From: SOFTA
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 94 07:16:55 -0400

Hi there.

It's raining in England. I am shocked and amazed.

Can any kind soul tell me where to find the Slick 50 / additives faq ? I know there is on about somewhere. Was it a rec.m*&% thing ?

Triddles is tragicaly short on oil pressure, and the bottom end has started to make itsself heard. I think I'll just go out and throw myself under a passing Harley.

From: Gerald Tan
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 16:48:08 GMT

Car Care
by Rik Paul

(Motor Trend magazine October 1994. page 148.)

Navigating the Maze of Friction-Reducing Formulas

One of the biggest phenomenons to hit the engine-care scene over the last few years has been the wave of friction-reducing anti-wear engine treatments. Over the years we've received more reader questions about these products than any other car-care subject. It also seems as though we receive notices of new entries in this category almost weekly. The main claim of these products is the ability to reduce internal engine wear ... particularly during the critical cold-start period ... resulting in longer service life. Some also make additional claims regarding increased performance and fuel economy resulting from the reduced friction.

To the average consumer all of the hype claims and counter-claims can seems as confusing to navigate as a bayou. Part of the problem is due to the fact that objectively evaluating these products in order to substantiate their anti-wear claims is almost impossible without prohibitively expensive lab tests. Which of course provides fertile ground for exaggerated assertions and inflated statistics. Meanwhile public perception of these friction-reducers ranges from miracle treatments to modern-day snake oils. The truth however probably rests somewhere in between.

One of the common additives found in many formulas is a polymer called polytetrafluoroethylene or PTFE. Originally discovered by DuPont in the late '30s it's commonly known by that manufacturer's trade name Teflon and is considered to be the most slippery solid substance known to man. As an engine treatment it's added to engine oil as microscopic particles. The particles purportedly bond to internal engine surfaces reducing the friction of moving parts such as bearings and rings thereby decreasing wear and improving efficiency.

PTFE's history as an engine oil additive though is spotty due largely to the fact that not all formulas are created equal. It was first used for this application in the '70s but by 1980 DuPont had decided to discontinue Teflon sales to oil-additive manufacturers a ban that remained in place for about a decade. One problem was that anyone could .. and still can ... buy the polymer in bulk add it to carrier oil and package it as their own formula without sufficient technical expertise to make it work. In some products the PTFE reportedly separated from the oil and settled in the oil pan. Plus there was concern over particle build-up clogging oil filters and passages. Such problems with these early versions has left a stigma that still lingers.

Petrolon got the current bandwaon rolling about five years ago when it introduced a reformulated Slick 50 Engine Treatment. The product has been heavily marketed and is currently the category's undisputed sales leader. In fact in '92 it held a 90-percent share of the engine-treatment market. Petrolon claims that Slick 50 reduces engine wear at start-up and during operation for over 50,000 miles.

A few years ago the company also made claims regarding improvements in performance and fuel economy but in 1992 the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus asked Petrolon to discontinue such assertions due to lack of substantiating evidence. Although Petrolon was targeted for this review largely because of its size the same scrutiny should be applied to any of the products in this category.

As in most current products the PTFE particles in Slick 50 are maintained in a colloidal suspension in which they are electrically charged to repel each other. This keeps them from bonding or coagulating which not only keeps the PTFE from setting out of the oil but also prevents the clogging of oil filters.

This charge is gradually lost and sources vary on how long PTFE remains effective. Although Slick 50 claims it reduces wear over 50,000 miles others say the real value of PTFE is more short-term with its effectiveness possibly beginning to erode after 10,000 to 20,000 miles. Hilton Oil Corporation the company that markets T-Plus another compound containing PTFE says that over a period of time and mileage, PTFE levels in the engine are gradually reduced. Subsequently the company offers a T-Plus Booster to replenish the PTFE.

Until recently DuPont has maintained a neutral stance on the use of Teflon as an oil additive neither confirming nor promoting any claimed benefits. Last year however Petrolon and DuPont signed a technology-sharing agreement to cooperate in development of new lubricant formulas and other products incorporating PTFE as well as the possible development of new polymers and co-polymers for this
purpose.

What about the problem of clogged oil filters? The Fram Filter Division of Allied-Signal Aftermarket Group conducted a study in 1992 to determine just this point specifically targeting Slick 50 and a competitor named Tufoil. The study found that the PTFE particles in those formulas freely flow through typical oil filters used on passenger-car engines with no danger of clogging. The average size of a PTFE particle is about 0.2 to 0.3 microns which is well below the 35-micron pore size of typical passenger-car oil filters. Petrolon however advises that use of Slick 50 isn't recommended with systems that filter particles 5 microns or smaller.

Slick 50 shares the scene with numerous other products each with its own formula and claims. T-Plus for instance claims it has 50 percent more PTFE while QMI claims 10 times more PTFE than its nearest competitor. Petrolon counters that an engine can only use so much PTFE just as a human body can only absorb so much vitamin C. Products such as Tufoil and OEM combine PTFE with molybdenum a soluble heavy-metal compound which their manufacturers claim provides increased anti-wear characteristics. Meanwhile a company called Engine-slick advertises that it uses a unique interface bonding technique instead of the more common colloidal suspension which interlocks Teflon particles together to provide 99 to 100 percent coverage on internal engine surfaces.

Other companies take non-PTFE approaches to the problem. For instance First Brands' STP Engine Treatment uses a formula it calls XEP2 composed of various agents which is also claimed to bond to internal engine surfaces. Castrol's Syntec FSX contains a negatively charged chemical ester that is said to bond molecularly with positively charged engine parts and uses a 5W-50 synthetic carrier oil. Power Up employs NNL-690 a lubricant that reportedly changes from a liquid to a solid (in the form of minute particles) as the conditions change from light to heavy loads.

So how can you tell what works and what doesn't? In most cases buyers need to sift through the literature and try to read between the lines; not exactly a reliable method. So it was with interest that we met with representatives from Petrolon who brought stacks of hard numbers from an extensive series of tests conducted last year. Here are the details in a nutshell.

The tests were done by Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio Texas an independent facility monitored by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Two different tests were conducted at a cost of about $1 million: a start/stop test and a continuous operation test each designed to simulate 50,000 miles worth of operation. The tests were extended versions of a Sequence IIIE test a widely accepted automotive and petroleum procedure for motor oils that simulates stressful highway driving. Six industry-standard Buick V-6 engines were used for each phase; three were treated with Slick 50 and three were not to serve as controls. A 5W-30 SG premium-quality oil was used in all engines.

The parts to be examined including piston rings rocker arms and connecting rod and main bearings were weighed both before and after the tests to determine the amount of wear.

In the start/stop test the engines were started idled for one minute accelerated to the equivalent of 50 mph for 10 minutes to simulate a short trip and then turned off. A total of 330 such repetitions were performed. Then the oil and filter were changed (no new Slick 50 was added) and the engines run for four hours at the equivalent of 70 mph to flush them. The oil was drained and the filter removed. Then a series of 500 start/stop sequences were conducted without oil to simulate dry starts in which the engine was started revved to 1000 rpm and shut off.

In the continuous-operation test the engines were run for 480 hours at 3000 rpm which is estimated to simulate 50 000 miles. The oil and filter were changed every 3000 miles with Slick 50 added to the appropriate engines during only the first oil change.

After both test were completed all engines were disassembled and measured for wear. The following results show the average reduction of wear in the parts used in the Slick 50-treated engines:

Start/Stop
Rod bearings .................... 55 percent
Main bearings ................... 34 percent
Piston rings .................... 43 percent
Rocker arms ..................... 22 percent
Average of all parts ............ 39 percent

Continuous Operation
Rod bearings .................... 44 percent
Main bearings ................... 8 percent
Piston rings .................... 25 percent
Rocker arms ..................... 18 percent
Average of all parts ............ 24 percent

According to these tests Slick 50 provides significant anti-wear benefits. Many other companies however lack the funds to verify their products' claims to
conclusively. Therefore common sense should be used when shopping.

• Approach claims of life-time treatments and specific percentage increases in mileage or performance with a healthy skepticism. Even if better gas mileage or performance is technically true the improvements will likely be subtle.

•  PTFE is inert won't melt at engine temperatures and has virtually no expansion rate. Beware of claims that contradict these properties.

• If a PTFE product requires you to shake the can the particles likely will separate and settle into your oil pan. Avoid these compounds.

• Remember that the anti-wear benefits of these engine treatments won't provide a payoff until many miles down the road. If you're the type that gets a new car every five years then it likely will be future owners who'll thank you for using an anti-wear product. However if you keep vehicles for a long time then a friction-reducing formula may be worth the investment.

39.2 Oil Coolers.

From: John Kula
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 94 09:57:44 PDT

I understand that an engine running colder than the design range is just about as bad as an engine running hotter. All the advice I've received over the years has been, don't put an oil cooler on a Commando as it doesn't need it, especially if it's got high compression and runs high octane gas.

However, MacBeth is going to get an oil cooler with thermostat and manual cut-out switch, just in case (and also for the little extra oil in the system).

John Kula Commando 930 (MacBeth)
 

From: Chuck Kichline
Date: Mon, 2 May 94 17:21:33 CDT

> I've seen several Lightnings with oil coolers salvaged from Triumph
> cages. They look retty decent and most yards around here will sell one
> for ~$20. I've been considering the conversion my self. Also there a
> small aftermarket one built for Sportsters that mounts near the oil
> tank.
>
> Chuck
>
I remember seeing several bikes (mostly Triumphs) with Ford power steering coolers. The cooler was a single loop with fins, and they seemed to be four to six inches long. The Triumphs I saw has them mounted low, in the return line between the engine and tank. I think these were off of late 60's, early 70's Fords and were available at the local junk yards. Seemed like a good compromise between a full cooler and nothing.

From: Robert D. Burget
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 16:36:52 -0700

> I've seen several Lightnings with oil coolers salvaged from Triumph
> cages. They look retty decent and most yards around here will sell one
> for ~$20. I've been considering the conversion my self. Also there a
> small aftermarket one built for Sportsters that mounts near the oil
> tank.
>
> Chuck

Weren't there some late model BSA twins (A75?) with Rocket 3 style oil coolers under the gas tank? I wonder if they can be added to older twins without too much work. Bob Burget, rdb@strata.com

Return to the Contents Page

39.3 Engine Oil in the Gearbox

From: Keijo Aatos Virtanen
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 11:20:06 +0200 (EET)

On Mon, 10 Oct 1994, Espen Olsen wrote:

> In the manual for my pre-unit SpeedTwin it says "engine oil in the gearbox"
> Gear oil (what you get here at least) has GX80 rating. This oil is
> obviously thicker than engine oil. I tried Mobil 1 in the gearbox but it
> leaked out like @#$#=A4#. OK: Engine or gear oil in the pre-unit gearbo?

