Lower oil ratio's increase hp - tested with dyno

Article from 1978 (yep, its probably older than some here but...)

www.bridgestonemotorcycle.com/documents/oilpremix6.pdf



Increased hp @ same rpm = increased torque; correct?

Great post!! This article surfaces every once in a while, Good stuff. One thing to take note of is why they chose the oil they did instead of some other formulation. Read it, and like it!

Bullittman

What is truly disturbing, is I remember that article, and which Milk crate it went into, and where it was stacked in the old shed.
I used to read all the bike Rags cover to cover.

I wonder if a repeat of the same dyno test, using a strato saw. and modern synthetics would change the trends?

Stay safe!
Dingeryote

I definitely would not take that article as gospel due to its age. The quality of lubricants and engine parts are far ahead of what they were when that tin-can article was written. It would be interesting to do the same tests with modern engines and lubes.

If you read the article they were using castor oil because they wanted to use an oil with no additives.

Like SBH says - we've come a long way since then.

A few years ago I asked my 88 year old uncle, given the huge changes in technology he had seen during his lifetime what aspect of modern technology impressed him the most and he said, Lubrication!

remember the days of reader service cards? that was the only way I got mail many trips around the sun ago
for old time sake maybe I'll up in the garage attic and look at the magazines from the 60's, in labeled binders LOL ...OCD?

Unfortunately, I don't think that article pertains to our oil uses. I'd love to see an in depth scientific study done that does.

lube

was he referring to astro glide?

BobL said:

If you read the article they were using castor oil because they wanted to use an oil with no additives.

Click to expand...

Plus castor oil was used by most racers at the time the article was written. Synthetic was new to the market, hard to find, and regarded suspiciously.

I remember reading that article in a motorcycle magazine, too. Jennings was da man.

striperswaper said:

was he referring to astro glide?

Click to expand...

You mean Ben Dover's research?

How long to you guys think it'll take for the DG Hurricane Jacket to ship if I mailed in my check this morning.

Lots of jibba jabba without a chart...I need a chart. What about ambient air temp and humidity? I wish they would have stated total fuel mix used in each test rather than "we made the AF ratio the same". Seems to me if a bunch more mix is dumped in the cylinder with richer mix: more mix = more cooling = lower temps for same HP = more HP for same temps.

Either way, I don't think the article makes a lick of difference for todays average chainsawyer. I'm sure bad mix and poorly tuned carbs cause an order of magnitude more problems than running a richer oil mix.

I feel BIGJ has a handle on it. Garbage in, Garbage out!

So the way the world spins has changed since 1978?

So they should not have corrected the A/F ratio?

So oil is not burnt?

:notrolls2:




Seems to me dirt bike racers and karters have a better handle on it than some posts here suggest!

Garbage in, Garbage out!

Click to expand...

Can we have a little higher level of output please - like say 40:1 :monkey:

5-10 years after they did that test, most automotive tune-up shops had CO meters which would have made the AF ratio adjustment easy.
I'd forgotten about Jennings re-jetting the carb, so I tended to assume leaner = more power.

I was 14 when I got that issue of Cycle magazine in the mail, so it has been a while. It's in an orange crate, unlike Dinger I'd have to look to know which orange crate it's in.

Jonsered2095 said:

:notrolls2:

Click to expand...

What was the intention of this thread?

Hello,
Reread the article. The reason they chose castor over some other oil type is because it is flexible with is mix ratios. They mention that some of the other oils are limited to a certain ratio range. Granted modern oils are much improved but I think it still applies.

bullittman

BigJ said:

What was the intention of this thread?

Click to expand...

Hi BigJ and all respondents, I have no intent of malice in this thread if that is your concern.

The thread title is a statement of that shown within the article. The article attempts to show facts.

The 'no trolls' .gif is response to those posters who are overlooking the implications of the article. It is referenced below my written responses.

The intent is educated discussion of a topic that seems dismissed out of hand by many simply because oil is only considered a lubricant, causes fouling, etc.




There is some good output (input) here too!

The mention of tuning hits close to the mark I think, but not as referenced. The increase in oil volume (lower ratio of mix) is reducing the volume of fuel getting to the chamber (increased A/F mix) so of course the jetting needs retuning to compensate...

Any further thoughts?

My bet? Same test with new oils & current power plants? Same results with one exception. Less gooey unburned Castor Bean oil oosing out the exhaust port.

Jonsered2095 said:

The mention of tuning hits close to the mark I think, but not as referenced. The increase in oil volume (lower ratio of mix) is reducing the volume of fuel getting to the chamber (increased A/F mix) so of course the jetting needs retuning to compensate...

Click to expand...

Agreed that jetting needs to be adjusted. This results in more total mix getting into the cylinder, correct? What I was trying to understand is why richer oil mix creates more power in that situation. The article didn't really get into that. Is it more cooling? Better ring seal resulting in higher compression?

Seems like theres a trade off - potential for more power or running cooler vs. plug fouling & deposits forming (with today's oils)

Seems like quite a few guys run 32:1 with no issues so I maintain that poor tuning could potentially cause more issues than different mix ratios.

Hello,
I've re red the article and it does not specifically say why the heavier oil mix makes more power but I'd wager it is the result of better ring seal. That's all I can figure.

As far as exhaust smoke and cleanliness all of that is more a function of tuning than mix ratios. I used to work for a public municipality as seasonal help and part of my job duties was to keep the sidewalks clean. There were over 2 miles of side walk at least 8 feet wide that we cleaned twice a week in the summer. We used echo back pack blowers to do this. I mixed my own fuel with what ever cheap oil they bought. What ever it was was elcheapo petroleum that simply said to mix to manufactures instructions. I didn't trust the oil and in an effort to be socially unacceptable I mixed the oil heavy. I wanted a lot of smoke. The more the merrier. I don't care too much for tourist. I would keep the carbs tuned so the blower made good power. The result, no smoke, no dirty exhaust, nothing. I got to the point I was mixing at more than 8:1 in my quest for a smokey mess. The blowers never did protest. In the 6 years I worked there I was the only one that touched the blowers. They never even needed a spark plug, and I never did cause my smoke screen.

bullittman