Oh, Bill -- if this were true I'd have been trimming all your stuff for years now instead of playing along with you.

Sadly, I don't see any good party or canidate this year, so I will vote for the party that has more of a history of DOING some of what they promise to do.

(problem is I can't seem to remember any party who actually did that in the last 20 years or so     )



If Uno can find some data to back up his wild statements on "removing manufacturers deposits" then he can certainly plop it down for Charon to rip apart.   I always found that exercise to be worthwhile as it made me think better next time.   Dig a little harder,   do a little better.


=================


Perhaps Bill and Uno can go find us some other oils to add to our approved oil list?  

That would be useful.

 
Bill, we have a $12 per quart oil price ceiling which takes out all your golden foil wrapped over priced oils.

If you had been paying attention, you would know that the MA2 standards change took out almost all of the high priced spreads, they COMPLIED and became useless to us Savagers.   Yup, even Royal Purple.  

Amisol is still useful, but it is simply too expensive.

Your Klotz motorcycle bottles joined the useless MA2 crew, with the MX motocross Klotz being the only one still found to be useful.   But at $14.95 a quart (up to $27 a quart in some places according to Bill) the Klotz motocross  isn't listed as it is too too expensive.

So far, we haven't found much out there in premium motorcycle oil land.

One super duper oil that rang true on its specs & data and is reasonably priced through Amazon by the case ($10 a quart on sale, $11 normal) is Redline Motorcycle, the new sexy red headed oil.   Redline is on the list as it meets all the criteria.

(2x overkill on the ZDDP too, which is 2,500 ppm,       1,000 ppm better than the very best Klotz MX oil)

So yes, we will list a premium plus oil if it meets the Recommended Listing criteria.

It your bike run what you want,I will run the best in mine.

I've never told any one what to run,I just tell you I run the best not the cheapest.

Just went through Uno's Amisol pdf -- interesting stuff with only one flaw, it is old data and all the oils in it have been reformulated in the last few months, so all the rankings are sorta moot right now.

And yes, I agree with Charon that the tests were selected  to make Amisol look "maximum good" (along with the oils that were selected to be tested).   I especially liked the fact they didn't bother to test synthetics against synthetics but threw in a bunch of dino's for the fun of it.




Here is another example of Amisol's comparison of their full synthetic against the old Rotella T to make Amisol look good.    What I found interesting is that all the oils stayed in grade and Amisol had to fuel dilute them by 2% and then run the shear test TWICE  to get the Rotella to go down to the edge of grade.

I bring the point up because (according to BITOG) the new MA2 standard allows the new MA2 rated bike oils to go out of grade with only ONE test run and NO fuel dilution.

(this sucks, btw).

http://www.synzilla.com/testimonials/Amsoil_vs_Shell_Rotella_T_5w-40_Syntheti...

 
You are right Bill, it is a much more strenuous test than any gasoline engine oil should have to pass.

And our new MA2 gasoline engine bike oils aren't required to do even one test pass on the normal old wimpy nozzle test and stay in grade, they can drop out of grade after only one little bitty weak-arsed gasoline engine oil shear test.

But then folks will remember that Rotella could do the nastier version (the Amisol shear test) twice over and that was after it was intentionally cut with 2% diesel oil and it still hung in there and stayed in grade.  

Exceptional shear performance when viewed from a Savage perspective, right?


Folks can get tidbits of good data out of Amisol's skewed snake oil testing if they look down deeper and think a bit.

 
If it was the four ball test you were referring to, it likes higher viscosity and film strength for "better results".   It is a hydrodynamic test, mocking a plain bearing con rod under severe loads.

As I think I understand it, the four balls go into continuous contact under a variable (but increasing) load until the film strength collapses at some known point.  Since the balls are in continous contact, ZDDP has no chance to replace its boundary layer and as such does worst in this test than in others.  

ZDDP for example works best on tappets, which are occasionally loaded to film failure with time to recover between the load induced failures.  This is barrier film activity and really has no test rig other than lots & lots of miles inside an in-use engine.

Since you get to pick the 4 ball loading top point, you can stop the loading increase at a level where your Amisol does well and the others start to fail.   You simply avoid testing oils that have a higher yeild point than your oil does and you don't mention the test you are using commonly gets used in testing heavy gear oils and that the rotational loading you are using are ridiculously high compared to anything oil inside a roller bearing Savage crank assembly will ever see.

Above inferences sourced from BITOG's information on 4 ball testing.    Note that simple old Shaffers dino does well on this test, more so than most synthetics.   Why, I haven't got a clue.    Note that BITOG refers to it as a "snake oil test", once again the why isn't completely known.   Thick viscosity additives (Lucas, STP) like this test as they do very well on it, showing a clear before and after difference.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/oilshear.htm

Now, apart from Amisol's "snake oil" 4 ball testing, this is the way the oil industry tests shear down in the real tests that get published by them.

The shear stability of an oil is measured by using both ASTM test methods D445 and D5275. First, the viscosity of an engine oil is measured. Then, the oil is exposed to severe shearing conditions by repeatedly pumping it through a specially-sized diesel fuel injection nozzle at high pressure. After shearing the oil, its viscosity is measured again. The percentage of viscosity lost is determined by comparing the second viscosity measurement with the original viscosity measurement.



I find these differences in test methods to be educational, don't you?

Reading that stuff would make a guy wonder.. I guess then there would be only one way to really know. If someone has enough ( & what IS enough?) miles on one, running Rotella, And there are no compression, oil consumption, blowby type problems,,then could we safely say Rotella works fine?
If anyone needs to know, its me, cuz, Ive got 2 motorcycles, 2 lawmowers, & a pickup I cant afford to injure.