Best 2 Stroke Oil?

[bwalker]

It certainly is opinion. It is based on the premise that only one methodology for testing wear and lubricity is valid. That is an opinion. The purpose for industry standard test procedures is to let multiple users do the same tests and compare results in multiple locations. But where did these tests come from? You can bet that there were multiple test methodologies in use before API created standardized tests. The standardization of tests by API does not invalidate other test methods; it just makes it easier to compare results across industry. But specific to Todd's apparatus, it exposes each test liquid to exactly the same contact pressure, shear field, temperature and time. The results are quite reproducible. Though, as Todd says, it does not exactly duplicate conditions in an engine, it does establish comparative results, so the ranking of oils is simply sound engineering science. You might want to look up the definition of a Rube Goldberg machine. Todd's apparatus is far from that. It is simple, fair and produces reproducible results. He also compares flow at different temperatures, before and after a high temperature heat soak. He does not do that test for 2-cycle engines, but he recently did a very interesting test program for bar and chain oil. You should watch it and learn something.

It's certainly opinion that Todd's methods are valid. A bad and ignorant one at that. Most in the industry would laugh at them. Most would also laugh at a guy who allegedly is a chem engineer watching you tube for technical information. You are aware that SAE publishes papers on oil comparisons? This last one I read was 20+ years back when I worked in the automotive industry. In it Petro Canada Duron, a group 3 mineral oil outperformed Mobil 1 which at the time was a PAO/ester blend. The test had statistical validity too, unlike PF's example of one.
And the purpose of standard tests is in part for the reasons you mention, but also in part to ensure the tests replicate conditions found in the intended application. The latter is the most important because it gives you useful information that is actually pertinent vs. farting around in the garage.

 

[bwalker]

The other thing I would say is that in heavy industry where the machines are massive and very expensive you just don't see boutique oils like amsoil. You also rarely see synthetics used. If they where that good and provided huge benefits in wear don't you think the large companies would use them?
That's why I say use a real deal Jaso Fd certified oil at a decent ratio and be done with it.
And what's almost comical is obsessing about what oil your going to use in what is basically a disposable and cheap tool. Especially so given that the guys worrying the most have never worn out a chainsaw in their lives.

 

[Hermio]

It's certainly opinion that Todd's methods are valid. A bad and ignorant one at that. Most in the industry would laugh at them. Most would also laugh at a guy who allegedly is a chem engineer watching you tube for technical information. You are aware that SAE publishes papers on oil comparisons? This last one I read was 20+ years back when I worked in the automotive industry. In it Petro Canada Duron, a group 3 mineral oil outperformed Mobil 1 which at the time was a PAO/ester blend. The test had statistical validity too, unlike PF's example of one.
And the purpose of standard tests is in part for the reasons you mention, but also in part to ensure the tests replicate conditions found in the intended application. The latter is the most important because it gives you useful information that is actually pertinent vs. farting around in the garage.

How can you say that a method that tests comparative wear rate and power draw under reproducible conditions is invalid? Any real scientist would laugh you off the planet.

 

[Hermio]

The other thing I would say is that in heavy industry where the machines are massive and very expensive you just don't see boutique oils like amsoil. If they where that good and provided huge benefits in wear don't you think the large companies would use them?
That's why I say use a real deal Jaso Fd certified oil at a decent ratio and be done with it.
And what's almost comical is obsessing about what oil your going to use in what is basically a disposable and cheap tool. Especially so given that the guys worrying the most have never worn out a chainsaw in their lives.

Actually, Amsoil products are used in fleet vehicles. I don't really obsess about oil for my saw; I just want to use a good oil, and Amsoil has worked well for me in my many vehicles I have owned over the years, so I trust them with my chainsaw oil. I have worn out several chainsaws myself, but at my age, I suspect my MS500i will be the last saw I buy, except maybe a small one for light duty work. What does steam me is seeing all the unscientific BS people like you spew as fact. You are not helpful to people on this forum.

 

[bwalker]

How can you say that a method that tests comparative wear rate and power draw under reproducible conditions is invalid? Any real scientist would laugh you off the planet.

No statistical validity and replicates no condition found in an engine.
Any real scientist would in the least understand statistical validity. One with a good understanding of mechanics which apparently you don't have, would understand that the test replicates no condition found in a motor.

 

[bwalker]

Actually, Amsoil products are used in fleet vehicles. I don't really obsess about oil for my saw; I just want to use a good oil, and Amsoil has worked well for me in my many vehicles I have owned over the years, so I trust them with my chainsaw oil. I have worn out several chainsaws myself, but at my age, I suspect my MS500i will be the last saw I buy, except maybe a small one for light duty work. What does steam me is seeing all the unscientific BS people like you spew as fact. You are not helpful to people on this forum.