Hi,

My 0.01:
the manuals recommend also the same, engine oil, SAE 40, for the g.box of Enfields, but I have always used 80-90 gearbox oil. No problems, It is definitely better for teeths. But I have never used, nor will, synthetic g.box oil in the box, because that will leak. Also the hypoid g.box oil is to avoided in the Albion box, because there is a long bush, which would be damaged, it does not lubricate that kind of bush! In the late 60's, early 70's that became tested in some long distance races with big twins, which were run with hypoids in the gearbox.

Cheers,
Keijo

Return to the Contents Page

39.4 Gearbox Oil.

From: Bob Cram
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 13:56:23 +0000

Keijo writes:

"Also the hypoid g.box oil is to avoided in the Albion box, because there is a long bush, which would be damaged, it does not lubricate that kind of bush! In the late 60's, early 70's that became tested in some long distance races with big twins, which were run with hypoids in the gearbox."

Uh oh. I've been running the hypoid 90 in my 72 Bonneville gearbox for a few years. About 71 or 72, Triumph started recommending the hypoid gear oil instead of 50W engine oil, although the latter works well too. I've used both. I hadn't ever heard this before about not using the hypoid 90 oil. Does anybody else have any experience with this? So far, I've not had any problems.

From: Chuck Kichline
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 94 09:02:55 CDT

I think I remember that "hypoid" had something to do with being particularly resistant to the sliding contact of a spiral worm gear - not that it might not be good in other uses.

On oil weight - when I was working on Mercedies from the early 60's a lot, the four speed standard transmission used ATF as a lube (naturally, they had all been refilled with 90w gear oil and that was one of the reasons I was working on them). I understood that the reason for the relatively thin oil in the transmission was that M-B used bushings rather than needle bearings in their transmissions. This agrees with "Plane bearings need lots of lighter oil while roller bearings can live with a dribble of heavy stuff". So the involved bearings should probably be a controlling consideration in choosing a transmission lube weight.

From: John Knobel
Date: 11 Oct 1994 17:00:28 U

While trying to chase down the *Perfect* oil for Norton Commando swingarms I did some research on gear vs motor oils and also called five different oil companies. A long story is available regarding that search - but the short form is:

EP gear oils contain a phosphorus additive which corrodes yellow metals like copper, bronze, brass. Therefore it should not be used in applications where bronze bushings are used. This, I would guess, covers the Albion gearbox.

In all steel-on-steel applications the EP gear oil would be superior. The Norton

gearboxes like it, and I suspect (I don't know for sure) that the Triumphs would like it just as well. EP = Extreme Pressure = (approx) Hypoid.

Note that motor oils DO NOT have those additives and would not work as well in a gearbox. While there is viscosity overlap between the SAE motor oil range and gear oils on the charts shown on this forum the charts are based *mono-grades* at 100 degree C.

I suspect a 10w-30 motor oil at *gearbox* temperatures is very different from an 85W-90 gear oil at the same temperature.

Just my opinion of course - John

From: Keijo Aatos Virtanen
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 08:52:12 +0200 (EET)

On Tue, 11 Oct 1994, Bob Cram wrote:
> Keijo writes:
> "Also the hypoid g.box oil is to avoided in the Albion box, because there
> is a long bush, which would be damaged, it does not lubricate that kind
> of bush! In the late 60's, early 70's that became tested in some long
> distance races with big twins, which were run with hypoids
> in the gearbox."
>
> Uh oh. I've been running the hypoid 90 in my 72 Bonneville gearbox for
> a few years. About 71 or 72, Triumph started recommending the hypoid
> gear oil instead of 50W engine oil, although the latter works well too.
> I've used both. I hadn't ever heard this before about not using the
> hypoid 90 oil. Does anybody else have any experience with this?
> So far, I've not had any problems.

Yes, you will not have, Triumph's box is different design, it doesn't have that kind of LONG bush as Albion.

Cheers,
Keijo

From: John Knobel
Date: 14 Oct 1994 11:14:41 -0500

Reply to: RE
>Hypoid and bronze bearings
--------------------------------------
I wrote:

>EP gear oils contain a phosphorus additive which corrodes yellow
>metals like copper, bronze, brass. Therefore it should not be used
>in applications where bronze bushings are used. This, I would
>guess, covers the Albion gearbox. In all steel-on-steel
>applications the EP gear oil would be superior. The Norton
>gearboxes like it, and I suspect (I don't know for sure) that the
>Triumphs would like it just as well.
>EP = Extreme Pressure = (approx) Hypoid.

Then Mike wrote:

Actually, the Norton gearbox has bronze bearings in the gears that are not splined to the shafts. I rebuilt mine two summers ago, and all of these bearings were in perfect shape except for the one in the sleeve-gear (which was worn out, not corroded from gear oil). Since EP-type oil is all I've ever used in this box, at least some types of bronze bearing must do ok in it.

Me again:

I am relaying what five different oil company reps said. All agreed, and from what I understood there were no special alloys that were excepted. However they, being in the business, are VERY PICKY about the correct applications of lubricants. I can quite believe that in many practical applications the things they worry about will never be seen. Norton recommeded the EP gearbox oils and that's good enough for me. I don't worry about it myself, I just came across the info in the search for 140w oil for the swingarm bushes. Sorry if it caused any concern or confusion, perhaps I should have labeled it "Gear Oil Trivia"

-John

Return to the Contents Page

39.5 Oil Lines.

From: John Knobel
Date: 1 Sep 1994 13:11:39 -0500

REGARDING Change you rocker feed lines!
When riding the Norton to work today my right boot kept slipping off the footpeg. Upon looking down I couldn't help but notice that oil was squirting out onto my leg, crankcase, countryside, etc. at a pretty good rate. Not good.

Quick u-turn and limp home at low rpm's, hoping not to dump on a lubricated rear tire, and watching oil flow. I figured as long as it is still being pumped out it's still going to main bearings too. I theorize that rockers can live with minimal oil for a little while.

Cause of problem: Self-inflicted, I apparently hit oil line while adjusting something else.

Lessons:
1) Change your oil lines every 20 years whether they need it or not. The original line was VERY brittle, and I'm probably lucky it broke when/where it did. If this happened when I was going someplace at speed I could have fried the motor easy. Also, it probably wouldn't have happened on the other bike with the braided stainless lines.

2) Murphy says the likelihood of dumping your oil is highest right after you put new oil in. Yup. New synthetic with less than 200 miles on it.

3) You can ride a Norton about 4 miles while pumping oil out of a rocker feed line. I wouldn't go for 5 because I was just about out when I stopped.

So it goes........or, in this case, doesn't.

- John '85 Kenmore Microwave (w/temp sensor, no clock) jk@mitre.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All statements and opinions are strictly my own and in no way reflect the
views or position of the MITRE Corp.

From: Latte' Jed
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 94 14:08 EDT

> When riding the Norton to work today my right boot kept slipping off the
> footpeg. Upon looking down I couldn't help but notice that oil was squirting
> out onto my leg, crankcase, countryside, etc. at a pretty good rate. Not
> good.

Funny thing, I was just reading the Norton Tech Digest last night and I noticed this. They said the early metal lines should be changed for the plastic ones because the metal ones fatigue from vibration, but the plastic ones should be changed regularly too. They said the ultimate is braided SS oil lines, which really sounds worth the money to me for insurance, and, they noted, they look sexy too.

From: Robin Tuluie
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 94 14:15:57 -0400

>1) Change your oil lines every 20 years whether they need it or not. The
>original line was VERY brittle, and I'm probably lucky it broke when/where it
>did.

I broke the same line, same place, while going through turn 1 at Sear Point in circa 1985 or 86. It took the oil a few seconds to completely coat the rear tire, so while I was braking for turn 2, the rear wheel got so sideway without any rearbrake that I almost crashed and ran off the track. Had the oil line broke just a few second sooner I would have crashed in mid turn 1, a 125 mph turn with a concrete wall along the outside (this was before they added the chicane in order to slow bikes down through turn 1). I have seen racers die as well as get seriously hurt in that turn and was exremely lucky that it broke when it did.

Even for a street Norton I'd keep these lines very fresh or replace them with AN-fittings. I did this by drilling and tapping out the sidecover on the engine and then using a banjo bolt and banjo fitting to go up to the right side of the cylinder head. As for the head fitting, I use the same fitting, but only on one side. The other side is blocked off; instead the oil gets to the otherside by dilling a hole in the inside of the rocker shafts on the inlet side(where it passes through into the left side head passage and on to the left exhaust rocker shaft (don't drill the exhaust rocker shafts). This works great, saves a little weight and bulk and makes for a much tidier appearance.

Cheers,
R.T.

From: ray.hale
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 94 08:49:12 EST

be it known that the bogus oil line syndrome is NOT selectively a norton problem. i have installed three stock oil lines on my g5 guzzi (you think i'd a learned) and have heard same stories from many other guzzi riders. Replace those suckers with braided steel lines and you'll never have the lovely experience of ending an otherwise perfect ride with warm oil spraying back all over your leg, boot, bike, passenger, new leathers, etc. BIG mess, looks bad, smells bad. usually the line comes out of the crimped flange. But once the line (only 6 months old) actually blew out in the middle. oh yeah, it's worth checking your oil pressure at the main fitting before installing the new line. easy to do once you're there. see ya

ray

Return to the Contents Page

39.6 Mono v Multigrade Oil.

From: Ed Mellinger
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 9:58:21 PDT

Hi All -

Now that the edge has come off the recent Oil thread, I'd like to give the pot a stir by asking about one, oops two things:

1) I have several times heard it asserted that heavy (eg SAE 50) monograde oil is more suited to old (from the 40's and 50's) roller bearing engines than is modern multigrade oil. Reasons range from "that's the oil they were designed for" to "their oil runs cool and hence they expect *seriously* thick oil". But folks on old bikes I talk to on the street often seem to be running modern SAE 20W-50 without ill effect. Would anyone care to ramble autoritatively on this subject?

2) This one's more straightforward... how many people have switched an old motor from non-detergent to detergent (or dispersant, whatever) oil? The middle of the advice curve here seems to be one or two half-hour runs with the new detergent oil followed by oil and filter changes, and then you're set. But then some say that those nasty sludge deposits will keep on dissoving into your oil, releasing their load of abrasive metal particles as they do so. Again, informed ramblings are encouraged.

