I've always used yamalube but i'm looking for something better. What's everyone runnin?
Printable View
I've always used yamalube but i'm looking for something better. What's everyone runnin?
Depends on what I'm running it in. I normally used Klotz R50 in my hydros although I have run Pennzoil. I normally use Pennzoil in my other boats.
I run Maxima 927, but I also burn alcohol in my engines.
Motul 800 2T
Lucas
I use TCW-3 oil in my pleasure motor, but Klotz Techniplate with Castor in my race motor ... because it smells nice
Alisyn in race motor. Klotz R-50 in everything else. REW
Amsoil Dominator
The cheapest "Good" oil I can find Klotz Techniplate, it's cheaper than quicksilver and Yamalube.
This is a pretty interesting subject since oil has changed so much from when most all 2 cycle oil was intended for outboards since that was the biggest market. I found this discussion on another board and thought it would be appropriate. Sorry for the long post but there's a lot of new information when it comes to oils and the oils themselves are evolving (witness the new Mercury Rejuvenate that just came out).
The older oils had American Petroleum Institute (API) rating of "TC". The Boating Industry Association (BIA) rating of "TC-W", or the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) rating of "TC-W II." and these oils were originally developed for outboard engines, however, motorcyclists that used these oils found that their air cooled engines ran the best on the oldest API TC oils. These API TC formulas contained a higher level of bright stock 150, a high density petroleum base stock with a consistency similar to honey, that gave the best protection against piston seizure and bearing failure. To prevent carbon buildup in the piston ring grooves, these TC oils used metal based detergents that were very effective in air cooled motorcycle engines but caused problems in outboard engines when operated at long periods of time at one throttle setting. A whisker-like bridge could form across the sparkplug gap to permanently foul a cylinder under these conditions while the motorcyclist operating his engine at a constantly changing throttle setting never encountered this problem.
When the BIA developed the TC-W rating, they excluded the use of these metal-based detergents in favor of organic detergents to eliminate this problem in outboard engines. These TC-W oils (two-cycle, water cooled) also contained lighter base oils without the bright stock 150. The thought being that since outboards ran cooler they didn't need the thicker base stock. For engines operating in the 4,000 rpm to 5,000 rpm range, the absence of the bright stock 150 had no affect on piston and bearing life. However, off-road motorcyclists testing these new TC-W oils were disappointed with the bearing life of their engines operating at 10,000 - 11,000 rpm and quickly returned to using the TC oils.
The need for a clean two-stroke outboard oil was recognized when piston ring groove carbonization was seen as a primary cause for engine failure and a new formula designated TC-W II was developed. While this oil was significantly better for outboard use and was phosphate free, it still was not the optimum two-stroke oil for engines operating above 8,000 rpm. The phosphate free mandate was from a concern raised by environmentalists that realized that outboard engine use could permanently pollute fresh waterways. Recently, efforts to develop an even cleaner outboard oil have produced the latest NMMA TC-W3 and this oil, although containing no bright stock 150, has produced better levels of lubricity and cleanliness in piston ring groove areas, however, it is still not nearly as good as an oil for high rpm applications.
The BIA evolved into the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) which works closely with the outboard manufacturers. the NMMA mandated that all oils would contain non-metallic detergent additives, no phosphorus or phosphates, if they were to have the approval of the NMMA and the outboard engine manufacturers agreed to recommend only the NMMA approved oils. This is a big problem for higher revving engines. Ring sticking, port depoists and low temperature oil flow have been problems with TC-W3 oils.
Also, many marine dealers were concerned about the flammability and flash point of out board oils. Since larger engines were now consuming huge amounts of oil they had to stock several hundred cases of oil per season. This amount of oil stored in one location had alerted the fire marshals and insurance companies attention and a solution to this risk was addressed by the NMMA. Higher flash point oil with a flash point over 200 deg. F was what they needed to achieve a category 3B fluid rating, just enough to avoid the hazardous storage and shipping restrictions they were facing with all other two cycle oils. Oil manufacturers were forced to use TC-W3 additives or blends with high flash solvents if they were allowed to keep the NMMA license. The high flash solvents caused all sorts of unburned oil problems in engines.The combination of non-metallic/non-phosphate detergents and high flash solvents in the new TC-W 3 oils later caused some severe ring sticking in many engines and Yamaha actually required owners to use a 'ring-free' fuel additive to maintain their warranty, a symptom of being forced by the NMMA to recommend the new oils.
