661 Oil Test 32:1 vs 40:1 vs 50:1 ?

[bwalker]

Interesting read here, bike related article.

"While the oil is still suspended in the liquid gasoline, it can not lubricate anything. It has about as much lubricity at that point as straight gasoline. When the gasoline enters the engine, it evaporates, dropping the oil out of suspension. Now that the oil is free, it can lubricate the engine, but it must get to the parts to lubricate them. The way it gets to the bearings and onto the cylinder is by being thrown around as a mist by the spinning crankshaft, and the droplets are distributed by the air currents moving through the engine."

"Some of the oil eventually makes it into the combustion chamber, where it is either burned, or passes out the exhaust. If the combustion chamber temps are too low, such as in an engine that is jetted too rich, the oil doesn't burn completely. Instead, some of it hardens into deposits in the combustion chamber, on the piston, and on the power valve assembly. The rest becomes the dreaded "spooge". The key to all of this working in harmony is to jet the bike lean enough to achieve a high enough combustion chamber temperature to burn the oil, but also still be able to supply enough oil to protect the engine. If you use enough oil, you can jet the bike at it's optimum without starving the engine of oil, and have excellent power, with minimal deposits and spooge. At 50:1, you simply can't jet very lean without risking a seized engine due to oil starvation, unless you're just putt-putting around on trails without putting the engine under much load."

OTOH I have known loggers that ran nothing but Walmart TCW3 outboard oil at 50:1 and there saws last a long time.

 

[bwalker]

Here's an interesting post. I realize that he's not proving any science with his opinion. Interesting none the less.

"If someone says they got higher HP numbers on a dyno by increasing the amount of oil in the gas, it is only because they in essence leaned out the carb jetting by doing so. That means that either the bike was jetted too rich to begin with, or it would have shortly blown up if run for any length of time using that richer premix/leaner jetting. Either one makes any of their subsequent dyno results or conclusions highly suspect and potentially damaging. Anyone who states that more oil in the gas equals more horsepower is smoking as much as their bike will smoke."

Intuitive to some but also wrong as proved by real testing.

 

[Andyshine77]

His findings match what Stihl has found.

But not exactly what TW found using a temperature sensor in the the engine, I don't remember exactly where in the engine. The temperature differences were not that large 10℉ to 20℉

We must not forget, Stihl and Husqvarna are in the business of selling new products.

 

[Andyshine77]

Same findings. Stihl has found that 32:1 burns hotter than 50:1 and makes less power. I'm going to try 40:1 myself.

Don't put too much faith in what a gold level Stihl tech says. At least that's what a gold level tech told me. The classes are infomercials for the most part. We also have know idea what the test perimeters were. Also remember why you went to 32:1 in the first place.[emoji6]

 

[blsnelling]

If you use enough oil, you can jet the bike at it's optimum without starving the engine of oil, and have excellent power, with minimal deposits and spooge. At 50:1, you simply can't jet very lean without risking a seized engine due to oil starvation.

These are the key points in my mind. I tune more closely to optimum performance than most. I run my saws hard. I work them hard in big wood. I rev them hard in cant racing. Saws run like that need more protection. For those reasons, I won't run 50:1. Those are also the reasons I have always run 32:1.

...certain full synthetics will not burn off at high oil-ratios.

Synthetic oils tend to burn much slower than conventional oils, which is why they usually recommend mixing less of it in your gas. The gas burns faster than the oil in it, so most of the unburned residue is oil.

What I'm hearing now, is that too much synthetic ester oil is also not a good thing, unlike semi-synthetic our castor oils. Maybe 40:1 would be a better compromise. Maybe not. I'm curious to know now though.

 

[maulhead]

I appreciate the testing that Redbull is doing.
Nobody has had the bowls to purchase hundreds of links of chain to remove one very fluid variable like he has.
He probably went through at least 24 loops of new chain for the testing he has bent over backwards to do, as well as he could.

His testing, (regardless if you like it, want to modify it, do it differently, or hate it) used lots of chain, and we could all try to help him recover a little.
I sent him some cabbage for some of the chains with 1 cut on them, anybody else want some of his extra .404 loops ?

I am in the cabbage clan as well.