I'm currently running a boutique-grade (and priced) non-dispersant monograde oil. The price isn't an issue, but the possibility of better (and/or safer) engine operation, plus the fact that the local retailer of the stuff is 115 miles away, is.

Advice? (Sorry this doesn't have the emotional impact of the very entertaining Norton vs Triumph debate... you guys were great!)

-Ed Mellinger

'49 Vincent 'B' Shadow

From: Latte' Jed
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 15:24 EDT

> 1) I have several times heard it asserted that heavy (eg SAE 50)
> monograde oil is more suited to old (from the 40's and 50's) roller
> bearing engines than is modern multigrade oil. Reasons range from
> "that's the oil they were designed for"

The oil they were designed for! Hahaha! That's a good one! We're not talking rocket science here, that's the oil they had, they didn't have any choice. They didn't have a plethora of different steel alloys and manufacturing techniques, they weren't high output engines, there weren't ultra-close tolerances, and so on. They could use 10 weight, 20 weight, 30 weight, 40 weight, and so on like that. Almost any modern oil will be better than almost any original oil.

> to "their oil runs cool and
> hence they expect *seriously* thick oil". But folks on old bikes I talk
> to on the street often seem to be running modern SAE 20W-50 without ill
> effect. Would anyone care to ramble autoritatively on this subject?
>
> 2) This one's more straightforward... how many people have switched an
> old motor from non-detergent to detergent (or dispersant, whatever) oil?
> The middle of the advice curve here seems to be one or two half-hour
> runs with the new detergent oil followed by oil and filter changes, and
> then you're set. But then some say that those nasty sludge deposits
> will keep on dissoving into your oil, releasing their load of abrasive
> metal particles as they do so. Again, informed ramblings are
> encouraged.

I've asked these same questions a number of times, and have gotten the same mix of responses. I've heard from people who use dinosaur oil and want to switch to synthetic and are waiting until they take their engine apart so they can run their whole engine through a saf-t-kleen machine so their engine doesn't get wrecked from having a little bit of natural oil in the synthetic. I personally dump whatever seems appropriate in an engine and haven't had any troubles yet. Just the other day I asked a guy at a high class resotration shop for oil theory on what to put in a friends GT-40, he spouted for half an hour, all the stuff about monogrades, detergents, synthetics, and all that. I then asked "So what's that mean?", he said "We use 30 weight, seems to work ok".

So it sounds like you should listen to all opinions and do whatever doesn't make you feel guilty. Change early, change often, and use the best stuff you can afford.

From: Mike Taglieri
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 94 03:19:34 EDT

>I have several times heard it asserted that heavy (eg SAE 50)
>monograde oil is more suited to old (from the 40's and 50's)
>roller bearing engines than is modern multigrade oil.

>How many people have switched an old motor from non-detergent
>to detergent (or dispersant, whatever) oil? The middle of the
>advice curve here seems to be one or two half-hour runs with the
>new detergent oil followed by oil and filter changes, and then
>you're set. But then some say that those nasty sludge deposits
>will keep on dissoving into your oil, releasing their load of
>abrasive metal particles as they do so. Again, informed
>ramblings are encouraged.

----------------
For your first question, I'm not sure the old vs. new debate applies, since even those of us with newer bikes than yours have engines that were DESIGNED long before multigrade oils existed. My Commando was built in 1972, but I believe its engine was designed in 1947. Also, the air-cooled Volkswagen Beetle engine, which bears many similarities to a motorcycle engine, was designed before World War II. Both of these were therefore made for monograde oils, and both expanded their recommendations to include multis as soon as their quality reached the point where the manufacturers could have confidence in them.

The sleeve vs. roller bearing question may also not apply, since the Harley-Davidson engine is an ancient, roller-bearing beast whose bottom-end design is little short of absurd, but Harley has recommended multigrade oil for some time, and even sells its own boutique brand of it. (If ragging the Hardly-Ablesons starts a flame war on THIS list, we're in worse trouble than I thought).

In short, I believe a good 20W-50 would protect the engine just as well as a mono. It would also give you easier starting and better cold-weather warmup, although probably more mechanical engine noise. Just for info, the consensus on rec.motorcycles seems to be that Castrol makes the best non-synthetic oil, second only to Mobil 1.

I wouldn't necessarily call your second question "more straightforward," especially answering a guy whose bike is probably worth more than my whole house. However, I believe your engine is dry-sump, and its oil tank may be like that of my Norton, in which almost all sludge buildup winds up in the bottom of the oil tank rather than in the engine. Therefore, you may not have the problem you think you have.

In late-model Norton oil tanks [but not, I believe, BSA/Triumph or some earlier Norton designs], the pickup screen for the oil is an inch or so ABOVE the bottom of the tank, so between rides the junk in the oil settles down to the bottom and stays there the next time the engine runs. When I rebuilt my engine, I had to dig massive amounts of crap out of the oil tank, but the insides of the engine were clean, and the sludge trap inside the crankshaft was virtually empty.

I know nondetergent oil does not keep sludge in suspension indefinitely, but it would tend to settle out when the oil is at rest in the tank. Therefore, there may be a great deal of sludge down there, which can be cleaned out by removing the tank and shaking rocks/nuts/bolts around inside with water and detergent. [Do not EVER glass-bead an oil tank -- don't even think about it.] I know nothing about the crankshaft sludge trap(s) in the Vincent engine, but if your oil tank was designed with a sludge-trap like mine, sludge like mine, I suspect cleaning that out and doing a change or two of detergent oil as you suggest would be enough, regardless of the oil you used to run.

Finally, I should mention that after I put a modern, disposable oil filter into the return line of my bike, sludge deposition ceased altogether, even in the oil tank. You mentioned "oil and filter changes" in your post, so you may already have such a filter, and therefore may not have any measurable sludge. Even with a filter, however, engines lay down varnish deposits on internal surfaces that can be lifted by oil [especially synthetic], so if I were changing to a detergent oil and had a spin-off filter, I would probably change the filter rather frequently for awhile, just to be sure it does not clog up and cut down the flow.

Mike Taglieri
Raul -- '72 Commando Interstate

From: Chuck Kichline
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 94 17:18:04 CDT

Hey, any oil company Chemical Engineers out there that can tell us REALLY about oil - like detergent vs. non-detergent and the relative value and problems of multigrade? My dad was one - and while this info is 15 years old - he had told me not to worry about detergent in an old non-detergent engine (my Indian) because while detergent oils would keep varnish and goo from building up, they weren`t going to disolve off and refloat anything that was already there.

Where ya gonna FIND non-detergent oil anyway and if you do, what is the rating?

What pop did say is buy good oil and change often. The way to find "good" was to read the rating, which is on the can (bottle?) and I believe the good stuff is now rated "SG".

Return to the Contents Page

39.7 Primary Transmission Oil.

From: Terry Drehmel
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 11:25:53 CDT

Why would you put ATF in the primary?

I guess if you don't have the 3 level holes from the crankcase to the primary you wouldn't have to worry about it getting into the motor, but what are the benefits?

Terry

From: Mike Taglieri
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 94 02:11:30 EDT

>Why would you put ATF in the primary? . . . What are the benefits?

I've used ATF in my primary for many years, after reading about its superior heat-dissipating abilities, and the people who make Barnett Clutches recommend it. Basically, ATF is a very lightweight oil with unusual resistance to heat. When Raul has ATF in his primary, the plates stick less: it takes 3 or 4 kicks to free the clutch before a ride. With 10W-30 or similar stuff in there, it can take a dozen. Since the plates stick together less, there's less clutch-drag.

However, ATF is so thin it can leak out of some primary cases and obviously can't be used in systems that share the oil between the primary and the engine. If I had such an engine, I'd probably plug those holes regardless of what I was using in my primary: having little bits of burnt friction material pumping through the engine doesn't seem likely to do it any good. There were some reports in the early '70's of ATF dissolving the glue of certain clutch plates with glued-on friction materials, but the type of glue was changed, and the problems vanished.

Other than these, I see no downside to ATF, and it's a different color than the engine oil, so you can figure out where the puddles on the ground are coming from.

**************

Concerning the problem I mentioned yesterday of severe overheating and vast amounts of smoke coming from one pipe at startup, I guess I wasn't clear enough that these problems are NEW. Raul is myy only bike -- indeed, my only vehicle -- and I've ridden in much harsher conditions, sometimes 2-up with 50 pounds of camping gear, without such symptoms, and I almost always park on my sidestand. Also, I've had low batteries before, and don't see those symptoms now. Rather, I think something must have changed in the engine in the last few weeks. Does anybody else have an idea what it could be?

Mike Taglieri
Raul -- '72 Commando Interstate

From: Peter Aslan
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 13:30:27 +0100 (BST)

On Mon, 1 May 1995, Russell Brown wrote:

> Quoth Peter Aslan.....
> >
> >Since i started using ATF in my chaincase, to improve the clutch
> >operation and remove some drag, I havent noticed any leak from the think.
>
> Was this done to stop clutch slip or for some other reason? As I'm
> suffering from the (apparantly standard) Norton
> slip-o-matic-on-the-power-band clutch, I'm interested in improvements
> that don't involve major surgery/expense (Les Emery's suggestion of
> junking the standard friction plates and pressure is a tad pricey).
>
Since I joined this Mailing List, about 2 Years ago, this is the third time this subject has come up.

The purpose of the Oil in the Primary Chaincase is to oil the Chain and the Clutch bearing/s. This oil interferrs with the operation of the clutch, usually causes drag. Most old' timers will strip and clean the clutch plates in petrol every 1000 miles or so.

If your Primary Drive uses Oil which is seperate from the Engines Oil, and will therefore NOT circulate round the Engine, and you are suffering from Clutch Drag OR slip, try using Automatic Transmission Fluid.

This is the thinnest available oil which lubricates the bits that need lubricating, (opportunity for taseless joke omitted), whihout interferring with the action of the clutch, (another more obscure opportunity missed).

On the Ol' Commando, there are two types of friction plates in existance, the sintered bronze and the alu ? shureflex ones. I fixed my problems by using sureflex and changing the clutch centre, a lot of them have questionable hardn'ing. If the centre splines have ANY Notches, take a deap breath, get you plastic card out, and 'Think of England' (tm). Oh, I also changed to ATF at about the same time, works for me.

I suppose it would be interesting to look up some old commando road tests to see how the clutch actually worked in them days. Although its probably relative, like the tyres thred. John, are you there, got any ol Commando reviews ? anthing on clutch actions, the workshop manual specifies 20/50 Engine oil in there !

