It is not my field, so I concede you are more qualified than I on the subject. But I am at a loss to explain why you cannot recognize valid scientific testing when it is not the same as, say SAE tests. There is always more than one way to get useful, valid data. And I would say, categorically, that any wear test applied equally to a variety of oils will be a valid way of determining which oils have the best lubricity, even if the tests do not duplicate SAE tests or actual engine operating conditions.
Chainsaw 2 Cycle Oil Poll
- Thread starter TN Cattleman
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
The earlier poster actually did use it in many engines for years without problems. Though I am reluctant to do that, I suspect many said 32:1 was unrealistic when the norm was 16:1. Yes, I am old enough to remember that! I do believe it is possible that 100:1 can be OK if the oil has low enough volatility and high film strength. I am just not personally willing to risk it at this point.
You state that Amsoil saber is not JASO FD. They state that it is. So, your statement is an opinion that is not corroborated by evidence.
I read that they claim “meets or exceeds” but didn't pay the 40K to get the official rating. So what's up with this? I have been running Saber in all my 2 stoke saws, trimmers,4 mix stuff etcetera for years and years and no oil related problems. Isn't STIHL Ultra officially rated FC or FD, but many claim its crap.
Stihl is not rated FD. I cannot remember if it is FB or FC.
Well, let's test that. You once claimed I am not an engineer. That was your opinion, and it is false. You also claimed I was lying about my oil tests results. That, too is an opinion and it is false (and you know what that makes you!). You have also stated that Project Farm's testing is garbage. That is an opinion, and it is certainly not shared by many. He tests a lot of things in a logical, methodical and thorough way. As an example, he did a comparative test on chainsaw chains. I think the results would be interesting and valid to many on this forum. Now here is an opinion of mine: I believe the purpose of this forum is for members to help each other out by sharing their experiences and educating each other, and having a little fun from time to time. It is not for putting people down or slandering them. But your posts often are very negative and involve personal attacks. You are not contributing anything useful to this forum when you do that.
See 451 https://www.jalos.or.jp/onfile/pdf/2T_EV_LIST.pdf
I have never seen this myself until today. Maybe it's in Europe?
I have never seen this myself until today. Maybe it's in Europe?
I had a 4-cylinder Dodge Neon that suddenly developed the standard MOPAR "add a quart of oil every tank of gas" and "back bumper black from all the smoke" syndrome. I just assumed it was more of those great MOPAR valve guides/seals and/or piston rings leaking oil down into the fire -- the standard MOPAR syndrome that we've all come to know and love over the decades -- and never realized (because it never overheated) that it was actually a warped head. So when the engine finally blew somewhere around Year Four with maybe 80k on the clock, I bitched to MOPAR, but they told me to go pound sand because I should have had the warped head addressed long before the engine blew. Long story longer, no more MOPAR garbage for me!
Soot is carbon, not graphite. Precisely the opposite of a lubricant.
This is contrary to my understanding of how oil works. The idea is that metal surfaces only actually touch each other briefly during startup, and then ride on a cushion of oil between them, like a hovercraft on air. This only happens if there's sufficient volume of oil to actually get between the metal bits and provide that cushion, no matter what special formulas or potions are in place. If the film strength and anti wear additives come into play after startup and during normal operation, the oil or oil system has already failed.
Different engine designs with tighter tolerances, which need less oil to maintain that oil cushion between bearings, and oil injection might get us there. Some oils claim that competitors contain dillutants, stabilizers, dyes, etc. which reduce the amount of actual lubricant that's in an ounce of two stroke oil, and by reducing those other components, the amount of lubricant in an ounce of oil can be maximized, allowing a leaner ratio to provide the same protection, and maybe there's some truth to this.
I suspect that going seriously below 50:1 oil ratios will be a race to see whether better engine technology or battery electric technology takes over the saw market first.
