I don't think anyone can answer this question for you, and think any high-quality synthetic will lower your engine temperature. In 1998 I and two friends were planning a trip to Sturgis from Louisiana, and the last leg of the trip was a long ride across Texas. That year temperatures in August were going well above 100° amidst a serious drought. I called Royal Purple, the brand I used at the time and still do, and talked to their main guru. He suggested mixing the 20w50 with RP Nitro 50 (2:2), which he said would increase lubricity 200% and would lower engine temps even more than the 20w50 alone. I filled the crankcase before the trip and used this mix 'til I sold the bike with 106k on it. BTW, I never removed the heads on that bike and it ran like new up to trade-in time.

At that time there were no oil-temp gauges available for FLH's, as the HD dipstick gauge was introduced shortly thereafter in 1999, I believe. Thus, I didn't determine the temperatures the oil was running on that trip, but that day at 6pm a bank sign in a small town in Texas said it was 107°. We almost died and had to stop every 50 miles just to cool off and rehydrate, but the bikes made it through the ordeal without problems.

I'm not suggesting this mix is for everyone, but I've just started using it in my '07 SG after a 5k break-in. I generally keep my bikes for the long haul and ride them, so I want to use the best lubricants. The Nitro 50 is $200 for a 5-gal. pail wholesale, and is not available by the quart, higher obviously on the retail level. I buy a pail and share it with a friend, and at this time am mixing 3:1 (20w50:Nitro 50). I made 200-mile trip yesterday in 86° weather, and my oil stayed at 180-190° as long as I was moving, up to as high as 210° in traffic, and I have my cruise range A/F set lean for mileage. In the past, with break-in oil, I saw it go up to 220° with much cooler ambient temps, so I'm confident this mix is working as I expected. If you want more info on this, call Royal Purple and ask for Jodie Williams. He is the brain behind RP's formulations and will gladly talk to you about it.

If I were you I would buy an '07-model oil cooler, if you haven't already. I've also thought about a second cooler, a Jagg mounted on the downtubes, which would be a simple job connecting it in series to the existing cooler, allowing the thermostat to work as usual. I may still do that, but yesterday I mounted an 80mm computer fan to the front of my HD cooler, and will do a temporary electrical connection to test it today. I want to see if it will make a difference in controlling temps in traffic. If it does, and after I'm finished with the fabrication, I'll post my experiences here. I have a feeling this fan will not tolerate water, but I haven't been able to find a 12v waterproof fan in that size. If I decide to use it, I will mo

 

This is a bit OT, but I did mention it in an earlier post about oil-cooler fans, so here is a follow-up. I attached an 80mm computer fan to the front of my cooler and rigged up a temporary switch. This fan is weak, pushing low CFM through the cooler, but it actually made a difference in traffic. When oil temps began climbing in traffic, at around 200° I switched on the fan, and the temp increased at a much slower rate than without.

Because of this preliminary test, I'm going to buy a higher-output fan (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16811999612) and mount it with wire-ties to the cooler, then connect it through a switch on the fairing insert, probably a second ACC switch. I'll post the results when finished, on a new thread with pix, of course.

 

iclick, I do not disagree with anything you've said...

As a high preist of the AMSOIL brotherhood[sm=hail.gif], I really am interested in seeing these truly independent tests. As hard and as much as I've looked for these tests, I have yet to find any.
Prior to getting involved with AMSOIL, I searched for credible data that would debunk the AMSOIL claims. Never found any. By credible, I mean a certified lab that is accountable for the results that are published. Yes, I mean like the tests commissioned by AMSOIL, and by all means let us see how molybdenum plays a role in these tests.

I've seen the circus side show four ball wear test, you know the one with the strong arm lever that the carnie hangs on to show how his/her oil has superior film strength. Not credible.

Please share these test results with the forum.

Steve[sm=icon_rock.gif]
The AMSOIL Guy

 

How about setting some ground rules first ?