PPS, when I replaced the Bronze plates with Shureflex, I had to add another plain steel to pack the thing out. It then gave a better clutch action, (easier for the Real Man (tm) to operate), and didnt slip again, even Powering out of a bend, scraping my knee and making full use of the triangular sectioned tt100 tyres at 100 Mph ;-)

Regards Captian Norton.

PPPS, I must also fess-up to having replaced the clutch bearing with one of a sealed type, slightly more $, better action and more peace of mind.

From: Russell Brown
Subject: Re: Leaky Commando Primary Cover

Quoth Peter Aslan.....
>
>Since i started using ATF in my chaincase, to improve the clutch
>operation and remove some drag, I havent noticed any leak from the think.

Was this done to stop clutch slip or for some other reason? As I'm suffering from the (apparantly standard) Norton

slip-o-matic-on-the-power-band clutch, I'm interested in improvements that don't involve major surgery/expense (Les Emery's suggestion of junking the standard friction plates and pressure is a tad pricey).

Return to the Contents Page

39.8 Oil Pump Priming

From: Peter Azlan
Date: Mon, 16 May 94 18:17:03 BST

Following the cam chain saga, (I must get one of thoes automatic tensioners), I have to admit that, yes, the oil pump was removed at some point. And yes I did give the drive shaft a twiddle out of curiosity to watch the oil spurt out, and no I'm not sure it was fully primed with oil when I had finished.

So, having replaced the timing cover, I filled the tank with Oil and left it overnight. I thought that the thing would wet sump and sort of prime everything. Saturday arrives. Out to the garage and an inspection of the Oil Tank Dip stick and oil feed to the rockers, (this is via a transparent pipe). No Oil appears to have left the tank, therefore no more oil is in the engine than the night before, not quite what I would have expected, and certainly not what I had hoped.

Surely it can't harm the engine if I run it for a bit and see what happens. So I started it and looked expectedly at the oil feed. Nothing. Stop the engine before it gets hot, all sorts of images start flying around my mind, bronze bushes running dry, molten pistons.

Right, there's nothing else for it, I'll have to prime the pump.

Now the manual has this Oil Syringe thing that looks like a bicycle pump, visions of modifying an old pump or even using a length of tube and forcing the oil down with gravity come to mind.

In the end I unscrewed the lower rocker feed banjo, the one that screws into the timing cover, pulled off the rocker feed pipe and connected a short lenth of tube from a brake bleeding kit, (just plain transparent pipe). Then screwe the banjo, washers and oil feed back onto the timing cover. Next I looked furtively around the garage for something to pump the oil.

From the corner of my eye I notice a small oil gun, the sort with a trigger hand action and a long thin spout. Aha, filled the gun with fresh oil, stuffed the long thin spout up the other end of the pipe and pumped till the gun was exausted. This worked remarklably well, I was able to push loads of oil into the pump with little resistance, just enough to tell you the pump was there.

It was then a simple matter of removing the banjo, removing the pipe, cutting about 1/4"" from the end of the oil feed pipe, (so as to connect with a new and decent bit of pipe), heating it in boiling water to sofen it up before remating it with the banjo and oil coupling.

You could immediately see the oil rising in the rocker feed pipe, and when I started the engine, the oil pushed its way up the pipe and into the rockers. 50 Miles later all is fine, timing the engine with a strobe showed a much more consistent flash, less slack in the chain,(till the rubber face decides to go for a walk).

Regards Peter Aslan aka Captain Norton.

From: John Pinkham
Date: Wed, 18 May 94 17:58:26 EDT

Since motorcycle oil pumps are rotary positive displacement types, they should be self-priming. Just remove the sparkplugs and use the kickstarter to motor the engine. Or put the bike up on the kickstand in 4th gear and rotate the rear tyre. So why bother injecting oil down rocker feed pipes, filling the pump with Vaseline, etc?

From: Latte' Jed
Date: Wed, 18 May 94 17:43 EDT

> Since motorcycle oil pumps are rotary positive displacement types, they
> should be self-priming. Just remove the sparkplugs and use the kickstarter
> to motor the engine. Or put the bike up on the kickstand in 4th gear and
> rotate the rear tyre. So why bother injecting oil down rocker feed pipes,
> filling the pump with Vaseline, etc?

I remove the spark plugs and push the bike up and down the street to get the juices flowing. It looks stupid but it makes sure that everything's fully lubed.

From: Ralph Merwin
Date: Wed, 18 May 94 15:31:19 PDT

John Pinkham writes:
>
> Since motorcycle oil pumps are rotary positive displacement types, they
> should be self-priming. Just remove the sparkplugs and use the kickstarter
> to motor the engine. Or put the bike up on the kickstand in 4th gear and
> rotate the rear tyre. So why bother injecting oil down rocker feed pipes,
> filling the pump with Vaseline, etc?

I think that when they have air in them they can't pump anything - the air just swirls around the pump gears. The oil makes the seal in the pump.

Ralph

From: Espen Olsen
Date: Thu, 19 May 94 12:37:43 +0200

>Since motorcycle oil pumps are rotary positive displacement types, they
>should be self-priming. Just remove the sparkplugs and use the kickstarter
>to motor the engine. Or put the bike up on the kickstand in 4th gear and
>rotate the rear tyre. So why bother injecting oil down rocker feed pipes,
>filling the pump with Vaseline, etc?

Well.... My pre-unit Triumph has a "plunger" oil-pump... Two pistons pushing the oil. No rotary.

Espen

Return to the Contents Page

39.9 The Purpose of Oil.

From: Your Name Here
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 94 06:31:19 -0600

On engine oils, The PRIMARY job of the oil is to carry heat away from the bearings. Yes it does lubricate, but so does water, oil has many features that makes it much better than water.

The SECONDARY job of oil is to collect and hold combustion blowby (yep all bikes got it) in suspension until you change oil.

Why this info. I have many friends that use Mobil 1 ($4/qt) because it 'lubricates' better and it lasts for ever. I point out to them that while the oil lasts forever, the additives that hold water, acids, raw gas do NOT. In fact most additive packages sign off at 2k miles.

I think synthetics are great, but they do NOT allow you to go longer between oil changes, of course if your bikes leak this may be a continual process.

CHANGE YOUR OIL OFTEN, get rid of contamination!!!!

I use the cheapest dead dinos I can find, change oil every 1 ~ 2 k miles, no problems AT ALL!.

Mr DOTY's BSA Goldie is absolutely beautiful, I did a very good job on my Spitfire, but next to his goldie, well its just another bike. Good job

From: Robin Tuluie
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 94 23:16:28 -0400

In reply to;

>On engine oils, The PRIMARY job of the oil is to carry heat away from the
>bearings. Yes it does lubricate, but so does water, oil has many features
>that makes it much better than water.

Not true! The primary job of the oil is to lubricate, that is to prevent metal to metal contact. The imortant quantity is the film strength, which is an indication of the load-bearing capacity and the ability to prevent scuffing or seizure.

The oil's load-bearing ability can be measured by wear tests on ZN or Falex test rigs. In these tests a static and a spinning component are pressed together with a known force and the amount of wear is measured after a given time. In the ZN test, the force divided by the area of the wear scar shows the pressure which the film of oil had to support; the appearance of the wear scar (varying from smooth to being badly scored and picking up) also shows how much scuff resistance the oil has.

BTW, the cooling capacity of oil is less than that of water due to a smaller thermal conductivity of oil compared to water. This is why virtually all engines are water or air, but not oil-cooled.

The biggest difference b/w synthetic and non-synthetic (including castor-based oils) is the number of long, unbroken hydrocarbon chains. Basically, synthetics offer a consistently engineered chain length, while non-synthetic oils contain a distribution of both long and short chains. Since most of the desirable features of the oil depend on the average length of the hydrocarbon chains, synthetic oil provide better lubrication. Also, the breakdown of the oil results in the breaking of the oil into shorter chains and by-producs such as gunk, acids, etc.

Synthetics also offer a longer life b/c the number of long, well lubricating chains is higher (b/c it starts out with more) than with a non-synthetic oil even after considerable milage.

>The SECONDARY job of oil is to collect and hold combustion blowby (yep
>all bikes got it) in suspension until you change oil.

No! The oil is the last place you want your contaminants to end up! After all, contaminants such as short hydrocarbon chains (which includes blowby) tend to help break down the oil even faster as well as reduce the average lubricating capacity of the oil. Unfortunately, given the present design of combustion engines, the contaminants do end up in the oil, so change often!

Cheers,
Dr. Robin Tuluie

From: Robin Tuluie
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 94 01:00:45 -0400

More on oil (I had to cut the last one short, sorry) :

> I think synthetics are great, but they do NOT allow you to go longer between
> oil changes...

That is not correct. A synthetic oil is just as likely to break a long hydrocarbon chain into shorter ones, but as I pointed out earlier the synthetic oil has more long chains, so in effect its lubricating capacity is more resistant to breakdown from excessive temperatures or pressures.

It all depends on what is the primary cause of oil breakdown in your engine. If lots of blow-by causes rapid contamination of your engine's oil, neither oil will last long. However, if thermal and pressure loading cause the contamimation of the oil in your engine, synthetic oils will laster longer. Don't be fooled into believing that a typical british parallel twin doesn't put much strain on the oil when compared to modern engines. Piston speed and accceleration is just as high at redline for a british parallel twin as it is for a modern in-line 4, while bearing shock loading, especially in the transmission, is probably even higher due to longer lags between firing pulses and a similar torque to modern in-line 4's. I suspect this is the reason why modern in-line 4's can get away with running 10-40W or 20-50W oil in the transmission.

As far as oil-cooled engines are concerned, the only bike that i am aware of that uses oil-cooling as the *primary* cooling mechanism is the early Suzuki GSXR (please forgive the tainting of the Brit bike list!). I raced one for 2 seasons in endurance racing and my understanding is that these bikes run considerably hotter than other compapable models. It wasn't my bike, so i never got a chance to rebuild it and check out the wear on the motor. I think they went back to water cooling a few years later.

>The stuff that makes your oil black is little bits of carbon grit which
>is pretty abrasive.

Actually, oil contamination will result even without any blow-by or other external intruduction of "little bits of carbon grit". It is caused by the breakdown of the long hydrocarbon chains into short hydrocarbons and carbon, into gunk and acids. For example, transmission oil in pre-unit engines (like Commandos) will turn dark even though there is no external introduction of contaminates. However, these are isolated molecules and not bits of carbon grit, so their effect on the lubricity of the oil may not be as drastic.

