Follower scar oil tests (2018)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fast Eddie said:
I’d missed your comment on this Cab!

Great minds think alike eh?

Well, I’ve sent some to Jim, so we’ll see if those test we were impressed by were real after all!
Click to expand...

Incidentally, I don't think adding this to a decent oil would be a good test. I think it would be better to add it to a poor performer.
 
Dommie Nator said:
Incidentally, I don't think adding this to a decent oil would be a good test. I think it would be better to add it to a poor performer.
Click to expand...

I think both...

Adding to a cheap oil might help people to find a low cost, easy to access, perfectly adequate oil ‘recipe’.

Adding it to the best oils might help those looking for the very best possible oil ‘recipe’.

Both are perfectly valid. Personally, I’m in the second group.
 
Jungle_re said:
Hi Andy, where did you get the ppm figure from.

Geddon bey
Will
Click to expand...
Hi there Will
It's a bit 'buried' but follow this link https://www.duckhams.com/zddp-what-does-it-all-mean/ and look down the article to the 3rd paragraph before the chemical formula. This refers to 0.12% (i.e. 1200ppm) maximum ZDDP for API SH implying that this is around the 'optimum' level in Duckhams. The product spec is here https://www.duckhams.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/PDS-20W-50.pdf. I don't know why they don't spell out the ZDDP level more clearly. It could be a selling point. Using the term 'maximum' is also not helpful although correct in the context of the API standard.
I contacted Duckhams to confirm what this means precisely, e.g. mean and range or other statistical measure.
I'll post their reply when I get it.
Yoom a proper bey then. See you dreckly.
Andy
 
Fast Eddie said:
I think both...

Adding to a cheap oil might help people to find a low cost, easy to access, perfectly adequate oil ‘recipe’.

Adding it to the best oils might help those looking for the very best possible oil ‘recipe’.

Both are perfectly valid. Personally, I’m in the second group.
Click to expand...
I was thinking if it was added to a poor performance oil a truer test of the additive would be measured. If it was suddenly to perform better we would then know why. I still wouldn't use this oil myself but may add it to a decent one.
We shall see.
 
p
DevonNorton said:
Hi there Will
It's a bit 'buried' but follow this link https://www.duckhams.com/zddp-what-does-it-all-mean/ and look down the article to the 3rd paragraph before the chemical formula. This refers to 0.12% (i.e. 1200ppm) maximum ZDDP for API SH implying that this is around the 'optimum' level in Duckhams. The product spec is here https://www.duckhams.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/PDS-20W-50.pdf. I don't know why they don't spell out the ZDDP level more clearly. It could be a selling point. Using the term 'maximum' is also not helpful although correct in the context of the API standard.
I contacted Duckhams to confirm what this means precisely, e.g. mean and range or other statistical measure.
I'll post their reply when I get it.
Yoom a proper bey then. See you dreckly.
Andy
Click to expand...

spot on, cheers i had missed this before when reading there website. I have a can ready to change out the oil, if it ends up being crap on the testing criteria ill just swap it out a little earlier.

Not to far outside plymouth on the yealm, you?
 
Jungle_re said:
p


spot on, cheers i had missed this before when reading there website. I have a can ready to change out the oil, if it ends up being crap on the testing criteria ill just swap it out a little earlier.

Not to far outside plymouth on the yealm, you?
Click to expand...
Teign Valley
 
Redline synthetic shows 119 lbs film strength, the lowest on the current list, but it gets an OK .
If 150 is minimum recommended then should Redline and the other sub 150 lb oils be listed as " not suitable"?
Or maybe we just need to wait until all the restesting is done, it might go higher.

Glen
 
Brooking 850 said:
Hi Jim , curious to know if that Driven HD 50 would fare better under the revised test method or are you happy with the original test result?
Ive just been out for a spirited ride on our back road hilly twisties over 250 km and ran the temp gauge over all spots on the hot motor once I got back as the motor has had a freshen up with rings and big ends and given the head a Vv's a touch up as well.
Crank case bottom RHS was 68* C and oil in tank was 70* C Head temp was 115* C at the spindle covers.
I am using that Torco MPZ TR1 10W40

Regards Mike
Click to expand...

