Best 2 Stroke Oil?

[bwalker]

I guess your not perfect if your "stomach churning passive aggressive"

What's laughable is he claims to want to correct errors in logic, but he doesn't even understand how a motor works or the forces involved.

 

[OM617YOTA]

Which oil do you plan to use in it?

Whatever is cheap when I need to buy oil. It's an old IDI Toyota 1KZ diesel from the '90's, manual says CF oil. Any modern diesel oil will be fine, and due to soot loading, frequent oil changes will be more important than exact spec..............so whatever is cheap.

 

[diver64]

What's laughable is he claims to want to correct errors in logic, but he doesn't even understand how a motor works or the forces involved.

Maybe but that is not reason for a post like that. Besides, your not exactly the paragon of reasonableness on this forum as I and others have noticed.

 

[bwalker]

Maybe but that is not reason for a post like that. Besides, your not exactly the paragon of reasonableness on this forum as I and others have noticed.

You may not like my approach, but when I talk about something A. It has a factual basis and B. I have experience in and understand what's going on.
The problem IMO is that people are use to being treated with kid gloves when they are stupid. I refuse to do this within forum limits.
That and I am not here to be buddies per se. This forum use to be and ahoukd be a repository of knowledge. You let the morons slide and it clogs up with garbage and bad information.

 

[bwalker]

Whatever is cheap when I need to buy oil. It's an old IDI Toyota 1KZ diesel from the '90's, manual says CF oil. Any modern diesel oil will be fine, and due to soot loading, frequent oil changes will be more important than exact spec..............so whatever is cheap.

Can't go wrong with Rottella, Delo and Delvac

 

[Hermio]

Just think of all the old farmers, sawyers, etc. who ran tractors for hours on end plowing fields and breathing in all that stuff. Jeepers Creepers.

If they ran diesel, I don't think that had lead compounds. But breathing soot is not so good either.

 

[Hermio]

You may not like my approach, but when I talk about something A. It has a factual basis and B. I have experience in and understand what's going on.
The problem IMO is that people are use to being treated with kid gloves when they are stupid. I refuse to do this within forum limits.
That and I am not here to be buddies per se. This forum use to be and ahoukd be a repository of knowledge. You let the morons slide and it clogs up with garbage and bad information.

That may be what you are trying to do. But apparently you did not know about ASTM D2782 testing and the Timken test rig, which essentially is what Todd Osgood duplicated for his oil testing. It was not some kluge job made up by a guy in his garage.

 

[Hermio]

Thanks, I appreciate your input! I recently read a few hundred page oil thread that you participated in on another forum and I respect your knowledge on the subject. I out of habit and I guess limited understanding have always shaken the big oil jugs before pouring as well as the fuel tank of mix before every pour just to make absolutely sure it's mixed thoroughly..
my thinking was that the solution inside might settle/separate and since only 1/40th of the oil was poured out of the jug I might have poured out only a part of the intended solution. Glad to hear that isn't something that really happens.

Solutions do not separate. To separate, there needs to be at least 2 phases. Suspensions can separate.

 

[bwalker]

That may be what you are trying to do. But apparently you did not know about ASTM D2782 testing and the Timken test rig, which essentially is what Todd Osgood duplicated for his oil testing. It was not some kluge job made up by a guy in his garage.

You didn't know about it until you googled it to support your stupid argument. I have been aware if it since at least the year 2001.
PF test is a home brewed piece of crap. Get over it. In addition testing motor oils the way he did shows he knows as much about motors as you. Which is to say, not much.

 

[Hermio]

You didn't know about it until you googled it to support your stupid argument. I have been aware if it since at least the year 2001.
PF test is a home brewed piece of crap. Get over it. In addition testing motor oils the way he did shows he knows as much about motors as you. Which is to say, not much.

If you were aware of it, on what basis did you say PF's rig was a piece of crap? It does exactly what the Timken apparatus does. Ergo, the results are valid. Also, try to understand that knowledge of engines is completely irrelevant when it comes to judging the efficacy of lubrication testing. It is about fluid dynamics, and is independent from the device to be lubricated. Also try to understand that a detailed knowledge of the petroleum industry is not necessary either. I work in the field of fluid dynamics. That knowledge applies to all fluids; petroleum products are just one of many. You mentioned earlier that I did not publish any papers on petroleum applications. That is true. However, I have consulted to several petroleum companies. But that industry is very mature, and there is little in my field to write about for the petroleum industry. My articles are geared towards new technologies and industries. You also expressed skepticism about Amsoil having a good product. While I will not argue that point specifically here, I can give you an analogy. My wife and sister-in-law are retired chemical engineers. Both worked at P&G and one worked on Olay products. Now they have formed a company to market skin care products using high-end ingredients, using their expert formulation skills. Their products are demonstrably better than Olay or any other mass-produced brand. They use more expensive ingredients than the big brands and charge for their products accordingly. Yet they are only a 2-person company. The principal is that small companies can produce better formulations that the big ones, depending on the market segment the big companies choose to serve.

