What brand/type of oil do you use? What do you think about Synthetics?

Garymci5 · October 24, 2009, 09:12:53 PM

Quote from: NewbeeMC9 on October 19, 2009, 05:14:41 PM

How bout the Royal Purple
http://www.ro-quip.com/Technical_Docs/Royal%20Purple/Industrial%20fluids/RP%20Motor%20Oil_ps.pdf

Says "Royal Purple 40 DD is recommended for operation with Detroit Diesel
Series 149 Two-Stroke Cycle Engines running with the percentage of fuel
sulfur less than 0.5 percent mass." Mine is only a series 71, Any body running a series 149 in their bus?

They do claim CF-2 on their 40w

A 16V149 would sure make for great hill climbing, might even lay rubber

I check the link and noticed a very low TBN (at least the spec if published). Add to that a TBN of only 8 compared to 12 for Amsoil. Eight might be okay for gas engines, but won't find it's way into my diesel. I want crankcase acides neutralized and don't want to change oil all the time. Do they guarantee extended drain? If not then it's not very cost effective, which Amsoil certainly is, no matter what angle it's looked at.

Now this is not to say RP isn't a good quality oil. But considering the many aspect of oil, cost and durability, I've yet to find anything better than Amsoil. If that ever happens, I will take a good hard look and seriously consider a change.

bevans6 · October 25, 2009, 05:01:22 AM

In a huge FWIW moment...

QUOTE: "That they would have to reforumlate the oil, detracting from it's protection, to meet the API spec. . ." That sounds like marketing/ sales hot air to me. What ever happened to 'meets or exceeds' ?

this is probably true. In order to meet the new CJ-4 spec most oils had to have levels of detergent and friction modifiers like ZDDP reduced to meet the sulphated ash content requirement of 1.0 In most engines, high detergent and additive package level were something to boast about. They contribute mightily to Amsoil's ability to recommend extended drain intervals. Part of what I read is that oil manufacturers of CJ-4 who used to recommend extended intervals with earlier formulations now recommend sticking to the engine manufacturers drain intervals, until a testing routine can be established.

I'm going to stick to CF-2 as long as I can find it in my DD. But - I run flat tappet race engines for myself and for customers, and have been recommending diesel oils for break in due to the higher levels of ZDDP, hence my fascination with oil formulations. We all missed when the car oils were reformulated to reduce additives, ZDDP dropped to about half of what we needed. We lost a brand new cam in a brand new $15K race engine, and no one was happy, and I got very paranoid...

brian

wayne · October 25, 2009, 07:03:14 AM

I have read this subject everytime it has hit the boards for the past few years. Still don't know what to use. I know my friend runs 12 new Kenworth supertrains and swears by all synthetics due to fuel mileage and extended drain savings. He has been using all syns for the past 5 years and has his own research numbers to back it up. I don't personally know anyone who has used synthetics in a two stroke, but I wish I did. I believe the cold weather starting and extended sitting times are big issues but I also asked Williams Detroit Diesel in Dearborn, MI (about 5 years ago) and was told to NOT use synthetic oils in my 8v92ta.

?

luvrbus · October 25, 2009, 07:20:43 AM

Wayne, you can use synthetics in a 8v92 it is in the DD book I have a friend that has used RP oil for over 10 years in his 8v92 but to me he waste money because DD does not extend the oil changes with synthetic oil he loves the stuff and never had a engine problem but again he changes it every 12,000 miles

good luck

JohnEd · October 25, 2009, 03:36:20 PM

Brian,

In the day we had engine "break in oil" in the crankcase of new cars. That was code for "non-detergent" motor oil. You were supposed to have it changed to detergent after only 500 miles. My 57 Plymouth maint book called for non detergent oil for the engine. I used a change of detergent and it smoked really really bad. Took a few hundred miles for it to quit after i put non D oil back in.

