribological data that you could share openly which can conclusively demonstrate that synthetics offer significantly more protection in a 5k OCI over a good dino in a normal application (naturally aspirated, fairly well-designed engine, moderate climate, normal mix of driving, i.e. the average American driver)?
 
T-Stick, I think I know what you are saying; Every test is perfectly designed to show to every respective observer exactly what the observer reports the test to show. This certainly has no inherent special relationship to the "TRUTH", since every observer might interpret the findings differently, and the test may not be of a fashion that sufficiently limits variables, and/or the test may not even be remotely related to anything else. Uh, what was the question again? I was distracted because I dropped my badger. (If you are interested in the dropped badger, visit G-Man's Triumph Rocket thread in this Motorcycle section.)
 
SLM, are you serious? I have been providing free,accurate and informative oil analysis data,info, insight ( not just spectro aspect testing) for years at NORIA,BITOG, etc. for free. For everytime someone questioned what and why I was sharing something they eventually come around and realize I was telling the truth. I have mentioned products ( that I am not restricted in doing so) by name and described as best I could why I recommend them.

My primary customers are those who pay very well for our services not the enthusiast or "consumer" level $50 per charge. If you made $50 for a hour of tribological work for customer A but could make $250 in analysis for customer B who would YOU cater to?

T-Stick and Dan, its not about feelings,guesses or hiding anything, I am not offended, I am just tired of posting good solid data that is not understood or worse, miss interpreted.

I continue to share what I can thus far because I care about more informed folk. I am rapidly wearing out with the consumer level work online. It just is not worth the time, effort, and risk to the proprietary well paying consult.

Dan, to answer you question I would use a formula similar to SF20w50 you can see here or a RLI formula ( viscosity appropriate to the engine design, as thin as you can use) in my HD Vtwin for better lubricity,higher viscosity index, resistance to fuels and aromatics damage, better oxidation control, more EFFECTIVE TBN retention over total drain, better heat transfer/even dissipation,improved ring seal by molecular stability because of BOTH highly branched AND highly saturated carbon chains, inherent cleaning capability that only Veg based oils/esters can provide, shear stable viscometrics so the oil you purchased is what the engine sees over the term of use. To name a few. For instance the VI of a HOBS/PAO blend will be nearly 200, when a mineral base oil might be 130 at best. Most in 100 range in ISO 46 fluids. This before additization.

Most of my HD customers run 10w40 range viscos with GRP III/XHVI/GRPIV/GRPV bases because they work better. They are n't at walmart and $2 a qt though. Which wear and cleanliness would you prefer the SF20w50 HD result or the others you see? Now I have customers that CHOOSE a certain mineral based brand like say the Rotella T crowd and if we need longer drains we can use Auto-RX or LC to extend life and lubricity but use analysis to guide.

If proprietary marketing wasn't driving the obscuration of what we are really testing in lubricants YOU all would have the apples to apples testing data you want. Won't happen anytime soon because market is not demanding it. I do think that BITOG and others have raised the awareness level of BOTH the consumer and marketers quite a lot in the past nearly 10 years and I hope I helped with that.

T-Stick Amsoil has tried to separate themselves from the pack for marketing advantage and survival early on. I feel the same way you do about the marketing plan, they market to their dealers not the customer, in fact the customer really is the dealer network. Bless the Amsoil Dealers because most are honest folk who like the product but most are underpaid for the amount of effort they place into the program. When we stopped our Fleet Diesel ( mostly) maintenance business years ago I stopped selling Amsoil and turned over our customer base to my little Brother who sells Amsoil nominally now. This board has the best Amsoil Dealers I have ever met, and I mean that. They really care but they still sell Amsoil.

TITAN - Thats marketing and selling. You put a ribbon on a pig and focus the customer of the ribbon, not the stinky porker wearing it! Statistics can lie and liars using statistics is true. Reality is,the more light we shed on all products the better informed you are. Web discussion boards by design allow too many people with too little knowledge about lubes post their ideas and the result without professional guidance is that you confuse.

For those that believe you can know and do all, next time you take a airline flight tell the Captain you took 50 hours of flying lessons and that you want to land and takeoff yourself. Let me know how that works for ya!

Terry
 
Dan, if you use a product like I describe above vs a conventional lubricant cleanliness and wear control would be at least 50% better if not doubled. Meaning the frame will fall apart before the oiled components seeing the BIOSYN oils would.

NOW if you change anything or have a defective part etc then we just ruined that benefit.

I prefer to use optimized fluids because I see this stuff all day and can't stand the idea of using second best if I can afford and access #1.

SURE! Off the shelf oils marketed as "syns" aren't always the best lubricant.

YES! And I have stated this many times hydrocracking/highly refined mineral oils closed the gap between what a SYN was 20 years ago to what many SYN are today.