In Japan, engine manufacturers have developed a series of strenuous engine tests that can identify poor quality oils if they don’t measure up in performance. This became the JASO classification system. (Japanese automobile standards organization).
The tests include a detergency test, lubricity test, initial torque test, exhaust smoke test and exhaust blocking test.
JASO FA - Original spec established regulating lubricity, detergency, initial torque, exhaust smoke and exhaust system blocking.
JASO FB - Increased lubricity, detergency, exhaust smoke and exhaust system blocking requirements over FA.
JASO FC - Lubricity and initial torque requirements same as FB, however far higher detergency, exhaust smoke and exhaust system blocking requirements over FB.
JASO FD - Same as FC with far higher detergency requirement
In Europe, European two-cycle engine manufacturers were simultaneously working on two-cycle oil tests. They found that European two-stroke high performance engines needed an oil with a better detergency and higher temperature performance than the best JASO "FC" oils. In April, 1997, they published their ISO global standards for two-stroke oils with two quality level categories: ISO-L-EGB and ISO-L-EGC. The ISO-L-EGB aligns closely with JASO "FB" and the ISO-L-EGC aligns closely with JASO "FC". Then, they developed the "GD" detergency test to run hotter and longer (3 hours vs. 1 hour) than the JASO test. It didn’t take long for oil manufacturers to develop oil formulations that pass this new quality test, and most of them involve using synthetic base oils.
The problem with some synthetic basestocks (ester especially, which Amsoil, Klotz, and Redline use), is that they are hygroscopic (they absorb water)...which creates corrosion issues. Some combat this with additional additives, with varying success. Rust films on iron liners and crank wheels during a 2 week storage period have been common unless engines were fogged after shutdown.
Oils like Klotz R-50, Amsoil Dominator, and Redline Racing should only be used in racing situations (long WOT runs and frequent engine tear downs). Redline and Klotz specifically state this in their product descriptions. Racing oils have very high flash points and more anti-wear additives, so they can cause deposit and sludge issues, more smoke, and more pollutants released into the water. The harder you run them the less deposits they build up, but they are by no means clean burning. I'd also highly recommend fogging with a conventional oil after each use to address the corrosion issue.
Bottom line is that a JASO FD oil is really good stuff. It has a lot better lubricity and keeps the engine a lot cleaner than TC-W3 oils. It's a lot better at high RPM (something we need badly). You shouldn't need to use a high oil ratio with these oils, but if you do use more oil they aren't going to carbon up nearly as much as the older oils or a TC-W3 oil. FD rated oils are recommended for high rpm air cooled engines, but don't build up deposits like the old TC oils in cooler running outboards. You should at the very least be looking at an FC rated oil for any serious high rpm application.
The Quicksilver Rejuvenate is an JASO FD rated oil that was developed for the Mercury heavy fuel Optimax, that was burning jet fuel and needed better lubricity and better detergent additives than conventional oils. The heavy fuel didn't evaporate as much during injection and a lot more fuel was getting on the cylinder walls. This caused piston and ring problems so an oil with better lubricity was required to fix the issues, so this oil has really good lubricity. Much better stuff than any TC-W3 oil.
I'm also looking at the Schaffer racing oil, here is a link. This stuff is an FD oil and also has a moly additive that I like and also says that it has good corrosion protection, so I plan on trying it next season...
http://www.schaefferoil.com/cmss_fil...006%20Logo.pdf
Not sure what oil ratio I should be running with these oils on a older engine at high rpm, but I will run a lot of oil and keep an eye on the deposits.
All boat racers will pick their best weapon (in this case oil) for what works best for them. I will have to tell ya, I have used Amsoil 100:1 in a LOT of recreational outboards over the years with no problems. I have a 30 Johnson that has been fed this oil for 22 years and it is still running strong. This engine gets used year round and I cannot even begin to think of how many hours are on it. On this subject....it is not about which one is best but what works best for you. Would I use anything else? Why would I, it has never let me down.