>Carbon grit grows up to be diamond grit ...

Wow! Now there's a market for used oil! Maybe DeBeers will start wringing our neck as we try to take over the diamond dust market! In all honesty though, I agree with Espen and doubt you'll find any diamond grit in your engine's oil.

Cheers, Robin

From: Your Name Here
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 94 06:07:19 -0600

Robin, good reply, but I do stick by my understanding that the primary job of oil is to cool.

At the interface of the 'lubricated' joint, the oil 'lubricates' or keeps the two surfaces separate by film strength AND shearing. This shearing creates an enormous amount of heat energy that needs to be dispersed. The oil flowing through the bearing does this. Not a great coolant, but its what we gots.

Yes motorcycles are air or water cooled, however significant heat energy is transfered from the bearings to the fins or water jacket and then again to the surrounding air.

If oil would not boil then there would be very little need for oil flow, and hence an oil pump. I used to think that the oil pump created the oil pressure for the bearings. Actually not, it just forces oil through the bearings to help cool the bearing, the hydrodynamic lubrication creates the pressure that helps to keep the surfaces separate.

And for the secondary purpose of oil, given todays technology, oil does hold contaminants generated by then engines, and frequent oil changes are the the rule.

So the primary purpose of oil is like a chicken or the egg question. If you don't lubricate then you generate too much heat, and weld the bearing together. But if you don't carry the heat away, then you boil the oil and don't lubricate. Worked on this problem when we were trying to upgrade an engine well past its design capability. (previous life at an engine manufacture) The bearings were not big enough, but by forcing enough oil through to carry away the heat the engine survives a doubling of the horsepower. Of course the proper thing to have done would have been to enlarge the bearings surface area, but old engines do not lend themselves to this.

Andrew Wolf

From: Bob Cram
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 1994 16:33:55 +0000

Interesting stuff, especially since I was able to follow your discussion and understand it. You both write well for guys like me who haven't taken Physics and Chemistry since high school. But you did lose me with "hydrodynamic lubrication and pressure." I can infer the meaning a bit from the discussion, but I still feel at a bit of a loss here. Can you define these for me, so I can pick up the thread again? Thanks.

From: Robin Tuluie
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 94 17:00:21 -0400

Andrew,

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make any sense to me. You wrote:

>This shearing (of the oil) creates an enormous amount of heat
>energy that needs to be dispersed.

The shearing of the oil does not create a lot of heat energy. Virtually all the heat generated in the motor comes from the combustion process and is then thermally transported via conduction and convection. In a typical motor, the thermal efficiency is *less* than 50%, so over 50% of the thermal energy of the combusting mixture is dispersed to the cylinder walls, head and rest of the motor. However, frictional losses are typically on the order of 10%, i.e. the mechanical efficiency is near 90%. Even if all of the frictional losses were converted completely into heat, they would still amount to considerably less than the heat generated by the combustion process. Of course, if there is no lubricating agent like oil or grease, the bearing temperature will increase due to the drastic increase in frictional losses from the metal to metal contact, which get converted into heat. My point is that under normal operating conditions, the heat generated in the bearing is small compared to the heat generated from the combustion process and the primary function of the oil is to assure that this stays so by keeping the bearing lubricated.

>If oil would not boil then there would be very little need for oil flow, and
>hence an oil pump. I used to think that the oil pump created the oil pressure
>for the bearings. Actually not, it just forces oil through the bearings to
>help cool the bearing, the hydrodynamic lubrication creates the pressure that
>helps to keep the surfaces separate.

I remember a SAE paper that discussed the hydrodynamic lubrication of camshaft surfaces. Camshafts are of course not pressure lubricated and have to rely on this mechanism. However, the actual equivalent hydrodynamic pressure generated by the relative velocity of the bearing surfaces is not nearly as great as the typical engine oil pressure. For example, connecting rod bearings experience roughly 10 times the pressure of camshaft surfaces and *absolutely require* pressurized oil, mainly maintain an adequate film strength and to replace the oil lost out of the bearing through the rod side clearances. If rod bearings had to rely on the same hydrodynamic lubrication as camshafts do, I can assure you they would wear out rather quickly.

>Worked on this problem when we were trying to upgrade an
>engine well past its design capability. (previous life at an engine
>manufacture)The bearings were not big enough, but by forcing enough oil
>through to carry away the heat the engine survives a doubling of the
>horsepower.

As scientist (physicist) I have to say that the conclusions that one can draw from your test are not unique. Your test could be interprested (as you do) as saying that the bearing survived because the heat generated in the bearing is carried away by the increased cooling oil flow. Another, and I think more viable conclusion, is that the lubrication of the bearing is improved to such an extend that what would otherwise result in a broken oil film is now, with the higher oil pressure, able to withstand the "doubling of the horsepower" without a problem.

In fact, many bearings do survive without the need of oil to carry the heat away: sealed, grease filled bearings do not rely on the grease to conduct way any heat, but *do* rely on the grease to provide lubrication. The same is true if these bearings were sealed, but filled with oil instead. Greased bearings survive even in a termally non-conducting environment, like wheel bearings in carbon fiber racing wheels. The only cooling these bearings get is from the external air flow, which is rather little. But that's ok because the heat generated in the bearings is small!

Cheers,
Robin Tuluie

From: Your Name Here
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 94 07:03:28 -0600

I do agree that the heat generated by the shearing of the oil film is very small compared to the heat generated by combustion, at a local level much heat is generated, and if not replenished with cool oil will boil,break down the film and allow metal to metal contact.

Engines that do not replenish their oil turn very slowly and place very little load on the bearing. High speed engines with small bearings do have much greater loading (20psi vs 250psi on the projected area of the bearing) I have also used this type of bearing, however the manufacturer of these bearings limits loads and speeds to allow these type to survive.

the specs also require that you mount them in a manner to allow convective cooling with the surrounding air. The oil in the grease is what does the lubricating, the soaps in the grease are just a convinient resevoir. Well at least the greases used in these bearings. The loads in wheel bearings are usually supported by rolling element bearings and these are very different critters than plain bearings. Although they do also generate heat I am no expert on these and must defer, however the loadings on wheel bearings is much less than a rod bearing.

I believe (as do several manufactures of engines) that the primary method of lubrication at the crank journal is hydronamic pressure. This interface is attempting to squeeze the oil film out and the very HIGH localized pressures generated by hydrodynamic lubrication helps to prevent metal to metal contact. The oil pump just provides cool replacement oil for the hot oil that leaks out of the joint. If one could find a lubricant that would not boil and could be contained in the interface, there would be no need for a pump.

The engine we doubled horsepower on (desiel, hypobaric forced induction), we did NOT increase oil pressure, we increased the oil flow. We did this by increasing the clearance between the bearing and the journal. We also measured the temperature of the bearing (neat trick on an oscillating rod) with the different clearances. Increase the flow of the coolant (oil) and decrease the temp of the interface. Of course this trick has its limits as too much clearance does not allow a undisturbed hydrodynamic pressure region to travel with the load around the bearing as it rotates. Remember that the high pressure zone is localized in a very small portion of the bearing and travels according to load.

Although we dissagree, I enjoy this exchange.

You are looking globally, I am looking very locally.

So I stand by this, "the 1st duty of oil is to carry away the heat generated by the shearing of the oil" But as I pointed out earlier, its a chicken of or the egg issue. If the film was not in a high pressure zone (hydrodynamic) and it was not shearing there would be no localized heating, but there is and the film would quickly boil and allow metal to metal contact.

Andrew wolf

From: Robin Tuluie
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 94 14:27:41 -0400

Andrew wrote:
>I do agree that the heat generated by the shearing of the oil film is
>very small compared to the heat generated by combustion, at a local level
>much heat is generated, and if not replenished with cool oil will boil,
>break down the film and allow metal to metal contact.

This of course is all very relative, exactly how much heat, what film strength, etc. Unless we put some numbers to it, I doubt that we'll ever know for sure.

>The loads in wheel bearings are usually supported by rolling element
>bearings and these are very different critters than plain bearings.

Yes, of course they are different from plain bearings, but not too different from crankshaft main bearings (roller or ball) in most British bikes. For example, a typical load in each wheel bearing is roughly 100lbs, rotating at maybe 2000 rpm at freeway speeds. A typical average load in each crank bearing is:

BMEP*piston area*(90 degrees/720 degrees), where

BMEP= brake mean effective pressure= 100 psi typically, piston area=10in^2 roughly, 90 degrees/720 degrees= duration of combustion stroke in a 4-stroke

So we get a typical average load in a crank bearing of roughly 100 lbs, rotating at roughly 4000 rpm at freeway speeds. This is of the same magnitude (note: this calculation is order of magnitue, give or take a factor of 2) as the load in a wheel bearing, and given the fact that the crank bearing is usually larger than the wheel bearing, I'd say that both experience similar point contact pressures.

Now, since a wheel bearing can survive without cooling from the oil (obviously, since it is sealed), so will a crank main bearing, which proves my point that for this application the primary job of the oil is *not* cooling, but lubrication.

It seems that your test on plain bearings was indeed carefully conducted and accurate, and did show that increasing the oil flow but not the pressure was beneficial to bearing life of plain bearings in this particular application.

Maybe we can agree on this: heating of the oil in the bearing can be a problem and may require the cooling capacity of the oil flow in plain (ie. rod) bearings, but is not nearly as important in ball or roller bearings (i.e. Norton, Triumph, etc main bearings), where it's primary function is to lubricate.

Enjoyed the discussion,
Robin

From: George Kozak
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 94 23:35:55 PDT

I'm no physicist, nor am I a racing engine builder, but from my experience the purpose of oil is to return to the ground from whence it came through any method possible. Oil on such a mission can overcoming the hindrance of many gaskets and all types of gasket sealer. This built in "homing instinct" in oil seems to be accelerated if the oil is residing a few inches above the ground in a machined aluminum container over a large slab of concrete. If the concrete slab is covered with the parts of many disassembled motorcycles and Whitworth implements, look out! This homing instinct is even more pronounced if you live in Texas like I do, since many oils call Texas home. The effect can usually be slowed to a trickle with Big D gaskets & Ultra-Tack or any gaskets and <gasp> Yamabond 4.

George (enjoying the controversy)

69 Daytona - still leaking
75 Trident T160 - Bone dry
75 Trident T160 - too much work left to notice
79 Bonneville - Bone dry

From: Steph73227
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 94 11:28:56 EDT

What truely is the purpose of oil? Hmmm....lets see...

