Oil Temps?
#31
![Default](https://www.hdforums.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
ORIGINAL: BadPiggy
You guys have entirely too much time on your hands!
You guys have entirely too much time on your hands!
#33
![Default](https://www.hdforums.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
ORIGINAL: BadPiggy
You guys have entirely too much time on your hands!
You guys have entirely too much time on your hands!
It was about 300 in the shade yesterday but I still went for an all-day ride.
Which is another reason why I'm sitting at home today- trying to recover...
![Big Grin](https://www.hdforums.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#34
![Default](https://www.hdforums.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
[quote]ORIGINAL: iclick
Actually, it was a slow Saturday night for me. It's now a slow Sunday because it's too hot to ride. [sm=smiley13.gif]
I'm no engineer either, but what counts are real-world results. All the synthetic products we commonly mention here can handle far higher temps than we'll likely see in our HD engines, whether PAO or PE-based. I ran another brand, probably a PAO but I've never verified it, in my old RK for 106k miles before selling and saw no change in compression or oil consumption in the nine years I owned it. It also showed no sludge when a rocker cover was removed and inspected. It ran across TX in '98 in 107° weather without protest along with countless trips in weather nearly that hot. My point is that if the PAO is inferior to PE oils, when will this difference manifest itself? My contention is probably never in the context of normal ownership, or even double that mileage. In torture tests I've seen on oils where heat was a part of the tests, the differences between most synthetic oils regardless of base stock were not great.
I also contend that some formulas may be superior not because of base stock but additives. When you balance it out, who's to say who is superior to whom in any given category? The tests I've seen reflect this.
I'm sure you'll agree that finding solid evidence for these questions is difficult, and again the final formula is as important as the starting point, IMO. Who's to say that someday a properly formulated fossil oil won't surface that will out-perform the best synthetic. I've never seen it, but I don't think it is impossible with today's technology.
In an MCN oil test in Feb. 2003 (page 22) you'll see that Redline and Castrol Syntec had about the same "Heat Stability/Aging" score, both of which were high, and I don't believe Syntec is a PE-based oil. In fact, it is usually mentioned in the context of being a sub-par performer, which I doubt. In that test, Syntec out-performed Amsoil, which I think is a PE-based oil. In fact, the top 10 on the list showed only a few percentage-points difference between them.
What I like about Redline more than its base stock is the moly content. I'm a firm believer in using moly as an additive, and at least in 2003 Redline contained more than any other of the MCN samples, about 900ppm. It's so high I would think twi
ORIGINAL: Lost1
Must be a slow Sunday if we're arguing semantics...
Must be a slow Sunday if we're arguing semantics...
![Wink](https://www.hdforums.com/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif)
"A no-brainer for hot running air-cooled engines, IMO..."
Another truthful statement that In My Opinion, the selection of a Group V poly-ester-based lubricant in a hot running air-cooled engine is a "no-brainer," slang for an idea or solution that is arrived at easily, or a course of action that is simple and/or easy to do.
According to chemical engineers, poly-ester-based oils have a distinct advantage over PAO-based oils in a high-heat environment. (This is where the "IMO" came from.)
I formed my opinion that such oils would be an easy selection when choosing a lubricant for my air-cooled engine based on the scientific evidence presented by lubrication experts which, BTW, I am not.
Another truthful statement that In My Opinion, the selection of a Group V poly-ester-based lubricant in a hot running air-cooled engine is a "no-brainer," slang for an idea or solution that is arrived at easily, or a course of action that is simple and/or easy to do.
According to chemical engineers, poly-ester-based oils have a distinct advantage over PAO-based oils in a high-heat environment. (This is where the "IMO" came from.)
I formed my opinion that such oils would be an easy selection when choosing a lubricant for my air-cooled engine based on the scientific evidence presented by lubrication experts which, BTW, I am not.
I also contend that some formulas may be superior not because of base stock but additives. When you balance it out, who's to say who is superior to whom in any given category? The tests I've seen reflect this.
I agree that Redline is a top-rung product among other top-rung products. Any of the oils listed in this thread will easily take a H-D engine well into old age with little lubricant-based variation. But regardless of brand, to suggest that there there is no difference between a PAO-based oil and a poly-ester based oil in a hot environment is wrong- at least according to the engineering articles I've read over the years.
But no one is perfect, not even engineers. So if someone has evidence that this is incorrect, please post a link to it as I'd be interested in reading it.