I will be re-tesing the Driven oil. Probably today.

A Ir thermometer is not going to get your engine temps correctly without a spot of emissivity paint.

The Torco is a good low friction oil.
 
worntorn said:
Redline synthetic shows 119 lbs film strength, the lowest on the current list, but it gets an OK .
If 150 is minimum recommended then should Redline and the other sub 150 lb oils be listed as " not suitable"?
Or maybe we just need to wait until all the restesting is done, it might go higher.

Glen
Click to expand...

I would make 150 as a minimum for a performance motor or one that is used hard.
I think the Red Line oil would be about the bare minimum for a stock engine with easy use. Probably good oil in a roller follower engine. It is low friction.

And I have tested it several times. It was hard to believe the load capacity with a name like Red Line. It obviously does not like my tester.

The "recommended for Norton" column is going away.

Personally I would not use anything with less load capacity than the Mobil 1 v-twin. Even my stock bike gets used hard.
 
Last edited:
Worried of Normandy......

I would rather wait and see all of the results completed to Jim's own satisfaction. That may mean re running some at various times.

But it won't be helpful if we move the goal posts regularly.

My main concern is that an oil that has scored well and is available in my geographic location is identified.

So far there is a reason for discounting all the oils I can buy for my race use.
 
Which of your tests were faulty with bad data and which ones are good? Its confusing when you say that VR1 is looking much better than it did on your earlier tests. Can you go back and edit out the bad tests (or at least mark them as bad) and leave the good ones so readers know what to disregard? (forum moderators might allow for this). No one wants to buy oil and then and find out they were misinformed.
 
After some though,

I do trust the tests I am doing as being a fair comparison of the oils for use in an air cooled, flat tappet engine.

But I do not trust my knowledge of what the minimum requirements are for a Norton.

So I am going to remove the "recommended for Norton" column all together.

The only oils that I am going to say I would recommend are the oils I have had good personal experiences with. I will note that in the comments section.

There are simply too many variables to try to say what oil is going to be the minimum required for any engine.

You can compare the results of the oils I have experience with and likely be safe in choosing an oil with equal to, or better results than I got from the known oils. Jim

PS, If you are choosing an oil for an OHC engine or a water cooled engine, you can certainly be safe with an oil with less follower pressure capacity than you can with an air cooled pushrod motor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And yes the Driven oil was highly affected by the process controller problem.

__________________________________________________________
Driven_HD50_15W50_Motorcycle_synthetic
Follower scar oil tests (2018)

224 lbs Load
4.48 heat from high pressure shear
4.74 heat from friction
Medium/high friction and heat
Safe for wet clutch
 
Last edited:
All of the bad graphs were removed when I discovered the problem.

Any results that are presently posted along with a log graph have been made after the problem was resolved.

_________________________________________________________________
And to tell you why I am testing with a difficult to set up automatic system.

I presently have 51 oils here in line to test. With each test taking an average of 1 hour plus the cleaning and setup time, that is more than I could possibly spend babysitting the tester to step it through its stages.
And more oils come every day.

The process controller is a PLC [programmable logic controller] It is a very capable system built by Yokogawa. I have three of them in my shop controlling various processes. The programming manual is a 1-1/2 inch thick book. Getting it all programmed correctly is a daunting process, especially when you realize the manual is converted to English from Japanese. Every time I program one I learn something new...
 
Last edited:
Jim - I see that the comparison page, Royal Purple XPR numbers show 0.00 lbs on the summary table, and no friction numbers. Is this a bug or are you planning on updating?
 
gortnipper said:
Jim - I see that the comparison page, Royal Purple XPR numbers show 0.00 lbs on the summary table, and no friction numbers. Is this a bug or are you planning on updating?
Click to expand...

I don't presently have the ability to edit the summary table, but I am sure it will get fixed when Jerry gets time.

The most up to date info will be posted on this thread. Jim
 
The oil I sent you will be there tommorow, and I'll send you another donation because:
1) you are completely out of your mind
2) I respect that thoroughly...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top