John

JohnEd · October 25, 2009, 03:49:01 PM

I think the argument over Syn vs Dino should be over now. Synthetic won hands down....in terms of performance. No contest! Those BIG trucks have temp gauges for both of the differentials and some have oil coolers that come on line automatically. Those guys told me that their differential oil temperatures went down 20 degrees on a specific hill pulling the same weight. They also got a bump in MPG. The lubrication speck data showed Syn a clear winner over Dino. Syn also didn't generate as much acid so the change interval was longer. Syn didn't thicken as much as Dino so starts were easier and the diffs didn't need to warm for half an hour so they could get in high gear.

CRAP!

Now what is this about the speck changing in 2010

And just why would they do that if the stuff still meets the spec.?

$:-\$

Is this another Bush gift to the starving oil industry? Oops! Strike that.

Those boys did surely relieve a lot of burdensome requirements for public info so don't call that a political comment.

John

belfert · October 25, 2009, 04:58:41 PM

Quote from: JohnEd on October 25, 2009, 03:49:01 PM
CRAP! Now what is this about the speck changing in 2010 And just why would they do that if the stuff still meets the spec.? $:-\$ Is this another Bush gift to the starving oil industry? Oops! Strike that. Those boys did surely relieve a lot of burdensome requirements for public info so don't call that a political comment.

The letter from the API says something about not being able to do a 6V92 test anymore. I assume they had a 6V92 engine rigged for testing and the engine died. Probably not financially feasible for them to fix it.

JohnEd · October 25, 2009, 07:01:51 PM

Brian,

Thanks for the info. I guess the 2 stroke is dieing a slow death as far as products are concerned. Still think it is the best sounding engine ever, for my money.

Thanks again,

John

bevans6 · October 26, 2009, 05:07:20 AM

i think a large part of the message is that even if and when CF-2 oils specifically aimed at the DD 2 stroke no longer have an API rating, they will probably still be available. And that newer formulations are coming into the good range for our engines so that people will still have choice and be able to pick up oil without searching or special ordering. The ash issue is resolved with the CJ-4 spec, and the multi-grade issue has largely been resolved with improvements in formulation and manufacturing. Synthetics in particular don't reduce in viscosity as much as multigrades of 20 years ago did.

So from this I take away that support and lubrication for our old two strokes is now assured in future, rather than the opposite!

Brian

luvrbus · October 26, 2009, 05:14:07 AM

Any oil approved for the MTU engines are going to work for your DD

good luck

Garymci5 · October 29, 2009, 12:28:52 PM

Quote from: bevans6 on October 25, 2009, 05:01:22 AM
In a huge FWIW moment...

QUOTE: "That they would have to reforumlate the oil, detracting from it's protection, to meet the API spec. . ." That sounds like marketing/ sales hot air to me. What ever happened to 'meets or exceeds' ?

****Okay, here goes: It could sound like a lot of things.....IF it meets a spec THEN it COULD exceed it. Basically the message as explained to me: If it does NOT meet the spec, because of a certain additive(s) required to qualify for an API classification, does not mean an oil cannot or does not still protect the engine, perhaps even better than the API spec itself calls for.......Get it? Other than that, I can't say with any certainty one way or the other.....this info wasn't from Amsoil, however (Redline).....think it comes down to the vast differences in fossil vs syn oil, all the various standards that are needed for fossil oil, that don't seem to quite so apply to syn oil, such as the way viscosity and flow characteristics are to vastly different at extreme temperatures, and how fossil oil heavily relies on additives to perform. I am no scientist, but do grasp what was explained to me, and knowing how big business works am not surprised there is more than one layer to dig thru to find real information. No doubt we'll all be chasing valid and true data until finally giving up in our final days.

this is probably true. In order to meet the new CJ-4 spec most oils had to have levels of detergent and friction modifiers like ZDDP reduced to meet the sulphated ash content requirement of 1.0 In most engines, high detergent and additive package level were something to boast about. They contribute mightily to Amsoil's ability to recommend extended drain intervals.