1) To make pretty puddles under my happy little Triumph. (Gee who needs those ink-blot tests when you can stare under your bike!)

2) To oooze out of my (pre-unit) relief valve and trickle onto my shifter and boot. (Dang...I knew I shouldn't have worn the suede ones!)

3) To mist into a delicate cloud of whisping smoke, usually only encountered at long stop lights and busy intersections. (fairly reminiscent of the 'North-American Indian smoke signal)

4) To coagulate into a thick oily/mud slab found to completely cover the underside of your rear fender. (Yum yum, grease cake!)

and finally...

5) To completely coat the inards of your Lucas switches. (Dang!!! How'd I get oil inside my headlight???!!!???)

I don't want to hurt any feelings (as I'm sure oil can be very fascinating to some...<GGG>) but personally, I think I prefer the light-hearted Norton-Triumph Debate!

-Murf
The T-bird guy

From: Latte' Jed
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 94 14:46 EDT

> 1) To make pretty puddles under my happy little Triumph.
> (Gee who needs those ink-blot tests when you can stare
> under your bike!)

There are advantages to an external sump engine like this. If oil can leak out that easily, it can leak in too. You can save a lot of time on oil fills and just pour a quart of oil over the engine every few hundred miles.

(I can just see the shrink session: "what's this look like?" "A norton oil puddle." "what's this look like?" "a triumph oil puddle." "what's this look like?" "a rudge oil puddle." - they'd sedate you and take your wallet away for sure)

Return to the Contents Page

39.10 Selection, Grade and Manufacturer

From: Chuck Kichline
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 15:58:29 CDT

I believe this is rec.moto related. Some information on what we've been chewing on.

More Than You Ever Wanted to Know About Motor Oil

by Ed Hackett (edh@maxey.unr.edu)

Choosing the best motor oil is a topic that comes up frequently in discussions between motoheads, whether they are talking about motorcycles or cars. The following article is intended to help you make a choice based on more than the advertising hype.

Oil companies provide data on their oils most often referred to as "typical inspection data". This is an average of the actual physical and a few common chemical properties of their oils. This information is available to the public through their distributors or by writing or calling the company directly. I have compiled a list of the most popular, premium oils so that a ready comparison can be made. If your favorite oil is not on the list get the data from the distributor and use what I have as a data base.

This article is going to look at six of the most important properties of a motor oil readily available to the public: viscosity, viscosity index (VI), flash point, pour point, % sulfated ash, and % zinc.

Viscosity is a measure of the "flowability" of an oil. More specifically, it is the property of an oil to develop and maintain a certain amount of shearing stress dependent on flow, and then to offer continued resistance to flow. Thicker oils generally have a higher viscosity, and thinner oils a lower viscosity. This is the most important property for an engine. An oil with too low a viscosity can shear and loose film strength at high temperatures. An oil with too high a viscosity may not pump to the proper parts at low temperatures and the film may tear at high rpm.

The weights given on oils are arbitrary numbers assigned by the S.A.E. (Society of Automotive Engineers). These numbers correspond to "real" viscosity, as measured by several accepted techniques. These measurements are taken at specific temperatures. Oils that fall into a certain range are designated 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 by the S.A.E. The W means the oil meets specifications for viscosity at 0 F and is therefore suitable for Winter use.

The following chart shows the relationship of "real" viscosity to their S.A.E. assigned numbers. The relationship of gear oils to engine oils is also shown.

 ____________________________________________________________
|                                                            |
|      SAE Gear Viscosity Number                             |
|  ________________________________________________________  |
|  |75W |80W  |85W| 90           | 140                    |  |
|  |____|_____|___|______________|________________________|  |
|                                                            |
|     SAE Crank Case Viscosity Number                        |
|  ___________________________                               |
|  |10| 20 | 30 | 40  | 50   |                               |
|  |__|____|____|_____|______|                               |
______________________________________________________________
2  4  6  8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
                viscosity cSt @ 100 degrees C
 

Multi viscosity oils work like this: Polymers are added to a light base (5W, 10W, 20W), which prevent the oil from thinning as much as it warms up. At cold temperatures the polymers are coiled up and allow the oil to flow as their low numbers indicate. As the oil warms up the polymers begin to unwind into long chains that prevent the oil from thinning as much as it normally would. The result is that at 100 degrees C the oil has thinned only as much as the higher viscosity number indicates. Another way of looking at multi-vis oils is to think of a 20W-50 as a 20 weight oil that will not thin more than a 50 weight would when hot.

Multi viscosity oils are one of the great improvements in oils, but they should be chosen wisely. Always use a multi grade with the narrowest span of viscosity that is appropriate for the temperatures you are going to encounter. In the winter base your decision on the lowest temperature you will encounter, in the summer, the highest temperature you expect. The polymers can shear and burn forming deposits that can cause ring sticking and other problems. 10W-40 and 5W-30 require a lot of polymers (synthetics excluded) to achieve that range. This has caused problems in diesel engines, but fewer polymers are better for all engines. The wide viscosity range oils, in general, are more prone to viscosity and thermal breakdown due to the high polymer content. It is the oil that lubricates, not the additives. Oils that can do their job with the fewest additives are the best.

Very few manufactures recommend 10W-40 any more, and some threaten to void warranties if it is used. It was not included in this article for that reason. 20W-50 is the same 30 point spread, but because it starts with a heavier base it requires less viscosity index improvers (polymers) to do the job. AMSOIL can formulate their 10W-30 and 15W-40 with no viscosity index improvers but uses some in the 10W-40 and 5W-30. Mobil 1 uses no viscosity improvers in their 5W-30, and I assume the new 10W-30. Follow your manufacturer's recommendations as to which weights are appropriate for your vehicle.

Viscosity Index is an empirical number indicating the rate of change in viscosity of an oil within a given temperature range. Higher numbers indicate a low change, lower numbers indicate a relatively large change. The higher the number the better. This is one major property of an oil that keeps your bearings happy. These numbers can only be compared within a viscosity range. It is not an indication of how well the oil resists thermal breakdown.

Flash point is the temperature at which an oil gives off vapors that can be ignited with a flame held over the oil. The lower the flash point the greater tendency for the oil to suffer vaporization loss at high temperatures and to burn off on hot cylinder walls and pistons. The flash point can be an indicator of the quality of the base stock used. The higher the flash point the better. 400 F is the minimum to prevent possible high consumption. Flash point is in degrees F.

Pour point is 5 degrees F above the point at which a chilled oil shows no movement at the surface for 5 seconds when inclined. This measurement is especially important for oils used in the winter. A borderline pumping temperature is given by some manufacturers. This is the temperature at which the oil will pump and maintain adequate oil pressure. This was not given by a lot of the manufacturers, but seems to be about 20 degrees F above the pour point. The lower the pour point the better. Pour point is in degrees F.

% sulfated ash is how much solid material is left when the oil burns. A high ash content will tend to form more sludge and deposits in the engine. Low ash content also seems to promote long valve life. Look for oils with a low ash
content.

% zinc is the amount of zinc used as an extreme pressure, anti- wear additive. The zinc is only used when there is actual metal to metal contact in the engine. Hopefully the oil will do its job and this will rarely occur, but if it does, the zinc compounds react with the metal to prevent scuffing and wear. A level of .11% is enough to protect an automobile engine for the extended oil drain interval, under normal use. Those of you with high revving, air cooled motorcycles or turbo charged cars or bikes might want to look at the oils with the higher zinc content. More doesn't give you better protection, it gives you longer protection if the rate of metal to metal contact is abnormally high. High zinc content can lead to deposit formation and plug fouling.

The Data:

Listed alphabetically --- indicates the data was not available
 

All of the oils above meet current SG/CD ratings and all vehicle manufacture's warranty requirements in the proper viscosity. All are "good enough", but those with the better numbers are icing on the cake.

The synthetics offer the only truly significant differences, due to their superior high temperature oxidation resistance, high film strength, very low tendency to form deposits, stable viscosity base, and low temperature flow characteristics. Synthetics are superior lubricants compared to traditional petroleum oils. You will have to decide if their high cost is justified in your application.

The extended oil drain intervals given by the vehicle manufacturers (typically 7500 miles) and synthetic oil companies (up to 25,000 miles) are for what is called normal service. Normal service is defined as the engine at normal operating temperature, at highway speeds, and in a dust free environment. Stop and go, city driving, trips of less than 10 miles, or extreme heat or cold puts the oil change interval into the severe service category, which is 3000 that the dead dinosaur juice does. The longer drain intervals possible help take the bite out of the higher cost of the synthetics. If your car or bike is still under warranty you will have to stick to the recommended drain intervals. These are set for petroleum oils and the manufacturers make no official allowance for the use of synthetics.

Oil additives should not be used. The oil companies have gone to great lengths to develop an additive package that meets the vehicle's requirements. Some of these additives are synergistic, that is the effect of two additives together is greater than the effect of each acting separately. If you add anything to the oil you may upset this balance and prevent the oil from performing to specification.

The numbers above are not, by any means, all there is to determining what makes a top quality oil. The exact base stock used, the type, quality, and quantity of additives used are very important. The given data combined with the manufacturer's claims, your personal experience, and the reputation of the oil among others who use it should help you make an informed choice.

From: Espen Olsen
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 94 12:21:22 +0200

>The following chart shows the relationship of "real" viscosity to their
>S.A.E. assigned numbers. The relationship of gear oils to engine oils
>is also shown.
> ____________________________________________________________
>|                                                            |
>|      SAE Gear Viscosity Number                             |
>|  ________________________________________________________  |
>|  |75W |80W  |85W| 90           | 140                    |  |
>|  |____|_____|___|______________|________________________|  |
>|                                                            |
>|     SAE Crank Case Viscosity Number                        |
>|  ___________________________                               |
>|  |10| 20 | 30 | 40  | 50   |                               |
>|  |__|____|____|_____|______|                               |
> ____________________________________________________________
>2  4  6  8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
>                viscosity cSt @ 100 degrees C

[Mobil 1 hype-o-rama deleted.....]

Yeah... This was the original article on rec.moto.oil.flamewars that convinced me of Mobil 1s superior performance in the first place. Thanks for posting it here. I had forgotten the Gear vs. Crankcase oil viscosity difference.