I don't know about the other synthetic makers, but I'm pretty sure Klotz sells synthetic with different bases. For a while R-50 was marked "Do Not Use with Alcohol" and now there is no such warning on R-50. Their Techinplate oil has always been compatible with alcohol and alcohol blend fuels.
Can you address the different hydroscopic tendencies of the various bases and which oil brands are using each?
Polyester (POE)
Alkyl benzene (AB)
Polyglycols
Dibasic acid ester
Silicone
Silicate ester
Also, can you address ACES IV and their claim that it is a lubricant and dramatic octane improver, esp for 2 stroke use?
Another question about hydroscopic oils ... in HVAC hydroscopic oils are always sold in metal containers and regular oils in plastic. If moisture is a concern, won't we see the same packaging (regardless of racing/non racing application) or are the oils sold as 2 stroke oil sufficiently diluted with other ingredients that they are stable unless directly exposed to air?
I have seen the moisture problem with Klotz Super Techniplate.
As I said in the first paragraph, I found this discussion on another board, I didn't write it, and I'm not a lubrication engineer so I can't intelligently discuss the different synthetic oil base stocks and which are hydroscopic or not.
Also many of the high performance oils on the market don't release their base stock information, so it's hard to figure out what is in there. For instance on the Klotz web site there isn't any mention of what stock is used for R50. It isn't in the oil spec sheet or in the MSDS sheets either, they just say it's a "pure synthetic", which is like saying it didn't come out of the ground, but that's about all they are saying.
I went to the Klotz web site and the R50 is Not alcohol compatible (their bold type, not mine). Maybe it isn't on the bottle, but they for sure don't recommend it for use with alcohol. Here is a link to the page I went to.
http://www.klotzlube.com/proddetail....%5FQuart&cat=6
I also looked at the R50 tech sheet and it stated it was ok for personal watercraft, snowmobiles and watercooled ATV's, but there was no mention of outboards. No prohibition, but no recommendation either. I did happen to see that their regular 50:1 techniplate is TC-W3, JSAO FD and ISO-EGD rated and is recommended for outboards. Based on the ratings it's a pretty good oil. It was rated for a film strength of 8, not quite as good as the R50 (rated at at 10), so it clearly gave up some lubricity compared to the higher temp oil.
I'm certainly not slamming synthetics, there are plenty of very good oils (like the Amsoil 100:1 outboad) that will serve just fine in a stock motor at reasonable RPM's, and all synthetics don't absorb water, so the corrosion issue isn't with all of them, it's just that we have to be careful or you can end up with a bucket of rust.
I think what we are looking for here is something that will provide better lubrication at high rpm's in stock or modified motors and at the low block and head tempertures that we see in outboards. The Amsoil site has a good 2 cycle oil application chart that shows which of their oils work in what applicatoins. Some of the JSAO FD oils aren't recommended for outboards at all, but are recommended for air cooled and other high temp motors. This indicates that the oil needs higher temperatures to work and isn't going to provide good lubrication where we need it, in a cool block. So just picking an oil because it is JSAO FD rated may not be a good idea.
Picking an oil that is rated as only TC-W3 and doesn't have any of the higher ratings is probably not a good idea either. TC-W3 oils don't have the capability to run at high speeds and don't have the wear properties we need, but they do have the low temperature capability so it isn't that we don't want TC-W3 rating, we just need to be looking for more. There are oils that have both ratings (like the Klotz 50:1 techinplate) and that is probably more like what we are looking for, the Qucksilver Rejuvenate also being one that looks very good to me since it has both ratings.
I was not familiar with the ACES IV product. It's interesting, but I've got to understand what the mechanisim is that produces the lower wear before I'm sold on it. It looks like it might be something that would reduce bore wear and that's not bad, but they say that the properties are released during combustion, so it isn't going to help the bearings that are what goes bad on stock engines that are run at high rpm's. Might help with outboard bore and scuffing around the exhaust ports, since they get hot and have lubrication problems in that area. They have some interesting testamonials and some test data that says bore wear was drastically reduced. If it helped an engine stay "fresh" longer that would be a good thing.