A few months ago when Redbull was doing other tests, I bought some chain from him after his tests were done.

Saved me a lot of cabbage! I called my local stihl dealer to buy some 36" chains, they told me $57 a loop, plus tax. LOL, I told them no thank you. If I recall right I bought 5 - 36" chains and 3 - 28" chains from Redbull, each with only one test cut on them, and that saved me a lot of cabbage!!

 

[redbull660]

bwalker - note all your responses on h1r talk about it in the past tense from the 1990's and or early 2000's

However with a simple email.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Belray

Yes H1-R did have an upgrade about 4 years ago. When I did it we made sure that all of the properties either remained the same or were improved. It has been around since at least the 90’s, I don’t even know the original launch date of it. When a product is around this long it is inevitable that some of the raw materials may be discontinued or just not be available for some reason so reformulations are a necessary part of it, and it really is a good thing because it means we get the chance to update things and improve on aspects that we maybe had to settle on in the past. Every product is different and nothing is perfect, so there is always room for improvement! That’s my motto anyway.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

also by your own admittance you haven't tested anything in a long while because yamalube 2r just works for you. and when you find something that works you stick with it.

Yet you come on here and bash just about any oil that isn't 2r and especially h1r because it's "old tech". So if you are referencing h1r from the 90s and early 2000s and given that prior nov 2014 you hadn't posted on this forum since june 2010... lol and you think im full of holes??? lol

 

[redbull660]

my personal conclusions so far are...



- for whatever reason the quads seem to want less oil at 45:1 (stock saws) and the old school 660 wants 40:1. H1R that is.


Keep in mind that H1R run at 40:1 would be the same as others with solvent at 32:1 speaking on the basis of volume of oil. (and 45:1 H1R = ~ 36:1 others with solvent)


- I'd like to confirm the 661 results with a retest using the "reset" feature each time.


- I still like that mastermind and others have had such good results with H1R....even at what seems to be too rich of a mixture for it (at least in stock saws) at 32:1... given the volume by oil make up of it - vs - oils with solvents.


- I am very happy that after using H1R (for 4-5 tanks), the black crusty sooty garbage Stihl ultra left on the top of my piston and exhaust port of my 3 saws (361 660 661) is rapidly clearing up. Very cool to see the top of the piston again.

 

[Marshy]

OTOH I have known loggers that ran nothing but Walmart TCW3 outboard oil at 50:1 and there saws last a long time.

Yes, that is my Dad. I told him to switch to JASO FD oil for air cooled engines... 42:1 sounds like the best compromise.

You should consider doing a test with a semi-synthetic. Best of both worlds. Might just blow your mind.

In at page 100. oops, I'll take first on page 101.

 

[blsnelling]

I still like that mastermind and others have had such good results with H1R....even at what seems to be too rich of a mixture for it (at least in stock saws) at 32:1... given the volume by oil make up of it - vs - oils with solvents.

I think it's a mistake to make this assumption. Too rich for what? You're leaving protection totally out of the equation, which is the primary reason it was recommended.

 

[blsnelling]

I'm pretty sure I can speak for Randy when I say that lubrication of the bottom end is his number one concern. Protection is also my number one concern. Cleanliness is a distant second. Performance comes in last when it comes to oil choice.

 

[blsnelling]

I didn't say a thing about H1-R, so I don't know where that came from.

I don't know why you're hung up on this solvent thing. Again, you're making assumptions about oil that you simply don't know to be true.

My only point is that you are solely focused on performance, the least important variable in the choice of your oil. And with performance only data, you have declare what is too rich.

 

[blsnelling]

I disagree with your statement that 32:1 is too rich. My comment was not about H1-R, or any particular oil. It's a great oil, no doubt. You simply don't have near enough information to make that statement and have made many assumptions to come to that conclusion, all while leaving far more important variables out of the equation.

I've supported you where I could all through out this discussion. You're now making statements as if they are facts. That's very dangerous to do when you are most certainly influencing others with possible misinformation.

you are actually running the same amount of oil !!! There is no difference!!!

You do not know that an oil with some amount of solvent provides inferior lubrication than one without.

You do not know that a few degrees hotter cylinder is a bad thing.