I'm both cynical of corporations, and a salesman by trade. Why would any of them want to sell LESS oil?
hosocat
ArboristSite Operative
Man, why all the animosity towards project farm? The man has accumulated quite a following with his reviews, so he must be doing something right. He provides a valuable service and seems to be having fun doing it. Usually his methods seem to make sense. I enjoy watching, and hes saved me from buying junk several times. He has hundreds of thousands of subscribers. The best I can do is a couple likes on my posts, and then the obligatory "you're a dumbass" comment.
I like him. Don't agree with all he does of course, but his testing is light years ahead of anything I could do myself. If I need a tool and don't have time to research it, I watch his video on it and buy whatever he recommends. It's never been wrong. He's saved me a bundle of time and $$$$.
Np . As much as i realize the "shamu" marketing Amsoil uses is shamefull , i do appreciate the benefits of their oils at the price point i recieve . Unfortunately their claim that their 2T oils are specified for use within Jaso FD applications is just that , Specified not any actual Certification , otherwise the appropriate FD label would be on bottle . As for 4T conventional oil quality , indeed there are numerous examples where as you indicated , their use meets the demands & use of any "typical" synthetic brand . I ran conventional Rotella 10W-40 in a few of my gas wood & race sled haulers for the better part of a decade at factory oil change intervals . Never a problem !
I'am old enough & have actual race experience within 2T engine building (Cycle & Sleds). Further more have field tested numerous 2 stroke engines @ 16:1 , 20:1 , 32:1 , 40:1 , 50:1 etc . Let me assure you even with world class Premium Synthetic oil a 100:1 ratio causes engine wear . Perhaps not catastrophic , but wear non the less . In real world applications 50:1 is as lean as i would recommend within a properly tuned air cooled engine .
I'm not jumping into the middle of you guy's spat, but I think it is worthy of consideration that most semi-trucks come with a 25,000 mile oil change interval. That isn't much difference than the comments that started this hostile conversation.
https://extramiletx.com/how-often-should-you-change-your-semi-truck-oil/
Now I'm not sure why smaller vehicles have so much shorter an oil change interval, but I suspect it has to do with engine RPM and warranty periods, as well as perhaps oil volume and filtration quality.
https://extramiletx.com/how-often-should-you-change-your-semi-truck-oil/
Now I'm not sure why smaller vehicles have so much shorter an oil change interval, but I suspect it has to do with engine RPM and warranty periods, as well as perhaps oil volume and filtration quality.
I agree , well stated . Separate the wheat from the chaff & valuable information can be gained !
I used to have a Ford explorer with the little V-6 engine. When I sold it at about 340,000 miles, still ran oil-change to oil-change with no oil consumption. Not that I planned it that way, but I often ran to over 10k between oil changes, too. Quite frankly, it was almost annoying to check the oil, 'cause it never needed any.
Adequate oil filtration is paramount within any extended oil change interval usage . Especially within any Diesel engine application . I routinely have ran 10,000 mile intervals with my Cummins , utilizing dual bypass filter cannisters . Today with 300,000 miles on the engine all using Rotella T 15w-40 & more recently Amsoil Severe Service Diesel 15w-40 , all oil testing has shown no issues what so ever . There is very little oil consumption , which is usually normal within Diesel engines in a Northern climate with continious ambient temperature thermal cycles & cold starts .
So as to gain market share over the competition.
If you (the consumer) are convinced that your oil is better because it can be mixed as lean as 100:1, then it must be better than that crappy manufacturer's oil that only tells you to mix at 50:1, right?
So the buyer keeps mixing at the same old 40:1 ratio that has worked well for him for the last 20 years, confidently buying that 100:1 oil because it's just better in every way, right?
By the way, I'm one of those 40:1 guys. Unless I start carboning up all my engines, I have no plans to go any leaner, and I don't care about claims for 100:1 ratio oil.
32 or 40. IMO the rest are just epa followers doing what they been told to do. 
Ben stated Saber , was not Jaso FD Certified , there within lies the fact !