In the first place everything I said is scientifically valid. In the second It's pretty apparent to myself and more than a few others you don't have a clue what your talking about in regards to just about everything lubricants and motor relates.
And amsoil might see some fleet use, but not widely. I've never seen it used at a mine, power plant or refinery

 

[Hermio]

No statistical validity and replicates no condition found in an engine.
Any real scientist would in the least understand statistical validity. One with a good understanding of mechanics which apparently you don't have, would understand that the test replicates no condition found in a motor.

Guess what? I worked for a process equipment manufacturer for 25 years, and my job included both process design and basic mechanical design. I calculated stresses and critical speeds on our machinery routinely. And Todd's tests are quite reproducible. They do not have to replicate the conditions found in an engine to show which has the most lubricity. You just seem incapable of grasping that fact. But Todd has done other tests in actual engines. He mainly looks for carbon and tar build-up. He cannot measure wear rate all that well in an engine because the wear rate is too low to measure in a short-term test. The roller bearing test creates much more shear stress and contact pressure than found in an engine, which is why he gets results in minutes instead of hundreds of hours. Are you really proposing that an oil that shows much worse wear in such a test will somehow show much less wear than one that excelled in such a test when used in an engine? Ridiculous.

 

[Hermio]

In the first place everything I said is scientifically valid. In the second It's pretty apparent to myself and more than a few others you don't have a clue what your talking about in regards to just about everything lubricants and motor related.

I have seen more than a few people doubt your posts on this forum. I would say maybe half of what you say is scientifically valid, though it is clear to me you don't have a clue about what that means. Even a broken clock is right twice per day. And if you have any pride in what you say, please fix your grammar! It is not that hard to write "you're" instead of "your". Maybe I am a bit obsessive about that because I have published 48 technical articles and two technical books, so I care about accurate communication.

 

[bwalker]

I have seen more than a few people doubt your posts on this forum. I would say maybe half of what you say is scientifically valid, though it is clear to me you don't have a clue about what that means. Even a broken clock is right twice per day. And if you have any pride in what you say, please fix your grammar! It is not that hard to write "you're" instead of "your". Maybe I am a bit obsessive about that because I have published 48 technical articles and two technical books, so I care about accurate communication.

If you or anyone else think something I said wasn't valid. Have at it. I can defend every thing I have said. And if I am wrong I will admit as much.
How about you pm me a list of those publications?
Like I told you before. I am typing on a smart phone while I do other things. I am not going to proof read every post I make on a chainsaw forum. And I don't give a crap what you think about that.

 

[bwalker]

Guess what? I worked for a process equipment manufacturer for 25 years, and my job included both process design and basic mechanical design. I calculated stresses and critical speeds on our machinery routinely. And Todd's tests are quite reproducible. They do not have to replicate the conditions found in an engine to show which has the most lubricity. You just seem incapable of grasping that fact. But Todd has done other tests in actual engines. He mainly looks for carbon and tar build-up. He cannot measure wear rate all that well in an engine because the wear rate is too low to measure in a short-term test. The roller bearing test creates much more shear stress and contact pressure than found in an engine, which is why he gets results in minutes instead of hundreds of hours. Are you really proposing that an oil that shows much worse wear in such a test will somehow show much less wear than one that excelled in such a test when used in an engine? Ridiculous.

Which industry?
And I am not going around and around with you.
You can't grasp that lubricity or film strength are minor pieces of the whole pie.

 

[Hermio]

If you or anyone else think something I said wasn't valid. Have at it. I can defend every thing I have said. And if I am wrong I will admit as much.
How about you pm me a list of those publications?
Like I told you before. I am typing on a smart phone while I do other things. I am not going to proof read every post I make on a chainsaw forum. And I don't give a crap what you think about that.

I have already pointed out your errors several times, but you have not admitted it. Examples: you have denied that I am an engineer. You have denied that Amsoil Saber is FD rated, though they have self-certified. You have claimed that viscosity = film strength, which it does not for any liquid. They are two different phenomena. You have denied that the 4-ball test ranks film strength for oil, when the testing sites clearly say it does. You have denied that there are other scientifically valid ways to measure film strength, such as the very reproducible apparatus Project Farm uses. You also do not understand the use of statistical data sampling. If there is a strong and well-known cause and effect relationship between phenomena, then statistical analysis is not needed. For example, if you were to drop a 10-lb weight on your bare feet from a height of 5 feet,, would you need to repeat it multiple times to figure out what would happen to your feet? I think once would be enough! In my career, I did test work and scale-up for a number of industrial processes. For most, the causal relationships were well-known enough that I could do just 1 or 2 tests in the small scale, and then scale-them up from the small-scale data. I had a 100% success rate doing this. I also worked on fluid rheology, as many fluids I dealt with were non-Newtonian, unlike oil, which is Newtonian. Many of my fluids were well characterized by the Herschel-Bulkley model, which is shear thinning with a yield stress. Grease would fall into that category. For more complex systems, such as mass transfer in a gas-liquid contacting system, there could be 2 or 3 independent variables and one dependent variable, For those, I typically would design an experimental protocol for my customer, and they would conduct an array of experiments over a range of conditions, typically producing hundreds of data points. I would then perform a multivariable regression analysis to come up with a predictive correlation I could use for design. And then, of course, I would do the design. I have no idea how to PM you, and I am not so sure I can trust you not to be a crazy person who might show up on my doorstep. That is why I post under a pseudonym.