On the other side, are the exhaust ports of a racing outboard any cooler than those of an air cooled motor? The answer is probably not. Piston scuffing, and ring sticking are things we see regularly in racing outboard despite the cooler cylinder walls, so maybe when we are running flat out we need an oil that is more like a air cooled 2 cycle oil to keep those problems at bay. The Amsoil chart seems to agree with that idea, but they are recommending lots of teardowns to address the deposit issue.
Finally, we tend to use a lot more oil in our engines to help make it live at higher speed, and build the motors so that the bearings won't go south in a few hours. It is very likely that you can make up to some extent for a lack of lubricity by using more oil, and oil is cheap. I don't think anybody is running a 45SS at 100:1 and racing it that way, not for long anyway. At the same time you would like to not have the engine gum up or foul plugs all the time just because you are running a 5:1 mix just to keep the engine alive at the rpm's you want to run. If some of these oils let you run a bit less oil, or have the ability to run a lot cleaner by having the detergents to keep the engine a lot cleaner then that's probably a good thing.
As we talk experience we perhaps should mention the mixes we are using. Saying that we used brand x and "worked good for me" doesn't tell you much unless you know how much of it was being used and in what engine at what rpm, and when you tore it down it looked nice and clean or it was a smudge pot inside...
There's lots of things to think about and some shared experience goes a long way to keeping everybody running and that's good for the sport.
Lucas has there specs and msds sheets on there site www.lucasoil.com
I think you'll like the Schaeffer synthetic oil. We've used a number of their products with good success. We don't see other boats with Schaeffer stickers on them or others who are even aware of it. Our local rep is a cool guy and always gives us a case or two for each championship, high point or record my kid set. He deals more with race cars and wants to give us gear oil but doesn't understand how we can do an entire year with only 3 quarts of oil. He doesn't relate to the couple ounces in a J/A OMC gearcase compared to a car tranny.
What catagory does yamalube fall into?
The expensive one! (Just kidding.)
Jeff
We were running a small two stroke engine that had direct injection on heavy fuel (JP-5). Understand that to do that we had to reduce the compression ratio and alter the ignition and fuel injection curves to run a fuel with low octane. We had planned to use the Mercury "Rejuvenate" oil since we thought that was the same oil that Mercury developed for their heavy fuel engine program.
I spoke with the brand manager at Mercury marine and was told that "Rejuvenate" isn't exactly the same oil as their "Multi-Fuel" 2 stroke oil and that the Multi-Fuel oil had more detergent in it and this would be better for our application. In researching it I found that the "Multi-Fuel" (Mercury P/N: 92-858092A01) oil is also only available in two 5 gallon containers (you gotta buy 10 gallons) at a time and you're gonna spend about $300 for that much oil (or you can buy a 55 gallon drum for a lot more). I also found it interesting that this oil is the recommended oil for the Optimax 200XS ROS engine that is used for offshore and drag racing. Bottom line being that this sounds pretty much like "the good stuff" but it's not cheap or easy to get.
Due to limited availability we used the Rejuvenate in our program and I'll update when we do a teardown, but for now we haven't stuck anything but I suspect that we will convert over to the Multi-Fuel oil soon.
Finally, the "Rejuvenate" is going to be discontinued. While it burns a lot cleaner than normal oils and really works on reducing the carbon buildup in engines, there hasn't been a huge rush to buy it. The good news is that it will likely be rebranded as a high performance/racing oil since it is also really good in terms of lubricity, so not only will you be able to protect your engine from damage, but it will run a lot cleaner too.
This thread offers great reading, and I'm certrain there are terabytes more data available, but a few tech questions should be addressed to make oil purchase and mix ration decisions:
1) For all the various oils claimed performance presented; at what mix ratio(s) and operating conditions was the data derived?
2) What is the relationship between mix ratio and lubricity? With what type of fuel? 100LL Avgas which is loaded with lead, 93 Automotive unleaded? Methanol?
3) Why do factories test at 16:1 or 18:1 (as reported on BRF elsewhere), when most outboard oils are rated at 50:1?
4) What effect does higher or lower base oil viscosity have on power output and/or durability?