 

[Hermio]

I guess your not perfect if your "stomach churning passive aggressive"

Let me point out another fallacy. You said I am not as smart as I think I am. To know that, you would have to know two things: 1) How smart I think I am, and 2) How smart I actually am. Since I have never made any claims on this forum about how smart I am, you cannot know how smart I think I am. And of course, you have no way of knowing how smart I actually am. Therefore, your statement has no basis in fact or logic.

 

[Hermio]

Yamaha did a test that is documented and can be found on the web where they added more PIB two a two cycle oil blend to increase film strength. What they documented was that it was counter productive and caused increased bearing temps. I am paraphrasing here, but you can look it up for your self.
Back to the four cycle oils tests. I won't comment on a website from eleven years ago. Other than to say your fixating on boundary lubrication which is a measure of the additive package stoutness. Specifically ZDDP, Moly,Boron, etc.
Film strength is usually discussed under hydrodynamic terms. So when I say viscosity is basically film strength, I am correct.
If that home spun test floats your boat and your film strength obsession I would probably use the Pennzoil product. At least it's API certified and you know what your getting.
And those test are indeed not indictive of what happens in an engine and certainly not the piston rings. That's why the industry uses the ball tests for grease and gear oils mostly.

There is static film strength (such as what grease has) and there is hydrodynamic film strength (which oil has). That is why ASTM has two tests on the same Timken apparatus. But viscosity is not film strength. They have completely different units. In SI terms, viscosity has units of Pascal-seconds, whereas film strength has units of Pascals. And some low viscosity oils have higher film strength than high viscosity oils.

 

[bwalker]

If you were aware of it, on what basis did you say PF's rig was a piece of crap? It does exactly what the Timken apparatus does. Ergo, the results are valid. Also, try to understand that knowledge of engines is completely irrelevant when it comes to judging the efficacy of lubrication testing. It is about fluid dynamics, and is independent from the device to be lubricated. Also try to understand that a detailed knowledge of the petroleum industry is not necessary either. I work in the field of fluid dynamics. That knowledge applies to all fluids; petroleum products are just one of many. You mentioned earlier that I did not publish any papers on petroleum applications. That is true. However, I have consulted to several petroleum companies. But that industry is very mature, and there is little in my field to write about for the petroleum industry. My articles are geared towards new technologies and industries. You also expressed skepticism about Amsoil having a good product. While I will not argue that point specifically here, I can give you an analogy. My wife and sister-in-law are retired chemical engineers. Both worked at P&G and one worked on Olay products. Now they have formed a company to market skin care products using high-end ingredients, using their expert formulation skills. Their products are demonstrably better than Olay or any other mass-produced brand. They use more expensive ingredients than the big brands and charge for their products accordingly. Yet they are only a 2-person company. The principal is that small companies can produce better formulations that the big ones, depending on the market segment the big companies choose to serve.

For starters, even if PF test was valid, which it's not, THE TEST ISNT MENT FOR MOTOR OILS! In addition it replicates nothing going on inside a motor. There for its its a useless test. Made all the worse by being done in a garage by a guy that has about zero understanding of what makes a good motor oil.

 

[OM617YOTA]

If you were aware of it, on what basis did you say PF's rig was a piece of crap? It does exactly what the Timken apparatus does. Ergo, the results are valid. Also, try to understand that knowledge of engines is completely irrelevant when it comes to judging the efficacy of lubrication testing. It is about fluid dynamics, and is independent from the device to be lubricated. Also try to understand that a detailed knowledge of the petroleum industry is not necessary either. I work in the field of fluid dynamics. That knowledge applies to all fluids; petroleum products are just one of many. You mentioned earlier that I did not publish any papers on petroleum applications. That is true. However, I have consulted to several petroleum companies. But that industry is very mature, and there is little in my field to write about for the petroleum industry. My articles are geared towards new technologies and industries. You also expressed skepticism about Amsoil having a good product. While I will not argue that point specifically here, I can give you an analogy. My wife and sister-in-law are retired chemical engineers. Both worked at P&G and one worked on Olay products. Now they have formed a company to market skin care products using high-end ingredients, using their expert formulation skills. Their products are demonstrably better than Olay or any other mass-produced brand. They use more expensive ingredients than the big brands and charge for their products accordingly. Yet they are only a 2-person company. The principal is that small companies can produce better formulations that the big ones, depending on the market segment the big companies choose to serve.

You don't seem to understand that there's a mile wide gap between research papers and book learning, and practical application.

I once saw you say you didn't understand why retuning a saw would be needed when switching between pump gas the user has mixed with their own two stroke oil, and canned premix fuel, because the fuel : oil ratio was the same.

https://www.arboristsite.com/thread...odest-pro-level-chainsaws.364166/post-7879132

I have disregarded basically everything you've said ever since.