But no one is perfect, not even engineers. So if someone has evidence that this is incorrect, please post a link to it as I'd be interested in reading it.
In an MCN oil test in Feb. 2003 (page 22) you'll see that Redline and Castrol Syntec had about the same "Heat Stability/Aging" score, both of which were high, and I don't believe Syntec is a PE-based oil. In fact, it is usually mentioned in the context of being a sub-par performer, which I doubt. In that test, Syntec out-performed Amsoil, which I think is a PE-based oil. In fact, the top 10 on the list showed only a few percentage-points difference between them.
What I like about Redline more than its base stock is the moly content. I'm a firm believer in using moly as an additive, and at least in 2003 Redline contained more than any other of the MCN samples, about 900ppm. It's so high I would think twi
#35
![Default](https://www.hdforums.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
ORIGINAL: Lost1
My point was that if one wants the best oil that can be had, as regards resistance to thermal breakdown, a PE oil (regardless of manufacturer) appears to be a better choice than a PAO oil according to current engineering information. Indeed, most of the synthetic oils spec'd for turbine engine lubrication are ester-based, mainly because they can maintain their lubricating qualities at continuous fluid operating temps of 450 deg or more. Again, I'm not a chemical engineer, but my experience includes having administered and monitored the Spectrometric Oil Analysis Program of a military fleet of 105 twin-turbine engine equipped helicopters for several years, and I can relay from experience that when the temps get really hot the differences in oil base stock, as well as additive packages, quickly become apparent. (I know we're not dealing with turbines here, but the heat vs. oil battle is the same regardless of venue.) And while I agree completely that today's Group IV and Group V-based oils are adequate in our air-cooled engines, we are also seeing the operating temps on these engines increasing with each passing year. Many people are seeing consistent sump temperatures of 260-280 degrees in their Harleys, which is fairly warm if their thermometers are to be believed. While these temps are within the operating realm of most of today's automotive synthetics, your guess is as good as mine as to when we will reach a point that PE oils will be strongly advised in place of dino or PAO oils. But, IMO when we have guys in these forums that change their oil at 1000-1500 mile intervals using top-shelf $15 a qt. synthetics because "it's cheap insurance," I don't think it's too off-the-wall to recommend an oil with a base stock specifically engineered for higher operating temps.
My point was that if one wants the best oil that can be had, as regards resistance to thermal breakdown, a PE oil (regardless of manufacturer) appears to be a better choice than a PAO oil according to current engineering information. Indeed, most of the synthetic oils spec'd for turbine engine lubrication are ester-based, mainly because they can maintain their lubricating qualities at continuous fluid operating temps of 450 deg or more. Again, I'm not a chemical engineer, but my experience includes having administered and monitored the Spectrometric Oil Analysis Program of a military fleet of 105 twin-turbine engine equipped helicopters for several years, and I can relay from experience that when the temps get really hot the differences in oil base stock, as well as additive packages, quickly become apparent. (I know we're not dealing with turbines here, but the heat vs. oil battle is the same regardless of venue.) And while I agree completely that today's Group IV and Group V-based oils are adequate in our air-cooled engines, we are also seeing the operating temps on these engines increasing with each passing year. Many people are seeing consistent sump temperatures of 260-280 degrees in their Harleys, which is fairly warm if their thermometers are to be believed. While these temps are within the operating realm of most of today's automotive synthetics, your guess is as good as mine as to when we will reach a point that PE oils will be strongly advised in place of dino or PAO oils. But, IMO when we have guys in these forums that change their oil at 1000-1500 mile intervals using top-shelf $15 a qt. synthetics because "it's cheap insurance," I don't think it's too off-the-wall to recommend an oil with a base stock specifically engineered for higher operating temps.
I still say the overall balance of the oil's formula is more important than the starting point (base stock).
On the moly I couldn't agree more.
Amsoil, of course, uses no moly. It is an expensive additive that is used in most high-performance oils, and if it damaged valvetrains I'm sure it would've been exposed by now. I asked this Amsoil dealer how come my last RK lasted 106k (now at 110k) with no loss of compression. If the valvetrain would've been destroyed by the moly in the oil I was using, it would've done it before 110k miles and would've showed up in compression tests. As I said, I received no response, but the false claim is still on the site.
[quote]Here's to hoping the heat breaks for us all so we can spend more time on the road vice on the compooter... [sm=alcoholic.gif]
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post