So maybe I should go for a GX 80W in 'winter' and GX90 in the rainy season (I wont mention s*mmer because it is nonexistent here). The hypoid oil was to be avoided in Burman (sp?) gearboxes. What with my pre-unit Triumph box? Anybody knows?
Espen

From: Bob Cram
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 13:00:52 +0000

I have read before that in motorcyles you should only use oil designed for motorcyles. I believe this was because it had higher shear resistance that oil designed for other engines, although if you change oil often enough this shouldn't matter. The recent debate between Andrew and Robin got me thinking that maybe synthetic oil has the shear resistance required for motorcycles.

Anybody have any information on this issue of whether motorcyles really need motorcyle oil? 20-50 motorcyle oil, especially Castrol which I prefer, is sometimes hard to find where I live.

From: Bob Cram
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 09:44:26 +0000

Last night I got around to reading that long article on oil Chuck Kichline sent. If you haven't read it, it's very informative despite the length. It reminded me of an article from Motorcyclist (Sept. 1992) I'd kept. It repeats some of the same information, but adds a couple of other useful items directly related to motorcycle engines.

First, regarding the question that was raised a few days ago regarding whether to use 20W50 in older engines that were supposed to use 50W, the Motorcyclist article says that 50W is definitely good for these older engines because of the larger bearing clearances and generally lower rpm levels. It suggests that if your engine was designed for 50W in summer and 30W in winter, then you are best to use a monograde motorcyle of the same weight.. (By the way, I do know that Castrol Grand Prix, which is their motorcycle oil, is made in 50W. There's also various brands made for Harleys.) But if you don't change your oil summer and winter, you are better of with 20W50.

The article also discusses the differences between motorcycle oil and automotive oil. Oil manufacturers of motorcycle oils suggest that automotive oils cannot cope with the motorcycle engine's harsh environment. Motorcycle oils are designed to handle additional fibrous and metallic deposits from clutch plates and the extreme pressure loading of transmission gears. They have additional additives including expensive zero-shear polymers. However, they may also have chlorine and bromine additives, which, while handling the shearing of gearboxes better, can also foster corrosion. Therefore, the article suggests that if you have separate gear box oil (like many British bikes) then you can extend engine life by finding a motorcycle engine oil without chlorine or bromine additives, since those are really designed for engines where the gearbox oil and engine oil is the same.

Return to the Contents Page

39.11 Oil Sludge

From: Dan Milhone
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 11:04:03 +0800

Does anyone have an explaination for the following:

'74 850 Commando, after a half hour ride, has a mass of tan colored, frothy oatmeal-like goo that has spewed out of the oil tank overflow pipe that empties at the bottom of the air box. No other signs of trouble. Oil dipstick level
is correct.

Any and all help is appreciated.

Dan Milhone

From: Alastair Young
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 11:41:10 -0700

On Aug 23, 11:04am, Dan Milhone wrote:
> Subject: Mystery sludge
>
> Does anyone have an explaination for the following:
>
> '74 850 Commando, after a half hour ride, has a mass of tan colored,
> frothy oatmeal-like goo that has spewed out of the oil tank overflow
> pipe
[Snip]

Sounds like water in your oil. Do you ride in the rain or just use the bike for short trips? I have seen rain get into an engine (Ariel KH twin) when the owner extended his crankcase breather by an inch to keep the oil off his frame tube. This was enough to extend the tip into the road spray and suck up water. Short trips never let the bike get properly hot (I don't know about commandoes but my NH doesn't really get the oil properly hot for about an hour in Scottish weather) so the condensation never get boiled out of the oil and starts to accumulate.

Either that or you have Newcastle Brown oil... :-)

Al

From: Robin Tuluie
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 15:10:59 -0400

>'74 850 Commando, after a half hour ride, has
>a mass of tan colored, frothy oatmeal-like goo...

most likely due to water in the oil, sitting in either the oiltank or crankcase. I would also check the primary chaincase, which is more succeptible to water penetration and can leak into the crankcase if the oilseal is bad. Either way, thoroughly clean oiltank and chaincase, drain crankcase. Then refill with fresh oil (change filter, too), run briefly, drain and refill with fresh oil. This second step is neccesary to get most of the goo out of the crank sludge trap, cylinder head lines, etc. I would not run the bike much at all with the goo as is.

Good luck,

Rob Tuluie

Return to the Contents Page

39.12 Total Synthetic (Mobile 1)

From: Espen Olsen
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 15:10:59 -0400

>Concerning chain wax:

Chain wax?

>Speaking of oil, Mobil 1 would lighten my load quite a bit. Has anyone
>tried this stuff, and how did it work for you?

Yessssir! Apparently the rec.moto discussion has gone on for at least six months, because I was convinced in the spring..... I changed engine and gear oils to the Mobil-1 stuff. The primary/clutch oil stayed the regular SAE30 monograde. Btw, the bike is a '57 SpeedTwin. Yes, I could definitely feel the lessened friction, and the bike accelerated better than ever. So on that basis I can recommend it. The snag is there though... Unless the engine is *really* oil-thight you will find that it leaks more (mine did at least). Especially the gearbox dripped a lot, so I've gone back to dino-juice there, for the time being at least. I also suspect that the new oil revealed a slightly worn exhaust valve guide on the left cylinder as there is oil in the pipe-outlet on that side altough the plug looks just fine.

Summary: Change to Mobil-1 on the items with small drip-drip factor.

I will rebuild the gearbox (well, change gaskets at least), and do something to the valve guide in the winter. Then it's back to Mobil-1 for the same reason as you - fewer oil bottles...

Espen

From: Latte' Jed
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 94 13:39 EDT

> I think synthetics are great, but they do NOT allow you to go longer between
> oil changes, of course if your bikes leak this may be a continual process.

One of the other big deals about synthetic is it takes temperatures well, doesn't burn as easily as the cheap stuff. This isn't much of an issue in the old crap this list concerns itself with.

> CHANGE YOUR OIL OFTEN, get rid of contamination!!!!
> I use the cheapest dead dinos I can find, change oil every 1 ~ 2 k miles, no
> problems AT ALL!.

He got that right, change early, change often. If you can afford it then use fancy synthetics, if you can't then use the cheapest oil you can find and change it more often. The stuff that makes your oil black is little bits of carbon grit which is pretty abrasive. Carbon grit grows up to be diamond grit and you sure wouldn't want diamond grit in your engine.

From: Espen Olsen
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 94 20:11:45 +0200

>> I think synthetics are great, but they do NOT allow you to go longer between
>> oil changes, of course if your bikes leak this may be a continual process.
>
>One of the other big deals about synthetic is it takes temperatures well,
>doesn't burn as easily as the cheap stuff. This isn't much of an issue
>in the old crap this list concerns itself with.
>
>> CHANGE YOUR OIL OFTEN, get rid of contamination!!!!
>> I use the cheapest dead dinos I can find, change oil every 1 ~ 2 k miles, no
>> problems AT ALL!.
>
>He got that right, change early, change often. If you can afford it then
>use fancy synthetics, if you can't then use the cheapest oil you can find
>and change it more often. The stuff that makes your oil black is little
>bits of carbon grit which is pretty abrasive. Carbon grit grows up to be
>diamond grit and you sure wouldn't want diamond grit in your engine.
>

As said above, high T is not *that* much of a problem with old bikes, nor high pressures either... Carbon to diamond under these conditions....

Naaaah, not very likely.

I use syntethic oil because I'm a bit slack in changing oil (I prefer to ride, they don't burn that easy which should make'em last longer.

Espen

From: Alastair Young
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 10:35:44 -0700

I have been hearing Good Things about synthetic oils in the context of car use. They are supposed to have better heat qualities and cling to the bearing surfaces better than regular oils, thus improving lubrication. I am strongly considering usining it in my 4 wheeler (154,000 miles and rising) to help keep it alive indefinitely, but I balk at using multigrades, particularly 10W/30 or 10W/40 in the Red Hunter, particularly as the manual specifies 40W in Winter and 50W in summer. That's in a British summer, not a Californian one. Do they make 50W or 60W synthetics?

(Red Hunters have roller big ends and ball or roller mains, and a little Triumph style plunger oil pump)

Al

From: Mike Taglieri
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 02:54:58 EDT

Saturday, I did a trip of about 75 miles testing Mobil 1 (10w-30) in all three locations: engine, primary and gearbox. My trip was up NYC's West Side Highway to the Sawmill Parkway, and included lots of high-speed highway driving in hilly/rugged terrain, as well as a predictable amount of bumper-to-bumper stuff getting into and out of the city. Here are my impressions of the results:

ENGINE -- Very fine results, with one-kick starting and easy warmup. The engine seemed to rev very freely, and did not seem to get as hot as I remember from the past (although this was a coolish fall day). Particularly noteworthy is idling: my Amals are severely worn, and tickover varies randomly from 2000 rpm to 0 in the course of a day's ride. On Mobil 1, it never quite drops to 0, but the bike the bike chugs along as low as 500 rpm, which it never could do on Castrol 20W-50, because the friction of the oil made it die. When I ultimately fix these carbs (winter), I expect I'll be able to have a very low idle indeed, which is valuable for a city boy, since it lets me crawl along in heavy traffic without constantly clutching. Next summer, I'll keep using this, possibly a heavier weight.

GEARBOX -- Acceptable at high speeds, but clearly inferior to gear oil in city traffic, when lots of shifting is done. I missed several shifts from neutral to first at lights, and shifting was less smooth than normal in every gear. At first, I wondered if this was from clutch drag [since I was also using Mobil 1 in the primary], but it was also harder to "snick" the box into neutral from first or second when approaching a light -- a change I generally do without clutching. Conclusion: back to gear oil before next trip.

PRIMARY -- Jury's still out. For years, I've used automatic tranmission fluid in the primary because its low weight and high heat-resistance decreases clutch drag. Mobil 1 showed no difference on Saturday, but I couldn't tell, since I get clutch-overheating problems only under extreme conditions anyway (e.g., bumper-to-bumper uphill in hot weather). I'll try this longer and see, unless leakage becomes a real problem [below].

LEAKAGE -- Synthetics are well known for finding their way through seals better than mineral oils. Raul was weeping oil through the kickstart lever shaft, but I'm going back to gear oil anyway. There was also some leakage from the primary, where the sealing of pre-75 Nortons is somewhat questionable. I'll try it with some silicone on the rubber ring. All other areas of the bike stayed tight.

Mike Taglieri
Raul -- '72 Commando Interstate

From: Espen Olsen
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 11:54:23 +0200

I've been following the mobil 1 vs dino thread. Miki Tagliari(?) tried Mobil 1 in the gearbox also and changed from "gear oil". ??????

