661 Oil Test 32:1 vs 40:1 vs 50:1 ?
- Thread starter redbull660
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
flyinghunter
ArboristSite Member
And most oxygen censors.
flyinghunter
ArboristSite Member
Sometimes a diversion is a good thing. A bit of time for everyone to sit cross legged and say oooooooommmmmm.
Feel better now?
Feel better now?
You can use it in what ever you want, it's your money. Some of us have real world experience and choose to use the correct fuel for the application.
Yea, like me...and I didn't have a choice, but it still worked fine.
I stand corrected. Diesel is lower octane than gas. The reason is a diesel motor compresses only air, then injects the diesel, so diesel fuel does not need to be high octane.
If it were compressing an air fuel mix, like a gas engine, it would never work.
Learn something every day!
If it were compressing an air fuel mix, like a gas engine, it would never work.
Learn something every day!
This piston was ran 36.9 hours as measured by a digital hour meter on premium pump and H1R @ 40:1. I bought the bike and put a new top end in it right away, although the bike ran fine.
Anyone see anything wonky with the piston crown?
Anyone see anything wonky with the piston crown?
cuttinties
ArboristSite Guru
Lumpy like muh shorts
**** yourself again?
cuttinties
ArboristSite Guru
Ahsheet Muhdrawrs
Is is not supposed to be domed?
No, it's a domed piston. check out the outside of the crown. Shoes evidence of detonation all the way around the crown. I am not supprised the friend that owned it was a "A" class rider and it was jetted right to the edge. This particular model motor also has been known to have a head thats border line for pump fuel.
Yesh, too lean and lots of blow by.
OldJack
ArboristSite Operative
I hear acetone is an effective octane booster.
Back in the 1930s the 37 liter Rolls-Royce R engine held the air speed, land speed and water speed records. It ran on a real witch's brew. "For the 1931 airspeed record attempt acetone was added to prevent intermittent misfiring, the composition of this final blend was 30% benzole, 60% methanol, and 10% acetone, plus 4.2 cc of tetra-ethyl lead per gallon.[19]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_R#Supercharger_and_fuel
Thats an amazing piece of technology for the year it was produced. Always fun to read the history of things like this. Thanks for the share.
More oil = more protection. That's why we run it. If it costs just a bit of performance, so be it. Everything is a compromise in building performance anyway. Think about a supercharger. It takes quite a lot of HP to turn a supercharger. That doesn't mean it's not beneficial and should be removed. Maybe not the best analogy, but you get the idea. Do we need 32:1? Maybe not. Do we need more than 50:1? IMHO, absolutely! I'm not ready to invest the time and energy in finding the sweet spot for each oil in my engines. Until someone else does it for me, I'll continue running 32:1.
When looking for the perfect oil ratio of a particular oil, cut times and 10-20* of cylinder temp would not be my deciding factor. I would think you would need to actually find where a saw failed, and then see what it took to prevent that failure. There are just so many variables that I'm not even sure how you would go about it. Redbull obviously isn't prepared to destroy his saws in this investigation. Hopefully we'll be able to pull some valuable knowledge from this discussion. I'm just not at all comfortable with saying mix XYZ was faster and ran 20* cooler, so it's better. That does not measure the level of protection. It sounds to me that there's a balancing act between protection and performance. I personally will err on the side of protection.
Enough rambling!!!
When looking for the perfect oil ratio of a particular oil, cut times and 10-20* of cylinder temp would not be my deciding factor. I would think you would need to actually find where a saw failed, and then see what it took to prevent that failure. There are just so many variables that I'm not even sure how you would go about it. Redbull obviously isn't prepared to destroy his saws in this investigation. Hopefully we'll be able to pull some valuable knowledge from this discussion. I'm just not at all comfortable with saying mix XYZ was faster and ran 20* cooler, so it's better. That does not measure the level of protection. It sounds to me that there's a balancing act between protection and performance. I personally will err on the side of protection.
Enough rambling!!!
More oil = more protection. That's why we run it. If it costs just a bit of performance, so be it. Everything is a compromise in building performance anyway. Think about a supercharger. It takes quite a lot of HP to turn a supercharger. That doesn't mean it's not beneficial and should be removed. Maybe not the best analogy, but you get the idea. Do we need 32:1? Maybe not. Do we need more than 50:1? IMHO, absolutely! I'm not ready to invest the time and energy in finding the sweet spot for each oil in my engines. Until someone else does it for me, I'll continue running 32:1.
When looking for the perfect oil ratio of a particular oil, cut times and 10-20* of cylinder temp would not be my deciding factor. I would think you would need to actually find where a saw failed, and then see what it took to prevent that failure. There are just so many variables that I'm not even sure how you would go about it. Redbull obviously isn't prepared to destroy his saws in this investigation. Hopefully we'll be able to pull some valuable knowledge from this discussion. I'm just not at all comfortable with saying mix XYZ was faster and ran 20* cooler, so it's better. That does not measure the level of protection. It sounds to me that there's a balancing act between protection and performance. I personally will err on the side of protection.
Enough rambling!!!
On a dyno is where I would start.
That would ONLY measure performance. IMHO, that's less than 1/2 the equation.