Yes, AMSOIL does a lot of paying for lab tests

Can you get sued if your tests shows / names a “Brand named makers” oil coming in second or third if not true ? Yes

If you were Brand X synthetic oil maker and “independent tests” “paid for by Brand A” would you as Brand X prove they were wrong and doing your own testing or pay an “independent lab” ? Yes

Would you as an “independent lab” put your business, reputation on the line in doing fraudulent oil A/B tests ? logic states No

Would you as an owner of a “independent lab” do synthetic oil comparisons with out getting paid ? or would you as Brand X,Y and Z start doing your own tests or paying to prove AMSOIL is wrong and really comes in second or third ? Yes

As for molybdenum ……………..

Royal Purple Info

As you may know, RP is big in racing circles. The chemistry they use is something we choose not to use. One of our big selling points is extended drain intervals. Some additive chemicals can cause adverse conditions when used for long periods.

Royal Purple uses a different chemistry than most. They are one of only a handful of marketers using Moly in their oil. Moly is a solid, specifically banned by Cummins, due to excessive valve train wear.

Moly (Molybdenum Disulfide) is a processed mineral that is similar in appearance to graphite. Moly has good lubricating properties when used either by itself (in dry power form or as an additive to oil or other lubricants). Particles of the Moly can come out of suspension and agglomerate. This can actually clog oil filters or oil lines and the rest normally settles in the bottom of the oil pan. This seems to be more likely when using extended drain intervals.

[b]The only test we ran on RP involved their 20W50 Racing oil versus our AMSOIL Series 2000 Synthetic 20W50 Racing Oil (TRO). We ran two 4 ball wear tests with different parameters, a spectrographic baseline, FTIR scan and volatility tests. The Royal Purple showed a signi

 

Good to hear from you again, Steve.

Independent tests on any oil are few and far between, as you know. The two I consider credible are those from Motorcycle Consumer News and American Iron. These were conducted several years ago, and after several magazine purging cycles I no longer have either of them. Those are two tests I should've kept! Maybe a Google search will reveal something, and if so I'll pass it along. The last MCN test was weakened by the fact that several samples were lost en route to the lab, and they had no backups. That left a big gap in the conclusions, but what was there was interesting, as I recall.

I recall that a winner wasn't abundantly clear either way, unlike the Amsoil-sponsored test, and their conclusions were that any high-quality synthetic would serve well in a motorcycle, even those not marketed as motorcycle-specific. I do remember one important finding on both tests, that Mobil1 15w50 scored as high as the 20w50 VT, and is also about half the cost. Both also mentioned the importance of moly disulfide as an additive, and stated in no uncertain terms that the oil selected should contain moly. Most don't have it, and I recall that M1 and RP did have it, but I'm not sure about the others. My own lab tests on my RK and car shows ~100ppm moly for both the 20w50 and 15w40, which is quite high. RP claims their proprietary and highly secret Synerlec additive places their oil above all others, but with no other info I can't testify to that. Racers do seem to prefer RP because it increases performance and reportedly reduces tear-downs (overhauls). I suspect Synerlec is similar to one or more of the anti-friction oil additives on the market a decade or more ago, each presenting impressive wear-ball tests. Although impressed, I never used them because I don't like the idea of adding chemicals to oil which may combine adversely in some way with the oil's inherent chemistry.

The wear-ball tests I personally witnessed were not graphic in the sense there were no printed results and no numerical calculations made. A wear-ball tester was used (don't ask the spec, as I don't recall), and a flow of oil applied to the surfaces. Weight was added one step at a time, and in this test the RP sample took about twice the weight of the other samples, then continued to spin the mechanism for minutes after the oil flow was removed. No other oil tested (Amsoil, Mobil 1, Redline, etc.) even came close. I would like to do this again, and keep hoping someone will take me up on this offer. Who knows, the results could be different this time. I use RP for no other reason than I think it is a top-drawer product and I get it from a distributor at dealer cost, who delivers it to my door. I will never state that it is the best oil available for every HD rider and every scenario, as I really feel that perhaps some oils may perform better

 

CJ, I asked for independent tests, not an Amsoil statement, which predictably would not be kind to any competitor.