 

[Hermio]

Which industry?
And I am not going around and around with you.
You can't grasp that lubricity or film strength are minor pieces of the whole pie.

I grasp that they are not the whole pie. I disagree that they are minor pieces. The industries I consult to include biofuels, polymers, industrial foods (including alternative proteins or "fake meat", biodiesel, sustainable diesel, pharmaceutical, fish foods by fermentation and any other industry that processes liquids. My customers have been in the USA mostly, but also in Morocco, Canada, Russia, the UK, Brazil, China, Belgium, and The Netherlands, among others.

 

[sean donato]

Imagine you just burned fuel without converting any of its energy to mechanical work. Then you would have the highest exhaust temperature; I am guessing between 1700 and 2000F for gasoline in air. As you convert the combustion energy to mechanical work, you are removing the energy that can dissipate in the form of heat, causing the exhaust temperature to decrease. If you could convert 100% of the combustion energy to mechanical work, the exhaust would be at ambient temperature. Engineering thermodynamics 101.

None of those are high egts in any gas engine, especially under heavy load, or with forced induction. All it indicates is a healthy working engine. You keep trying to apply one part of a very complex equation as full truth and it just doesn't corelate to what happens every day in the real world. To add to that statement, most of what you've reported has been invalid for multiple reasons mentioned. There are standardized tests, that pertain specifically to a 2 stroke engine for evaluating oils and how they preform. Anything testing that doesn't recreate any of the conditions isn't a valid test. Thats just the long and short of it.

 

[Hermio]

None of those are high egts in any gas engine, especially under heavy load, or with forced induction. All it indicates is a healthy working engine. You keep trying to apply one part of a very complex equation as full truth and it just doesn't corelate to what happens every day in the real world. To add to that statement, most of what you've reported has been invalid for multiple reasons mentioned. There are standardized tests, that pertain specifically to a 2 stroke engine for evaluating oils and how they preform. Anything testing that doesn't recreate any of the conditions isn't a valid test. Thats just the long and short of it.

Not invalid at all. I know that any engine will have somewhat high temperatures in the exhaust gas or it won't work. All I am saying is that the hotter the exhaust gas is, the less combustion energy is used to do mechanical work. Ergo, high temperatures are not efficient. Most old-time auto engines were less than 20% efficient. Today's auto engines approach 30%. I don't know the efficiency of chain saw engines. That does not mean the saw is worthless or that it is poorly tuned. It is merely a statement of conservation of energy. Now on the topic of lubricity and film strength, these are properties of the oils and not dependent on the engine per se. One does not have to duplicate conditions in an engine to rank oils for film strength or friction, though the absolute values will depend on the actual conditions in an engine. If anything, most of the tests I referred to actually expose the oil to far more mechanical stress than is found in an engine. Project farm's wear scar test, for example, shows significant wear after only 5 minutes, and this is on a bearing roller, which is hardened steel. It is basically a torture test for the oil.

 

[sean donato]

Not invalid at all. I know that any engine will have somewhat high temperatures in the exhaust gas or it won't work. All I am saying is that the hotter the exhaust gas is, the less combustion energy is used to do mechanical work. Ergo, high temperatures are not efficient. Most old-time auto engines were less than 20% efficient. Today's auto engines approach 30%. I don't know the efficiency of chain saw engines. That does not mean the saw is worthless or that it is poorly tuned. It is merely a statement of conservation of energy. Now on the topic of lubricity and film strength, these are properties of the oils and not dependent on the engine per se. One does not have to duplicate conditions in an engine to rank oils for film strength or friction, though the absolute values will depend on the actual conditions in an engine. If anything, most of the tests I referred to actually expose the oil to far more mechanical stress than is found in an engine. Project farm's wear scar test, for example, shows significant wear after only 5 minutes, and this is on a bearing roller, which is hardened steel. It is basically a torture test for the oil.