**** That's a BIG assumption that relies on propaganda from 20+ years ago: that Amsoil uses high levels of "high detergent and additive package level" and that "contribute mightily to Amsoil's ability to recommend extended drain intervals." That is a big statement to make, can you support this in ANY way? From what I understand Amsoil uses very low levels of any additives especially VI (Viscosity Index) improvers. Their base oil is good enough (type 4 and 5) that high concentrations of additives are not needed, and detract from it's performance. Often what makes oil break down is the additives themselves. Why not "nip it in the bud" and just use better base-stocks? Well, it COSTS more and most people don't understand why and therefore buy the cheapest products. The sad thing is that it the long run it'll just cost more....

Part of what I read is that oil manufacturers of CJ-4 who used to recommend extended intervals with earlier formulations now recommend sticking to the engine manufacturers drain intervals, until a testing routine can be established.

**** If that is the case, it appears Amsoil is an exception. There are some engines that are prone to problems, and occasionally drain intervals are adjusted. Amsoil has a list on line, but did not see anything for diesel engines, just gas. Correct me if wrong.

I'm going to stick to CF-2 as long as I can find it in my DD.

**** Good call in my book, me two: Amsoil 15-40 CF-2 Diesel Oil. All 11 gallons, plus another 5 gal pail of gear oil for the diff and manual trans that will go in this spring (will probably need 8+ G but will start with the trans).

But - I run flat tappet race engines for myself and for customers, and have been recommending diesel oils for break in due to the higher levels of ZDDP, hence my fascination with oil formulations. We all missed when the car oils were reformulated to reduce additives, ZDDP dropped to about half of what we needed. We lost a brand new cam in a brand new $15K race engine, and no one was happy, and I got very paranoid...

**** Might be worth considering what base stocks are used in the oil, more so than an additive, which in essence just helps support engine parts when the oil can't

I've had oil problems too over the last 20yrs, including with the best know brands of fossil oil available-- such as TOTAL viscosity breakdown in just 1800 miles in a low mileage bone stock daily driver car; ZERO PSI on the oil pressure gauge; an oil change solved that. The high zinc content seemed to have protected the bearings just fine (engine was not taken apart, but oil pressure was still good), even though it was driven over 300 miles with no oil pressure. That episode converted me to a believer of synthetic oil, not to mention everyone I knew that raced at Sears Point (now Infineon) raceway used synthetics, most of them Redline products, another brand I highly respect, trust, and have used for 20 years.

Best of luck, but please, myself included, let's stick with current and valid information, to avoid the throw net sized asumptions that are often wrong and confuse people even more. If we guess then let's make it known, if told by someone else, then mention it.

Thanks for listening (everyone), and sorry it took so long to reply. I've been busy working on cars, and hopefully will even have time to build my own little turbo charged quasi-race-engine-wonder (over bored, forged crank, forged pistons, forged rods, all ARP fasteners), that likes to eat up muscle-bound push-rod wonders (it'll pick on big 4cam/4valver's too with excellent results, it's just fun stuff, then there's the corners....how's 1.3G's? )

Best,
Gary

[/quote]

Garymci5 · October 29, 2009, 12:32:30 PM

[/quote]

The letter from the API says something about not being able to do a 6V92 test anymore. I assume they had a 6V92 engine rigged for testing and the engine died. Probably not financially feasible for them to fix it.
[/quote]

My understanding is that since the 2 cycle engines are no longer made there was no reason to keep supporting the test methods. I'm sure the API organization could afford to fix it, pretty sure they're not a back yard DIY'er digging for coins under the couch.....

Just Dallas · October 29, 2009, 12:39:01 PM

Removed

bigjohnkub · October 29, 2009, 01:15:51 PM

Many people on the board have more insight than I can give. I firmly believe that the person that designed the engine knows more than I do. Therefore I will use the oil he reccomended. Oil and filters are much cheaper than an engine.
Big John

rusty · October 29, 2009, 05:17:17 PM

Gary, In your reply you talk about fossil oil and synthetic oil. Synthetic oil is fossil oil. Synthetic oil has been rerefined a couple of more times. If I can use a construction analysis, fossil oil is like roadbase all different sizes of material. Synthetic is like 3/8 round rock all the same size

Wayne