In the manual for my pre-unit SpeedTwin it says "engine oil in the gearbox". Gear oil (what you get here at least) has GX80 rating. This oil is obviously thicker than engine oil. I tried Mobil 1 in the gearbox but it leaked out like @#$#=A4#. OK: Engine or gear oil in the pre-unit gearbox?

Espen

From: GNBII
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 14:14:50 EDT

>
>There was also some leakage
>from the primary, where the sealing of pre-75 Nortons is somewhat
>questionable. I'll try it with some silicone on the rubber ring. A
>All other areas of the bike stayed tight.
>Mike Taglieri

Mike,

Try sealing with Permatex HYLOMAR. Non hardening, easily removed with rubbing alcohol, and seals great. Easily removed is reason enough, IMHO.

Bewley/Atlanta

From: John Pinkham
Subject: Synthetic Oil Spooge

Having read about the merits of synthetic oil, I shall remain using old dinosaur residue until the quality and consistency of synthetic oil spooge improves.

Few of life's fleeting pleasures can compare to the thrill of discovery when, at last, after many blows and curses the spooge trap is unlocked, and it's treasure trove of concentrated vileness is exposed. Imagine the disappointment for the synthetic oil user, who having gained access to the very soul of a British beast finds naught to poke at, no intriguing shards of metal surrounded by extract of Mesozoic reptile to finger! None of that substance for which Dr. Fu Manchu plotted so fiendishly to obtain for the main ingredient of his fabled elixir vitae!

Besides its well known that a full spooge trap must be accounted for when arriving at balance factors.

It may also affect unsprung weight.

John

Return to the Contents Page

39.13 Oil Tank Mounting.

From: John Kula
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 09:03:18 -0800

>Hi All,
>I'm in the middle of a Norton Commando reassembly. The bike was
>in pieces when I got it and I'm in the middle of restoring it.
>Unfortunately, I don't have a factory manual and do not know
>how the oil tank is mounted. It looks like it requires spacers
>of some kind, perhaps rubber. I'd appreciate it if anyone could
>describe how this part is mounted or a factory manual for
>sale ;-).

Alex,

The post-69 Commando oil-tank is smaller and triangular (the earlier one is four-sided and extends further forward, besides having an oil-level tube on the inside at the front of it) and is mounted at three points, coinciding roughly with the three vertices of the triangle.

The top two are relatively easy to mount, by means of a rubber-separated set of threaded bits. The old rubber gets brittle and could tear if too much torque is used, so be careful. But access is very easy.

The third one at the bottom centre is a bolt which is inserted upwards through a plate welded to the frame, through a rubber grommet and into a threaded bit welded to the tank. Two problems. Access is virtually blind and I've found it essential to use a wobble extension. OTOH, I can now get it in place inside two minutes (the first time I tried it, it took me over half an hour, not counting the numerous cooling-off periods between attempts :-) The other problem is that the "bolt" welded to the oil tank tends to fracture and leak oil. the most insidious fractures aren't evident unless the weld is heated red.

Practice makes perfect. Good luck!

John Kula

From: Alex Honor
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 12:06:02 -0800

Hi All, I'm in the middle of a Norton Commando reassembly. The bike was in pieces when I got it and I'm in the middle of restoring it. Unfortunately, I don't have a factory manual and do not know how the oil tank is mounted. It looks like it requires spacers of some kind, perhaps rubber. I'd appreciate it if anyone could describe how this part is mounted or a factory manual for
sale ;-).
Thanks, Alex

From: Klaus Kaak
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 18:26:32 -0500 (EST)

>Hi All,
>I'm in the middle of a Norton Commando reassembly. The bike was
>in pieces when I got it and I'm in the middle of restoring it.
>Unfortunately, I don't have a factory manual and do not know
>how the oil tank is mounted. It looks like it requires spacers
>of some kind, perhaps rubber. I'd appreciate it if anyone could
>describe how this part is mounted or a factory manual for
>sale ;-).
> Thanks, Alex

hi alex,
it is a three point rubber mount, the front and rear rubber mounts are an example of norton underengineering and it is a good idea to replace them with the much sturdier head steady mounts (part # 060622).this will stabilize your oiltank and bring the total number of part 060622 to.........?? 8 ! on your commando.the bottom of your tank is mounted with a bolt, here a more solid replacement of the rubber o -ring is recommended, you'll find some in a local store a good 96 and enjoy reassembly!

klaus

From: Russell Brown
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 10:55:35 +0000 (GMT)

Quoth Brendan Murphy.....
>on the amount of oil that has been dribbleing onto the garage floor.
>There's still a small amount of oil collecting under the speedo
>drive which I suspect is coming from the oil tank and traveling
>down the swing arm. I've already had the oil tank out once and the
>bottom lug appeared to be solid. I suspect that the oil is coming
>from the banjo/union with the feed screen.

Don't you believe it. I had problems with oil leaking from the oil tank and, like yourself, looked hard at the lug on the bottom of the tank and, as I couldn't see a crack, concluded it was the takeoff that was leaking.

25 zillion attempts to seal the takeoff later, I again examined the bottom mounting lug and even went so far as to put it on the bench with talc all over it and ATF in the tank (thinnest oil I had laying around). After a couple of days it hadn't leaked so I put it back on the bike, ran it up and lo and behold... more oil dribbles from the base of the tank :-(

Taking the bull by the horns, I rebraized the bottom lug, repainted the tank and wonder of wonders.... the oil leak ceased (BTW, the crack *did* become visible once the mounting lug was heated to cherry red).

Moral of the tale: any oil leaking from around the base of a Commando Oil Tank - rebraize the bottom mounting lug. You might not be able to see the crack but it's there!

--
Regards,
Russell

Return to the Contents Page

39.14 50 and 60 Weight Synthetic

From: Bob Cram
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 1994 16:38:34 +0000

>who makes 50 or 60W synthetic oil?

"Redline oil makes 40W & 50W, and may also produce others. They are in CA., and if you'll call any racing shop or racing parts distributer they can give you the info you need." - Robin

Lots of old Harleys use 50W oil. Therefore, most Harley dealers carry the stuff in stock, and presumably have some that is synthetic. In fact, I think Redline makes a 50W oil that is marketed towards the Harley guys.

From: Robin Tuluie
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 94 17:03:26 -0400

>who makes 50 or 60W synthetic oil?

Redline oil makes 40W & 50W, and may also produce others. They are in CA., and if you'll call any racing shop or racing parts distributer they can give you the info you need.

Robin

From: Robin Tuluie
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 94 17:25:16 EDT

>who makes 50 or 60W synthetic oil?
>Redline oil makes 40W & 50W, and may also produce others. They are in CA.,
>and if you'll call any racing shop or racing parts distributer they can
>give you the info you need.

Check the local airports. Many planes use very thick oil. Bear in mind, however, that the method used gives an SAE of twice the automotive oil equivalent.

IE: 80W airplane = 40W automotive.

Bewley/Atlanta

From: Latte' Jed
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 94 18:17 EDT

>>who makes 50 or 60W synthetic oil?
>>
>> Redline oil makes 40W & 50W, and may also produce others. They are in CA.,
>> and if you'll call any racing shop or racing parts distributer they can
>> give you the info you need.
>
> Check the local airports. Many planes use very thick oil. Bear in mind,
> however, that the method used gives an SAE of twice the automotive oil
> equivalent.
>
> IE: 80W airplane = 40W automotive.

I believe gear oil as well uses a different numbering scheme, I'm told 90W gear oil is the same viscosity as 50W motor oil. This probably makes sense to a group who's dealt with as much whitworth as us.

I'll try to open a can of worms on the oil topic: It's my understanding that a multigrade, like 20W50, has a viscosity of 20 visco-units when cold and when hot is as thick as hot 50 weight, which is still thinner than cold 20 weight but thicker than hot 20 weight. Right?

So in an old bike that predates multigrades whose manual says to use 50 weight the engine actually when running wants an oil the thickness of hot 50 weight, which is actually thinner than cold 20 weight. The lubrication system has trouble pumping thick and gooey cold 50 weight, so presumably the bike actually benefits from running 20W50, it gets more oil flow when cold and the same oil flow when hot. Right?

This past weekend I saw a 40 hp 35 litre single cylinder engine. I kept trying to think of a way to bolt wheels onto it. 12" bore X 22" stroke, made in 1898. Lubrication pressure provided by a thumb, pressing on an oil cans lever. Impressed the hell out of me!

Return to the Contents Page

39.15 Locating 140 Weight Oil.

From: John Knobel
Date: 28 Apr 1994 11:29:47 -0500

REGARDING Source of140 Weight Oil

Hi all,
I am looking for a source of straight 140W oil as called for to lubricate Norton Commando swingarms. My local auto places can only special order it as 5 gallon cans, which is a lot more than I need. I have been "mooching" some off my local Norton mechanic but I would preferr to not have to do this. I a experimenting with modifying the swingarm end caps to make the lubrication process easier - however in the process I am using up more than a reasonable "mooch". Anyone know where I can buy a quantity of a few quarts/litres? (I'd even go for gallon if I had to) Thanks in advance. - John K.

From: Steve Moseley
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 09:35:29 -0700 (PDT)

I got 140 weight oil in a quart container at my local NAPA auto parts store. My question is how do you get it in the Commando swingarm? I gave up trying to get it through the grease fitting, so I put the bike on the side stand, remove the grease fitting, and squirt in as much as I can, then quickly replace the fitting before too much oozes back out. I'm not sure this gets enough in. There must be a better way.

My apologies to anyone who might consider this personal mail, but it's posted to the list in case anyone else might have a problem finding 140 wt oil.

From: Pete Serrino
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 12:04:22 -0500 (EST)

John Knobel writes:
REGARDING Source of140 Weight Oil

>I am looking for a source of straight 140W oil as called for to lubricate
>Norton Commando swingarms.

Spectro used to make a 140w gear lube. I used it for a while but my local dealer no longer stocks it. You may try Dennis Kirk. They have a toll free # for info.

>I am experimenting with modifying the swingarm end caps to make the lubrication
>process easier

Also I have found a small grease gun at a local chain saw shop with a needle tip that I fill with oil (90w now) that can be used on the stock fittings. Make sure that grease was never used in the swing arm otherwise the oil won't be too effective.

Pete

From: roddy
Date: 28 Apr 94 13:20:00 EDT

John K.;
I need 140W for my Riley. I find the best source is to go to a place that services tractor trailor trucks and/or heavy duty industrial equipment. I would approach them to buy n quarts AND bring the containers you want it put in because they will only have it in bulk. Hope this helps.

Bob

Return to the Contents Page