 

[lone wolf]

I'd burn ethanol fuel and dollar store 2 cycle oil before I'd run leaded fuel in a chainsaw.

I see your point. Better to mess up the saw than you.

 

[sean donato]

The Echo Red Armour is fine to a certain extent, but it is not as good as Amsoil Saber Pro. I have been running Amsoil Saber Pro, 1st at 50 to 1, and now at 42.6 to 1, basically 3 ounces of 2 stroke oil to 1 gallon of fuel. I have been doing this since 1998.

Echo Red Armour, if you do not run this oil at full throttle all of the time, you will get deposits, let's be realistic, you are not going to run your chainsaw or trimmer at full throttle all of the time. Where are the deposits going to be, in the exhaust port. Why am I mentioning this, well, I wanted to use the Echo Red Armour and I was made aware of this issue by someone who used this 2-stroke oil. I have an Echo SRM- 2601 trimmer that I have been using since 1998 and the exhaust port has never needed to be cleaned up, and I have taken the muffler off, back in 2022 and there was barely any carbon in the exhaust port.

Why does the Amsoil Saber Pro work, because you can idle your 2-stroke equipment and not build up deposits. Maybe I do not idle my stuff long like the 1 member here who had an issue with the Red Armour.

Anyone reading this, do not use Amsoil Saber Pro at 100 to 1 in a Chainsaw, I do not care what Amsoil says, I would rather use Echo Red Armour at 50 to 1 than to use Amsoil Saber Pro at 100 to 1

Are there better 2 stroke Oils out there, yes, but you will be spending more Money.

1) Maxima K2
2) Bel Ray HR-1

42.6 to 1 or 40 to 1 is the way to go with any 2-stroke oil you are using.

That's not been my experience with red armor personally or with the equipment I maintain that's used professionally. I've never seen any carbon build up in the muffler and extremely little to non on the piston. It exhibits about the best cling I've ever seen inside an engine, even one that's been sitting for a long time.

Fyi-
With folks getting quite technical here I feel we should note that Motors run on electricity, engines run on combustible fuels....Just say'n....lol

While we usually refer to something electric powered as a motor, technically either engine or motor can be applied to an internal combustion engine.

Whatever is cheap when I need to buy oil. It's an old IDI Toyota 1KZ diesel from the '90's, manual says CF oil. Any modern diesel oil will be fine, and due to soot loading, frequent oil changes will be more important than exact spec..............so whatever is cheap.

You can run about whatever 5w40 to 15w40 in that engine. Years ago I switched over to rotella t6 and have been running it about ever since. During covid I ran dello since I couldn't get rotella. Didn't pull any samples (not free anymore.) But I'm sure it's just as good as the rotella.

 

[OM617YOTA]

You can run about whatever 5w40 to 15w40 in that engine. Years ago I switched over to rotella t6 and have been running it about ever since. During covid I ran dello since I couldn't get rotella. Didn't pull any samples (not free anymore.) But I'm sure it's just as good as the rotella.

Right, it'll all work for this engine. I'm also one of the "clean cheap oil is better than dirty expensive oil" folks. Change it often! I'll be looking for bulk oil deals, and oil filters by the case. Wouldn't be averse to a 55 gallon drum.

Wish I could get some use out of the used oil, vs. taking it to the oil recycling place at the dump. They just burn it in the waste oil heater at the county shop, but I don't generate enough oil or need to heat my shop enough to make a waste oil heater make sense.

 

[bwalker]

There is static film strength (such as what grease has) and there is hydrodynamic film strength (which oil has). That is why ASTM has two tests on the same Timken apparatus. But viscosity is not film strength. They have completely different units. In SI terms, viscosity has units of Pascal-seconds, whereas film strength has units of Pascals. And some low viscosity oils have higher film strength than high viscosity oils.

Lower viscosity oils do not have higher film strength than higher viscosity oils under hydrodynamic conditions.
And yes viscosity is basically film strength under hydrodynamic conditions...for the tenth time.
In addition film strength is a huge issue with motors oils and hasn't been for some time. Much more important stuff to worry about.
As itboertains to two cycle oils film strength is just not a factor one should worry about. Actually running two high a film strength oil is counter productive because they don't combust cleanly.

 

[bwalker]

Let me point out another fallacy. You said I am not as smart as I think I am. To know that, you would have to know two things: 1) How smart I think I am, and 2) How smart I actually am. Since I have never made any claims on this forum about how smart I am, you cannot know how smart I think I am. And of course, you have no way of knowing how smart I actually am. Therefore, your statement has no basis in fact or logic.

Ok, Spock.

 

[bwalker]

BTW smarty guy. The correct test for film strength of motor oils is the HTHS test.
Again your googling, but you don't know anything about motors, or motor oils. Therefor you jump to all sorts of ignorant and false conclusions. Your fall back is "because I'm and engineer and I know fluid dynamics".
Go back to church. I liked you slightly better for a day or so after you attended.