I think you would do yourself a favor to leave the details to the tribologist with a PHD in chemistry. Pick your favorite oils, do whatever testing you want, and use whatever you like.

 

[Andyshine77]

http://www.klemmvintage.com/oils.htm

http://www.mummbrothers.com/SRF_Stuff/Secrets/Driveline/Air_Fuel.htm

Brad this thread has provided zero new information. We both know what can effect cut times and heat, and it has nothing to do with the premix. Like I said earlier, stock saws running 40:1 would be out running ported saws running 32:1 if his findings were correct. Have you seen this? Remember my 346 out cutting other ported 346's running 50:1 or 40:1. The saws in this comparison were not tuned properly "whether by hand or IC's" and the saws were most likely not ran properly. Ask yourself if I could reduce his Cut times? simply because of my experience. Trust what you already know, if in time we learn something new we can adjust.

 

[MustangMike]

I think I've learned a few things, even if we don't have all the answers yet.

 

[KenJax Tree]

What i learned here is....pick your oil, pick a ratio, and go cut wood. I actually learned it a long time ago but it applies here.

 

[CR500]

It is sold by a company not far from here called Dumonde Tech ,the bike shops here stock it ,not sure if it is everywhere though .It is a gold color so the gas looks pretty clear pouring it in the saw ,when i pulled the muffler cover i could see clean gold oil on the piston .

Here are the specs ,Similar to what i found with the clean burning ,and improved throttle response .They say common mix 40 to 1 which is where i ended up .
http://dumondetech.com/portfolio/dtp-synthetic-racing-oil/

might have to try some....

 

[bwalker]

Then piston pic I'm posted wa

bwalker - note all your responses on h1r talk about it in the past tense from the 1990's and or early 2000's

However with a simple email.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Belray

Yes H1-R did have an upgrade about 4 years ago. When I did it we made sure that all of the properties either remained the same or were improved. It has been around since at least the 90’s, I don’t even know the original launch date of it. When a product is around this long it is inevitable that some of the raw materials may be discontinued or just not be available for some reason so reformulations are a necessary part of it, and it really is a good thing because it means we get the chance to update things and improve on aspects that we maybe had to settle on in the past. Every product is different and nothing is perfect, so there is always room for improvement! That’s my motto anyway.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

also by your own admittance you haven't tested anything in a long while because yamalube 2r just works for you. and when you find something that works you stick with it.

Yet you come on here and bash just about any oil that isn't 2r and especially h1r because it's "old tech". So if you are referencing h1r from the 90s and early 2000s and given that prior nov 2014 you hadn't posted on this forum since june 2010... lol and you think im full of holes??? lol

The piston pic I posted was from 2014.. nice try.

 

[KG441c]

 

[bwalker]

huh? come on....

I said
redbull660 said: ↑
I still like that mastermind and others have had such good results with H1R....even at what seems to be too rich of a mixture for it (at least in stock saws) at 32:1... given the volume by oil make up of it - vs - oils with solvents.

then you said
blsnelling said: ↑
I think it's a mistake to make this assumption. Too rich for what? You're leaving protection totally out of the equation, which is the primary reason it was recommended.

I said the above about h1r and you said it's mistake to make assumption... ABOUT H1R lol

the MSDS ...the %'s are all laid out!
http://www.arboristsite.com/communi...1-results-info-condensed.277566/#post-5305417

for example....

Lucus - http://lucasoil.com/pdf/SDS_2-Cycle-Snowmobile-Oil.pdf
Solvent naphtha petroleum = 10-30%
1 decene, homopolymer hydyrogenated = 10-30%

those are solvents. NOT oil. so somewhere between 20 and 60% of the bottle is comprised of SOLVENTS. NOT oil. They burn! They don't lubricate! Heck they don't even burn as good as gasoline!

Performance - seriously?

661 - the fastest times were at 50:1. So far (yes I want to retest it and confirm) I picked 45:1. Because it provided a combo of fast times and coolest most consistent temps.

660 - fastest times were 45:1. I liked 40:1 the best same as above.

361 - I think was same line of thinking or maybe in that case the fastest times were also with the coolest temps and most consistent temps.

How does 10-20,turn into 20-60?