First, you're confusing egts with engine operating temps. Engines run at a higher operating temp are more efficient. This is easily seen with nearly every auto mfg running coolant temps up to the boil over point of the coolant in recent years chasing a 0.2% efficiency increase. Egts are what they are given a certain engine at a certain load and air fuel ratio being maintained.
any lab test that doesn't subject the lubricant to conditions it will see in use is of little analytical valve. I don't care what 2 stroke oil does at ambient temperatures, no matter what load you apply. It's not subject to the operating conditions, doesn't have fuel in it etc. Ie, not a worthy test. Pf tests are predominantly of little real world value for these reasons. Only thing I've seen him do thays worth a hoot is his cold pour point test and thats even suspect since it's new oil thats not been subjected to any running/use. Be as critical as you want, oils are tested a certain way in the lab for different reasons, and ultimately field tested ro see if the formulation meets the desired requirements.

 

[Hermio]

First, you're confusing egts with engine operating temps. Engines run at a higher operating temp are more efficient. This is easily seen with nearly every auto mfg running coolant temps up to the boil over point of the coolant in recent years chasing a 0.2% efficiency increase. Egts are what they are given a certain engine at a certain load and air fuel ratio being maintained.
any lab test that doesn't subject the lubricant to conditions it will see in use is of little analytical valve. I don't care what 2 stroke oil does at ambient temperatures, no matter what load you apply. It's not subject to the operating conditions, doesn't have fuel in it etc. Ie, not a worthy test. Pf tests are predominantly of little real world value for these reasons. Only thing I've seen him do thays worth a hoot is his cold pour point test and thats even suspect since it's new oil thats not been subjected to any running/use. Be as critical as you want, oils are tested a certain way in the lab for different reasons, and ultimately field tested ro see if the formulation meets the desired requirements.

The reason they are running high coolant temperatures is indeed to reduce heat loss within the engine, thus increasing efficiency. What I am saying is that there is only so much energy produced by combustion, and the more of that energy is released as heat, the less is available to do mechanical work. Remember, this discussion got started with an observation that a tester on YouTube got a higher EGT with a richer oil mixture, and he also noticed less net power from his saw. That is consistent with thermodynamics.

 

[sean donato]

The reason they are running high coolant temperatures is indeed to reduce heat loss within the engine, thus increasing efficiency. What I am saying is that there is only so much energy produced by combustion, and the more of that energy is released as heat, the less is available to do mechanical work. Remember, this discussion got started with an observation that a tester on YouTube got a higher EGT with a richer oil mixture, and he also noticed less net power from his saw. That is consistent with thermodynamics.

He noticed higher running temperature with an infrared temp gun. He did not check egts, he didn't even bother to tune for the fuel used. Ie, invalid test.

 

[Hermio]

First, you're confusing egts with engine operating temps. Engines run at a higher operating temp are more efficient. This is easily seen with nearly every auto mfg running coolant temps up to the boil over point of the coolant in recent years chasing a 0.2% efficiency increase. Egts are what they are given a certain engine at a certain load and air fuel ratio being maintained.
any lab test that doesn't subject the lubricant to conditions it will see in use is of little analytical valve. I don't care what 2 stroke oil does at ambient temperatures, no matter what load you apply. It's not subject to the operating conditions, doesn't have fuel in it etc. Ie, not a worthy test. Pf tests are predominantly of little real world value for these reasons. Only thing I've seen him do thays worth a hoot is his cold pour point test and thats even suspect since it's new oil thats not been subjected to any running/use. Be as critical as you want, oils are tested a certain way in the lab for different reasons, and ultimately field tested ro see if the formulation meets the desired requirements.

You need to watch the full video. Todd does not just test oil out of the can. He also cooks the oil at 450F for several hours, and he measures volatility loss and then does the cold test on the cooked oils. His recent tests on bar and chain oils were very revealing. He even measured wear on the chain, which confirmed my suspicion that new chains don't really "stretch"; instead, the bottom of the chain which contacts the bar is a bit rough when it comes from the factory, but it quickly wears in and gets a polished surface and then wears much more slowly. This initial wear is probably what causes what people think of as chain stretching. But Tood clearly showed less wear on the actual chain with some oils vs others.

 

[Hermio]

He noticed higher running temperature with an infrared temp gun. He did not check egts, he didn't even bother to tune for the fuel used. Ie, invalid test.

Possibly invalid for what he was trying to prove. But my point is that he ended up with a less efficient operating condition. That is a thermodynamic fact.

 

[sean donato]

You need to watch the full video. Todd does not just test oil out of the can. He also cooks the oil at 450F for several hours, and he measures volatility loss and then does the cold test on the cooked oils. His recent tests on bar and chain oils were very revealing. He even measured wear on the chain, which confirmed my suspicion that new chains don't really "stretch"; instead, the bottom of the chain which contacts the bar is a bit rough when it comes from the factory, but it quickly wears in and gets a polished surface and then wears much more slowly. This initial wear is probably what causes what people think of as chain stretching. But Tood clearly showed less wear on the actual chain with some oils vs others.

I've watched several of his videos completely and come away with the same conclusions. He does not do real world testing. None of his engine oil tests pertain to real life use. 450* is an unrealistic oil operating temp. Again, proves nothing useful.