Best 2 Stroke Oil?

[sean donato]

I, for one, do not see a contradiction in what you wrote and the page I linked. It is worth reading it carefully.

They a ran out if jets to sufficiently test the higher oil ratios then 18 to 1. It literally right in your quote. And again, a piped, Reed induction, power valve motor cross engine vs a piston port chainsaw engine is a moot comparison. Different designs, rpm, loads etc.

 

[epo]

They a ran out if jets to sufficiently test the higher oil ratios then 18 to 1. It literally right in your quote. And again, a piped, Reed induction, power valve motor cross engine vs a piston port chainsaw engine is a moot comparison. Different designs, rpm, loads etc.

I linked that page in reply to the post by @thompsoncustom saying about motocross racing and his memory, that for this case the "best" ratio was 16:1. Nowhere did anyone claim that 16:1 or 18:1 would be the best ratio for chainsaws or anything like that.
It seems to me that despite the differences in the engines, that site does a good job of describing the phenomena that occur for different engine conditions and different oil ratios.

 

[bwalker]

I saw an interesting video on oil mix ratios. I watched it on TV so I don't have the link, but a gentleman tested 25:1 and 50:1 on a Stihl saw; I think it was an MS261 or similar. He compared temperatures at the exhaust after 3 minutes at idle, after 3 cuts on a ~16" log and after 3 cuts on ~12' logs. In all cases, the saw ran much hotter on 25:1 than 50:1. Engine temperature was as much as 38 degrees hotter at 25:1. The thought was that the 25:1 was effectively making the saw run lean. It also had noticeably less power. I am not sure if such would happen on an MS500i, with its sensors and microprocessors. But running hot was not a good thing. I tend to use 50:1 with Amsoil Saber because Stihl suggests 50:1. I once had a saw that asked for 16:1. I don't think the oil ratio needed depends as much on the saw design as the oil. As long as you have enough oil to create an oil film thick enough to avoid metal-to-metal contact, more oil will not improve lubrication. All it will do it make the saw run hotter and put more oil smoke in the exhaust. Will Saber really allow 100:1? I think it is possible. Many report doing so for years with no problem. But I am not ready to take that step. Oil is cheap compared to damage to my 500i.

Another crap youtube test. The guy never recalibrated the saw for the different ratios.
It was a stihl ms260 btw. I ran 260's for years of hard use at 32:1 with no issues.

 

[bwalker]

Richard Flagg on Youtube does a great job of testing (many brand oils, motorcycle oils and marine oils) and then showing how 2 stroke oils work in the crankcase of a chainsaw. Seeing is believing my frfriends.r

Richard's "tests" are about worthless.
Oil is tested scientifically by JASO. Stop wasting your time on YouTube and just run a FD certified oil.

 

[bwalker]

While Richard Flagg’s oil tests are only one tank tests, he sure does show you a lot of information during that. If you compound those results by many tank fulls of use, you can definitely see which oils will give you better protection in the long run. Do other people have different results with oils he doesn’t like than he does? Absolutely. But if those are the more the exception than the norm, I’ll be staying away from them.

L8R,
Matt

1 tank of fuel in 1 machine is not a test in any sort of scientifically valid way.

 

[epo]

Richard's "tests" are about worthless.
Oil is tested scientifically by JASO. Stop wasting your time on YouTube and just run a FD certified oil.

Richard's tests, of course, do not pretend to be an industry standard, but based e.g. on what happens in the crankcase, they at least allow him to identify oils that failed at the ratio he used. Assuming, of course, that he tuned the machine correctly.

I agree about the usefulness of JASO/ISO classification, but maybe such a small clarification, because it can be understood differently. JASO does not test oils and does not issue certificates. It has only created a set of standards (M345: M340, M341, M342, M343) for performance classifying 2T oils and maintains a list of oils suppliers have submitted as a result of their tests.

In their words:

The quality, performance and labeling of the 2-Cycle Oil
notified and field under this JASO Two Cycle Gasoline Engine
Oil Performance Classification Implementation System, is
classified and guaranteed based upon the judgment and
responsibility of the company itself (the lube oil supplier)
who submitted the specified notification documents for
filing. The company shall assume all liabilities resulting
therefrom.

Therefore, you must trust the supplier that their tests were done correctly and that they maintain the standard in the oil they supply all the time.

 

[sean donato]

Richard's tests, of course, do not pretend to be an industry standard, but based e.g. on what happens in the crankcase, they at least allow him to identify oils that failed at the ratio he used. Assuming, of course, that he tuned the machine correctly.

I agree about the usefulness of JASO/ISO classification, but maybe such a small clarification, because it can be understood differently. JASO does not test oils and does not issue certificates. It has only created a set of standards (M345: M340, M341, M342, M343) for performance classifying 2T oils and maintains a list of oils suppliers have submitted as a result of their tests.

In their words:

The quality, performance and labeling of the 2-Cycle Oil
notified and field under this JASO Two Cycle Gasoline Engine
Oil Performance Classification Implementation System, is
classified and guaranteed based upon the judgment and
responsibility of the company itself (the lube oil supplier)
who submitted the specified notification documents for
filing. The company shall assume all liabilities resulting
therefrom.

Therefore, you must trust the supplier that their tests were done correctly and that they maintain the standard in the oil they supply all the time.

Thats a standard disclaimer of liability, nothing more. The API has the same disclaimer, they just set standards and give uniform testing procedures, to obtain the right to have the certification the oil supplier had to adhere to certain standards for either. All liability still resides with the mfg.

 

[epo]

Thats a standard disclaimer of liability, nothing more. The API has the same disclaimer, they just set standards and give uniform testing procedures, to obtain the right to have the certification the oil supplier had to adhere to certain standards for either. All liability still resides with the mfg.

The essence of this is that JASO (or ISO) does not test oils. Suppliers do it themselves. It's a system of relying on trust.

The same is overwhelmingly true of, for example, the European CE marking. With some exceptions, manufacturers assure themselves that they meet standards, e.g. electrical safety.
In America, there is the UL (formerly Underwriters Laboratory) designation, which should mean that the device has been tested by them for compliance.

 

[bwalker]

The essence of this is that JASO (or ISO) does not test oils. Suppliers do it themselves. It's a system of relying on trust.

The same is overwhelmingly true of, for example, the European CE marking. With some exceptions, manufacturers assure themselves that they meet standards, e.g. electrical safety.
In America, there is the UL (formerly Underwriters Laboratory) designation, which should mean that the device has been tested by them for compliance.

I can't say for all oil manufacturers, but many use third parties to run the tests to avoid conflict of interest issues. In most cases(maybe all) its not a matter of trust.
So when an oil is JASO certified it has been run through the specified test engines and physical property tests and has met the standard.