I think none of the big players care much about these Amsoil tests because Amsoil isn't a major threat to their sales. Most of the oils discussed here, except Mobil1, are what I like to call "boutique" oils, made for a more discerning customer looking for something a little better than run-of-the-mill. By introducing these to the innocent public, there grows the inevitable rise of religious fervor where all contain a coterie of cheerleaders who think their product is the best. So be it. When I mention oils, I don't spell them with ALL CAPS like I was talking about a deity.

The fact is that I've seen no truly independent tests except those I've mentioned that were conducted by the two MC magazines. I've seen the Amsoil tests, and RP has tests you can ask for that show their product superior, but although I find them interesting they will never be something I would solely base an oil-buying decision on. Not everybody feels this way, obviously, and so it goes.

If moly causes "excessive valvetrain wear," why did my '96 RK go 106k miles (now at 109k) with no indication of wear? Compression was 158/158 when I sold it, no lower than any time in the past nine years. Valve wear translates into a decrease in compression and/or oil consumption, and it didn't happen with this bike in either case. Why not? That statement is the most ridiculous I've heard in recent years about any product. I've forwarded this statement to RP for a rebuttal, and will post it when received.

Keep in mind that nowhere have I ever suggested that anyone use RP oil, and I've never said Amsoil was any other than an excellent product. What I object to is elevating a product to a religious level, with a fervor that espouses its superiority over all others. The evidence? A test commissioned and paid for by Amsoil. Not good enough for some of us, although many will bite. If they do they can't go wrong, really, except they can probably find an equivalent product that costs less and is available in many more places than Amsoil. I use it because I feel it is among the best, and I get it delivered to my door at dealer cost.

 

I love these discussions, and I love the tests. Even if one oil comes out on top, the next day another one would. There are so many equasions and factors I don't think you can get an acurate readings over a peroid of time.

when I started looking into synthetic oil for my cars and trucks I found this page:

http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/s.../oil-life.html

They studied Mobil 1 and Amsoil, but didn't complete the Amsoil test, if I remember correctly the person who was driving the car with the test oil in it got another job and didn't get to complete the test because he couldn't get the required miles in the test time limit. Remember, these are cars, not bikes, but it did help me to take a better look at synthetic oils.

Quote from the page:
Past Results
To date we have completed our tests of Mobil 1 and Amsoil. Mobil 1 held on for 18,000 miles, and didn't need its first oil filter until 12,000 miles. For all the details, visit our Mobil 1 Test resultspage. http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1.html

Amsoil was time-limited to 14,000 miles (its year ran out), but it made it the whole way without a replacement filter. It's not a total success story, though, as it had some trouble with its viscosity. To read all about it, visit our Amsoil test results page. http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/amsoil.html

 

Amsoil, Mobil1Vtwin, Redline all have moly. SYn3 has none. Redline has the highest content. However, moly alone is not the most important additive depending on what the recipe of additives are in combination.

 

Scott,
Thanks for sharing this test with us. Pretty amazing the amount of trouble these guys went to to do these tests. I think the most important finding here is that PAO synthetics are some pretty awsome lubricants, particularly Mobil 1 and AMSOIL or AMSOIL and Mobil 1.
I also like the idea of the real world testing. Bench and lab tests are great and needed, however nothing like putting the oil to the fire in a real engine on real pavement. In the end,two great oils, bothwiththere own strengths.

Steve[sm=icon_rock.gif]
The AMSOIL Guy

 

That's right Steve, Real World stuff... This test is why I run Mobil 1 in the wife's van, but now that I can get Amsoil locally (I keep forgetting) I'll probably change next time around..