5) What affect does mix ratio have on power output? (also reported elsewhere on BRF)
Now a few functional questions:
6) How many of you have actually worn out a piston, cylinder wall, or bearing directly attributable to lubrication failure?
7) How many have actually fouled a spark plug or stuck rings directly attributable to oil selection?
8) If you're burning 10:1 mix ratio, does the quality of oil really make a difference?
9) Is it possible to prove the differences in oil performance lakeside?
10) If you only run your race motor 10 hours/year (generous), how many years racing does it take to stick a ring or clog a port attributable to oil selection?
For the record, my engines run 10:1 (for racing) or 16:1 (laking) name brand TC-W3 oils in 100LL Avgas at speeds up to 8500 RPM with no apparent problems. How can this be?
Tim
well since yesterday i have changed from amsoil saber out board to now " redline Race synthetic oil "
looking forward to trying this new oil out sunday!!
I think all of these are great questions and putting data points together is great. As you said, you have to put the ratio together with the oil. Some oils don't provide as much lubricity, but you can increase the mix ratio and make up for it in large part. If you use more oil you are reducing the octane of your fuel and are more susceptible to detonation. If you run higher octane fuel you can get back sufficient octane to prevent detonation. But we also know that running lots of oil can foul plugs, so then do we put in a higher heat range plug, and then are you courting detonation with the hotter plug??? It's a thermodynamic rubix cube, if you twist it one way it can work, or if you twist it another way you can get to the same place. Adding more data is the way to figure out what works or doesn't, and the more data is shared, the more we all learn.
I didn't know that the factories tested at 16:1 or 18:1. That's news to me, but that tells you a lot about where the engines run best. I'd guess, and it's only a guess, that more oil provides better ring sealing and more power, up to a point, and that may be somewhere in the 16:1 to 18:1 range, but they are also running pump gas, and they don't want to be constantly changing plugs, so there could be some compromise in what they use for testing.
Base oil viscosity makes a big difference in bearing and ring wear as well as sealing, but can be offset somewhat with higher oil ratios. Since we are diluting the heck out of the oil with fuel the amount of oil can make a big difference if the ratio is drastically increased.
I think that most racers tend to flood the engine with oil because oil is cheap and parts are expensive, and in this game engine teardowns are frequent, so ratios like 10:1 are common. That doesn't mean that it's the best way to do it, but these engines have been around for a long time and there's a lot of experience that was put into them and folks found out the hard way what works and what didn't.
Typical racers are doing teardown so frequently that I don't think rings are going to load up with deposits, or ports are going to be clogged like you see in a engine used on a pontoon boat. I just got a Merc 500 powerhead off of a pontoon boat and the exhaust pipe in the the bottom pan was more than half clogged with carbon, and when I take the exhaust cover off I expect it to be full of crap too. The previous owner probably mixed extra oil in the engine "to keep it from wearing out" and I'm guessing that he wasn't doing the engine any good by not running it hard to burn that crap out of the engine.
I think that running a mix like 10:1 is pretty much flooding the engine with oil, and you can get away with it if you run higher octane fuel, so yes it can easily work for you and the way you run your engines. If you aren't fouling plugs, don't have detonation, and aren't clogging up the engine in the teardown interval you are using, then it can and is working for you. In my airplane I used to have some dental pics that I used to pick the tiny balls of lead out of the spark plugs that formed from 100LL. You need a pretty hot plug to run lots of oil and that also helps keep the plugs from "lead fouling" or shorting out from the lead coating the electrodes, but again that takes you closer to detonation and limits the compression ratio you can run.
I'm just thinking that oils have changed significantly since there was just "two stroke oil" in the 50's and 60's when these engines were initially developed and the latest oils aren't don't have the lubricity of the old oils that we used to have due to the environmental requirements. That being the case, it makes sense to me to look at what's out there and maybe go beyond the garden variety of outboard oils since there are oils out there that have different and better properties.
I would like to see documented proof that lubricating oil is less than 85 or 90 octane.
Maybe its not.
Also, the dilution rate is not significant in most cases to have an observable effect. Do the math and compare.
I also suspect there are some synthetics with rather high octane ratings.
