Triumph Speed Triple Forums banner

Ultimate Oil thread

15K views 125 replies 37 participants last post by  Canon 
Good site, but like all things, don't take it all as gospel.

"It's simply not the case that synthetic oils are more "slippery" than conventional oils."

This can be proven otherwise.

The many Falex tests are good indicators of how slippery an oil is, how well it protects, and at what pressure it breaks down.
 
I am no petrochemical engineer, but this is the best of my understanding.

Synthetics (today) are more stable at higher temps and can be better produced to protect against the forces in an engine. But 'Synthetics' is a broad term - as is the the term 'Mineral'.

There are 3 base types of synthetic stocks - PAO, Di-ester, and polyester. Mineral oils us a mineral base, synthetic blends use a mineral base as well. They all differ in the additive packages used in the base.

The best indicator of wear and protection I know of, is the Falex 'pin and block' test and the '4 ball wear' tests. You can generally find these results on the web for many oils.

For me, there are two basic ways to determine if one oil is more 'slippery' than another.
1- Dyno testing and track testing. An oil that is more slippery should produce more power and improve times on the track due to the reduced friction robbing less power from the engine and drivetrain.
2- Coast down testing. On a flat piece of road or track, an oil that is more slippery will allow a vehicle to coast farther when compression braking or when the clutch is held in.

I use an a very accurate accelerometer for both tests.

I regularly see results for synthetic oils that indicate that the better ones are significantly more slippery than mineral oils, that they protect better, and last longer.

One side note, synthetic additive packages tend to use very large molecular chains. There are some aftermarket oil filters that filter too well, and can remove the additives from the oils - not a good thing.
 
As far as I know, yes on all counts.

But there are still a few PAO based synthetics on the market - Mobile 1 only changed to a di-ester a few years ago. It really isn't the base that determines any oil, but the additive package that is used.
 
BillT said:
As long as we're getting technical, the only drawback I've read in PAO (Polyalphaolefins)-based oil is the resistance to mix with some additives. Companies like Exxon-Mobil have developed synthetics using both PAO and di-ester bases to develop a synthetic that combines the best of both types - extended drain-down characteristics of PAO and mixability of esters. ;D
Very true.
On additive packages for many oils, the cost to produce some additives keeps them from being used in many mass produced oils. For this reason, some smaller oil companies are able to bring oils to market with superior properties than other oils.

Perhaps some with more in depth knowledge can post up here. My information is based on talks with a few petrochemical engineers and my experiences - and by no means should be considered comprehensive.
 
Doc,
There are a few others that use pure synthetics.
the Amsoil AMF oil is a great oil, I have seen some very good results with it. I prefer another pure synthetic that I have mentioned several times.

What are you paying for the AMF?
 
Have you ever tested Royal Purple after 1000 miles?

It is slick stuff when new, but doesn't hold up IMHO.

You can try it in the bike. But I would suggest sending a sample out for analysis at your first oil change.
 
AA said:
Question ; in Oz motul sells [5100 4T 15w 50] or [7100 4T 15w 50]

They claim the 5100 is semi synth and the 7100 is full synth.

I am running the 7100 but looking at changing to the 5100.

My only complaint is clunky gear changes especially down shifts if I don't blip the throttle and neutral to 1st at traffic lights.
Still I've only got 5000km so it might smooth out.

AA
So what IS the question?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top