We haven't even scratched the surface on additive chemistries that are used in all bases. Schaeffers and LE for years proved that their lubes could control wear as well as many off the shelf syns,just not as long because oxidation and thermal stability were not as good.

Terry
 
T-Stick, yes, take a look at the BIOSYN product wear control values for the Audi RS4 program we are working currently.

Wear control was incredibly better using the BIOSYN over the required and approved "synthetic" Audi 502 oils. Same vis. 5w40.

That is a base oil difference AND add pack difference. Even Motul was skunked using our cooperative effort with RLI because fuels and high RPM were killing the oil in 5000 miles or less.

I tested GRP II + base oils formulas and they provided excellent wear control but could not hold up to the fuel and resulting deposits formation WITHOUT adding LC or RX to "trick" them.
 
Quote:


SLM, are you serious? I have been providing free,accurate and informative oil analysis data,info, insight ( not just spectro aspect testing) for years at NORIA,BITOG, etc. for free. For everytime someone questioned what and why I was sharing something they eventually come around and realize I was telling the truth. I have mentioned products ( that I am not restricted in doing so) by name and described as best I could why I recommend them.

My primary customers are those who pay very well for our services not the enthusiast or "consumer" level $50 per charge. If you made $50 for a hour of tribological work for customer A but could make $250 in analysis for customer B who would YOU cater to?




I apologize if you think I was calling your services and advice into question. This was not my intent. I'm sure you provide excellent service and advice. If I was in your shoes I would be taking care of my customers as well.

However you made my point exactly in my last post. The day I pay for $250 for an oil analysis, that warm place will be freezing over. However your making money at it and thats impressive. If I ever pop for a UOA, I will analyze as best I can, and whether I learn something or not, I imagine my bikes and cars will be running fine, whatever the oil I use.
cheers.gif
 
"TITAN - Thats marketing and selling. You put a ribbon on a pig and focus the customer of the ribbon, not the stinky porker wearing it! Statistics can lie and liars using statistics is true. Reality is,the more light we shed on all products the better informed you are. Web discussion boards by design allow too many people with too little knowledge about lubes post their ideas and the result without professional guidance is that you confuse. "

Wow, that quote is too long to use as my signature line, so, I'll have to keep using my current one...which is another quote of yours that I love. I don't have your name after my signature line, only because it would make it too long. Thanks for all you do for "the cause".
 
Terry, I think it's very interesting that 10-40 is thick enough for an air-cooled engine. I keep trying to tell people that thinner is better, but, when people see a new 60 weight, they seem to want to move that direction from the 20-50, rather than move toward the 40 weights. My particular engine (2053 cc water-cooled V-twin) specs a 10-40, but, I found I have to add about half 20-50 to it in order to get the straight-cut transmission to operate smoothly enough. In this case, the shared-sump isn't an ideal set-up, in that what's best for this transmission isn't what's best for the engine. Harley's arrangement is better from that standpoint! Thanks again for participating in BITOG...if you didn't, I might come here for Pablo's honesty, UnDummy's knowledge of transmissions, perhap's G-Man's enthusiasm for his new motorcycle, and some good work on oil filters, but, much of the rest of it is, well, like any other internet forum...
twocents.gif
 
"Most of my HD customers run 10w40 range viscos with GRP III/XHVI/GRPIV/GRPV bases because they work better. They aren't at walmart and $2 a qt though."

Maybe herein lies the reason that Havoline 20W50 has turned in some of the best UOA's on HD engines posted here--because Havoline 20W50 shears to a 40 weight oil, probably fairly early in the OCI. And even the Valvoline VR1 UOA, where I used two quarts of 20W50 and one quart of straight 60 weight sheared to a 40 in about 2800 miles... but the wear metal count was awesome.
smile.gif


And this LC Harley UOA, which is awesome (and this oil is MOSTLY petroleum, correct me if I'm wrong)... http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...true#Post731163
this LC oil also sheared to a 40 weight! Is this the key here? Could the shear resistant 50's actually be a negative? Food for thought. I'll have to punch all of this into my psuedo-biologial computer and see what comes out.
tounge2.gif


I might get brave and do a run of Rotella 15W40 and see if it stays a 40 weight for 2500 miles or so. It could be that the 40 weight in Rotella would protect best right from the beginning, whereas the 20W50 has to shear to a 40 before it really begins to work well... yes... this looks like a ball to grab up and run with... and I'll be crossing that goal line by the end of this thread and ain't nobody gonna stop me... he's at the 40, the 30, the 20... a second or two more and I'll be dancin' in the endzone...
fruit.gif


Terry likes how we do this. NOT!
crackmeup.gif
But Terry, you inspired me, so you can't blame this all on me.
tongue.gif


Forty weight... forty weight... I'm learnin' I think... the best HD UOA's on the board here are on oils which sheared to forty weights... coincidence? Not if I'm understanding Terry correctly... forty weight...

Terry, thank you for your time here, you've been a gentleman.