Rotax says that at 50:1 the oil cuts two points off of the typical octane rating. Do the math, the octane rating of oil alone is pretty low. If you are running 10:1 you have lowered the octane rating more than just a couple of points...Jet fuel has an octane rating of 20, just saying...
Found this over at a motorcycle site and interesting read about how the oil in the fuel works for lube and oil ratios.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05-24-2006 03:34 PM #1 Yamaha Tri-Moto
Location:Canada
All About 2 stroke Oil Ratios. Interesting find
I was Browsing the net and came across this, figured ive seen so much talk about oil ratios this may help some people out. I sure found it interesting.
*I did not write this, Spanky over at mx.com did*
Pre-mix 101
OK, looks like it's time for a little pre-mix 101. I don't usually get into ratio discussions, because mix ratios are like religions to most people, and they tend to be closed-minded on the subject, but I'll put in my $.02 here anyway.
There is a prevailing myth that less oil is better, and that the oil in the fuel is what lubricates the engine. Both are wrong.
*less oil is better* People think that if they have a plug fouling problem or a lot of spooge, they need to run less oil. Wrong! Both problems are caused by rich jetting, and have nothing to do with the mix ratio.
*the oil in the fuel is what lubricates the engine* The engine is lubricated by the residual oil that builds up in the crankcase. All the oil in the fuel does is replenish this oil.
The best way to determine if you are running enough oil is to check the level of the residual oil in the crankcase. If the ratio you run leaves enough residual oil in the crankcase to cover about 1/8" of the bottom of the crank wheels, then you are fine. If you don't have that much residual oil in your crankcase when you pull the top-end off, you aren't running enough oil for your riding style and conditions.
With that said, to have that amount of residual oil in the crankcase at 50:1 (a ratio made popular by magazines and oil bottles), you can't be riding very hard, or your bike is jetted richer than necessary simply to deliver enough oil. I arrived at 26:1 for my bike with my riding style because that is the amount that gives me the proper amount of residual build-up. Small-bore engines require greater oil concentrations than larger engines to achieve the proper amount of residual build-up, because they rev higher and have higher intake velocities. Along the same lines, someone that pushes the engine harder, and keeps the revs higher, also needs to use higher oil concentrations to achieve the proper residual build-up.
To understand why the residual oil is so important, you have to understand what happens to the oil in your fuel when it goes into the engine. 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. Ever wonder why there are two small holes in the transfer port area of the crankcase, right over the main bearings? These are to allow some of the oil droplets being flung around inside the engine to drip down into the main bearing area.
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.
With the high oil concentrations that I use, I tend to get far more life from my cranks and rings than most of my friends that run leaner oil ratios. The high oil content also produces better ring sealing, so more of the combustion pressure is retained.
One small point. No one ever broke an engine by using too much oil.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________
Pre-mix ratios and power production
I have run Dyno tests on this subject. We used a Dynojet dynamometer, and used a fresh, broken in top-end for each test. We used specially calibrated jets to ensure the fuel flow was identical with each different ratio, and warmed the engine at 3000 rpm for 3 minutes before each run. Our tests were performed in the rpm range of 2500 to 9000 rpm, with the power peak of our test bike (a modifed '86 YZ 250, mine) occuring at 8750 rpm. We tested at 76 degrees F, at 65% relative humidity. We started at 10:1, and went to 100:1. Our results showed that a two-stroke engine makes its best power at 18:1. Any more oil than that, and the engine ran poorly, because we didn't have any jets rich enough to compensate for that much oil in the fuel, and the burn-characteristics of the fuel with that much oil tended to be poor. The power loss from 18:1 to 32:1 was approximately 2 percent. The loss from 18:1 to 50:1 was nearly 9 percent. On a modern 250, that can be as much as 4 horsepower. The loss from 18:1 to 100:1 was nearly 18 percent. The reason for the difference in output is simple. More oil provides a better seal between the ring and the cylinder wall.
Now, I realize that 18:1 is impractical unless you ride your engine all-out, keeping it pinned at all times. But running reasonable ratios no less than 32:1 will produce more power, and give your engine better protection, thus making it perform better for longer.
As a side note, I no longer run 26:1, I now run 32:1. I'm not a young man any more, and I just can't push as hard as I used to, so I don't need as much oil now. 32:1 is enough oil to do what is needed for me now, since I'm getting slow...
Thank you for the data! The motorcycle article speaks volumes: 2-stroke mechanics routinely see evidence of the "river" oil that flows through an engine. Though crank wheel references don't apply to vertical crank engines, the concept is the same. It's interesting that 18:1 appears to be a magic number (relative to power output). Perhaps the factories knew something about the subject after all.
It should be noted that duty cycle has a lot to do with ratio requirements. This is why my race motors run absolutely clean compared to the Merc 500 pontoon boat example. They are always hot, running high RPM, which doesn't allow carbon or lead buidup to form. BTW: Higher oil concentrations seal rings, labyrinth seals, and reeds better than lower concentrations. These are reasons for more delivered power.
Tim
Great stuff Z, nothing like real data to put things into perspective, and no question Tim you need enough oil to help seal the rings, but too much oil is likely to cause power reduction too, so you want the right amount, not too much or too little.
Also remember that every engine is different. An engine with better inherent ring sealing might be able to run on less oil than one with a piston with fewer rings, so while this is great stuff it may not be perfect for our engines. Question now is, if you run a Merc 44 at 16:1 will you have any issues with ring scuffing, bore sticking or big end bearings??? And how fast can you run it that way for how long??
Hey Yellowjacket: The test Z refers to indicates power begins to suffer under 18:1 to a limited degree, but without fear of bearing, ring, and cylinder damage. Most of us would rather suffer 1-2% power reduction than a set of blued bearings, crank, or scored pistons/bores.
Many years ago a well known factory engineer confided in me the fact that max power/durability testing was conducted at 16:1. Since that day dozens of my engines have run 16:1 or heavier oil. These engines have won numreous local, regional, divisional, national events. BTW: My world record setting OMC triple uses one ring pistons. Yet none have ever failed a bearing, ring, or piston due to lubrication failure.
Even engines with burnt pistons (due to bad fuel, too much spark, or too lean mixture) never exibited a bearing problem. And the only time bore sticks occurred was due to inadequate cooling (cooling system starvation, etc) or low/zero oil. Poor cooling only leads to a hurt piston and bore. A low/zero oil destroys pistons, bore, rods, and crank.
Oil quality not withstanding, duty cycle should dictate oil ratio. The only reasons to use less oil is for extended low speed operation, less smoke, or if you're trying to economize. It's well known that the 50:1 (and taller) ratios have been pushed by marketing types to reduce cost of operation, smoke, etc, but at what cost? It all sounds good until you remember that oil is cheaper than parts!
Tim
BTW: I too, love the smell of Klotz, Blendzall, and castor in Methanol.......
Am I wrong (hah!) but isn't that YZ-250 air cooled? If so, his results are out the window when discussing water-cooled outboard engines.
Jeff
Lower cylinder wall temps would increase the viscosity of the oil on the walls, which might allow the oil concentration to be a bit lower to have the same effect.
But OTOH I'm doubting that would be a big difference. Cylinder wall and pistion temps are a lot higher in air cooled engines than outboards and that is one of the key differences between the oils that are rated for air cooled and water cooled applications. So air cooled oils have more bright stock and therefore hold viscosity to a higher temp so that they don't stick rings of have scuffing near the exhaust ports at those higher temps. They are like grapefruit and oranges, they are both a bit different, but they are both citrus and there's a lot of similarity too.
I'd still figure that the percentages where best power is attained is probably in the same general area, not up at 32:1 and certainly not at 50:1, and probably not down at 10:1 either. If the manufacturer told Tim they ran power and durability at 16:1 that was from their experience, so we have 2 data points in the same vicinity. Like I said, every engine is going to be a bit different. Some might like a bit more oil to seal, others might need a bit less, and it's going to change with viscosity of the oil you are using, the temperatures you are running, the clearances of that specific engine... It goes on an on.
We aren't trying to nail a specific number for any specific or all engines, I just want to get in the ball park and find home plate, not specific blade of grass.
I would like to thank all that have contributed the fantastic information on this thread!
This is without a doubt the best 2 stroke oil thread I have ever seen.
Excellent indeed!