I do think that the typical Blackstone twenty dollar UOA is better than no UOA at all (perhaps you'd agree, perhaps you'd not agree)... so I will continue to check my oil's condition every few thousand miles (every third drain or so) to make sure that wear metals are staying low.

One last question, Terry, if you have time to answer: If the wear metal counts in my Blackstone UOAs continue to stay in the low single digits for 2500 mile OCI's, is it fair to say that the engine is not wearing abnormally, and that the oil is (at least for that particular drain) doing a good job?

I hope the answer to that question is yes, because that's really as much as I have to go on...

Dan
 
Quote:


And this LC Harley UOA, which is awesome (and this oil is MOSTLY petroleum, correct me if I'm wrong)...




You are wrong. Why do you keep insisting that Molakule's SF 20w50 V-Twin oil is mostly petroleum. The SF 20w50 is a vegetable ester based oil just like RLI's oils. Did you not read the following that Terry wrote:

Quote:


Dan, to answer you question I would use a formula similar to SF20w50 you can see here or a RLI formula ( viscosity appropriate to the engine design, as thin as you can use) in my HD Vtwin for better lubricity,higher viscosity index, resistance to fuels and aromatics damage, better oxidation control, more EFFECTIVE TBN retention over total drain, better heat transfer/even dissipation,improved ring seal by molecular stability because of BOTH highly branched AND highly saturated carbon chains, inherent cleaning capability that only Veg based oils/esters can provide, shear stable viscometrics so the oil you purchased is what the engine sees over the term of use. To name a few. For instance the VI of a HOBS/PAO blend will be nearly 200, when a mineral base oil might be 130 at best. Most in 100 range in ISO 46 fluids. This before additization.


 
Then how did it shear to a 40 weight? I thought these oils were shear resistant.

Then Terry has said this: "Dan, SF 20w50 racing oil was more synthetic than ANY of the OTC lubes mentioned."

By "more synthetic" I thought it was being implied that this oil does have a significant petroleum base. If it was 100% syn, I think Terry would have said as much. Let's let him clarify that, if he will...

In any event, it sheared a grade, which is something we don't generally see esters do. Or am I wrong again?

Dan
 
Quote:


Then how did it shear to a 40 weight? I thought these oils were shear resistant.




Terry would have to explain that. Perhaps it's the effect of fuel dilution?

Quote:


Then Terry has said this: "Dan, SF 20w50 racing oil was more synthetic than ANY of the OTC lubes mentioned."

By "more synthetic" I thought it was being implied that this oil does have a significant petroleum base. If it was 100% syn, I think Terry would have said as much. Let's let him clarify that, if he will...




The operative word is "was" not "had"..."was more synthetic." If he'd sad "had more synthetic," then your observation would make more sense.
 
Amazing how my commentary is skewed out of context and don't grasp what I am sharing. Then you draw conclusions based on incorrect assumptions....give up your back yard formulating and oil analysis careers until you go back to school. You are drawing the wrong conclusions from incomplete understanding.

Reading carefully and posting less is a good start, Good luck.
 
Okay...

So how much petroleum was in the SF 20W50 formula? Why do you think it sheared? These aren't rhetorical questions, we really would like to know.

Terry, forgive me for suspecting that you are not sure. That's not an indictment of your professional integrity, just an observation based on what you've said (and not said) up to this point.

When a well meaning teacher realizes that he has been misunderstood, he seeks to clarify his point or points. Wouldn't it make more sense to do that, than to tell me (and perhaps others) to "go back to school?" I don't need any further education to realize that you're not being candid with us about what would seem a simple matter.

If you choose to bow out of this thread at this point, what option are you leaving us but to conclude that you really aren't certain as to the petroleum content of the subject oil?

Dan
 
I know you want answer from a pro, so maybe I should just keep quiet, but. In my experience with different oils and having them tested in certain applications, I find that if the oil was too thick to start for application it lost visc pretty quick. Regardless of formulation or whether there was fuel in oil or not. Dropping a grade always slowed the loss in viscosity. So from that viewpoint, right or wrong, it could have been the 20w50 in question may have too thick. Hopefully if there is flaw in my logic someone can point it out. This is one subjects that I find the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know.
 
Last edited:
Let me give you an example of what frustrates Terry: Look how much has been made over the SF oil shearing or losing viscosity in that application, but how many who want to make a big deal about this actually know what vis this oil started at? Maybe the oil sheared and maybe it didn't, but the point is without all the data you don't KNOW. You're just speculating and it's based on ignorance.
 
I can tell you fuel dilution on my UOA of SF 20w50 was higher than what Blackstone labs reported.
I am sure that played a big part of its dropping to a 40 weight.
Good thing I picked up another gallon before Phil closed shop.
I am hoping to hear that he will soon be offering his oils again.
Phil if you lurking out there. I sure would like to get a couple more gallons of this if you have some lying around.
wink.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top