Having been in the marine business for 40 years (OMG am I getting old), I've got to say the engines, oils, props, everything has gotten way better. My Super 10's ran 16:1, later models on 25:1, and Merc was transitioning to 50:1 at that time (1972). We weren't sure if the earlier models should be run on leaner oils, even though oil suppliers said you could. Plug fouling was certain reality with magnetos, so we tempted fate and tested. I remember stock outboard guys swearing they went faster on 50:1. Not sure about that, but plug fowling and smoke was greatly reduced, then disappeared when Thunderbolt ignition was introduced. Heck, they even ran stone cold surface gap plugs and still idled without fouling!
The point I'd like to make is the oils have improved dramatically over the years, so you can get away with leaner ratios - even with basic production oils such as TCW3. As Yellowjacket, Zul8tr, Sam, and others have pointed out, there is no single best oil for every engine and/or application. It's great to test new products so long as good reasoning goes into the change and careful notes are taken.
Too many times the product of many hours work was reduced to rubble because of unknown consequences for a new products. Example: A cam wiped lobes and spread metal throughout a new engine running the just released super-duper Mobil 1 synthetic in an OHC engine in 1982. Only after complaining to the Mobil techs directly did I learn the oil had not been tested in OHC's! Thankfully, better research & test methods, and the power of the internet help communicate problem products.
Thanks to all for sharing. Please keep it coming!
Tim
For those of you that have "Iron Fist" turn to page 296 and read about port clogging in the MK75 endurance event. It says ports were closing off while running at 4500 RPM with oil of the day (not specified) and white gas (non-leaded marine fuel for outboards in the early days). TCW3 (and other later oils) do not build carbon in racing applicatoins (my experience).
Tim
Water cooled has more efficient heat transfer if the cooling chambers are properly designed and especially outboards with a constant supply of lake temp water. Air cooled can have dead spots behind cylinder and inbetween 2 cylinderes. My experience with air cooled is they definately run hotter and need to be clearanced properly for expansion.
I read an article a couple of years ago concerning two stroke oils. Ash was one of the subjects discussed and Pennsoil of all brands produced the least amount of ash. Another thing discussed was the difference between oils for water cooled and air cooled engines. I don't remember the exact terminology but air cooled engine oil is formulated so that the oil drops out of suspension at a higher flash point than water cooled engines due to the higher running temperatures of air cooled engines thereby getting to all areas of the engine before it drops out. I think it also talked about air cooled oils requiring a higher temperature to burn thus being able to lubricate cylinder walls at a higher temperature. This is the best that I can recall reading, but there are definite differences between the two. I also wonder about 2 stroke oil now being marketed for all 2 stroke engines. I would touch that stuff with a 10 foot pole if what I have read is true. I ran my Yamato last year on Mercury oil and this year on Red Line. I haven't looked inside yet but didn't see any differences in performance.
kk
"Ash" sure was the problem back then, when I first started yanking the starter handle on my KG-7. The best oils were LOADED with ash and fouled up the works in short order.
For that matter, 4 stroke oils weren't that much better. The old Ford Y-bock V-8s (243 to 312 cubes) weren't that bad an engine, but the oils available back then were not up to the way they oiled there rocker arms. The result was scored parts and whipped main bearings after metal particles (crappy oilfliters as well) contaminated the oil. Modern oils have sure come a long way.
Any old Ford V-8 lovers out there?
Jeff
PS: A well set up Ford 312 would whip the best equipped Chevy 283 every time.
Agreed on the 312 and the 283. I had a 312 Auto with 4 bbl Carter in a 57 Ford Fairlane 2 door no pillar, white with crome and gold trim and black interior, nice car and a good runner. Had a race with a 57 Chev going across Texas on my way from Calif to Fla. He could not stay with the Ford in any gear.
Right! I recall several, spirited street races between by buddy's 57 Chevy and my sister-in-law's 57 Ford. The Ford cleaned house!
Jeff
We had a 1958 352 that broke valve springs all the time. It wasn't that oil couldn't get to the rockers, it couldn't get out and sludged up in the valve covers preventing oil flow. Then the springs would overheat and break. The 383 Dodge my dad bought to replace his first and only FoMoCo could suck the headlights out of that Ford.