Two-Stroke Oils: All the Same?

[Hundred Acre Wood]

Ultra is crap oil and there is plenty of evidence of this.
Stihl over all has always had poor quality oils for a premium price.

Wow, that sounds horrible. I must've somehow missed this news. Can you point me to this abundance of evidence? There must be so many failures that lawsuits were filed! Recalls all the time!

I'm interested in any evidence of residue buildup or mechanical failures you can point me to when running Stihl Ultra at 50:1. I genuinely want more data.

There's plenty, right?

 

[huskihl]

Wow, that sounds horrible. I must've somehow missed this news. Can you point me to this abundance of evidence? There must be so many failures that lawsuits were filed! Recalls all the time!

I'm interested in any evidence of residue buildup or mechanical failures you can point me to when running Stihl Ultra at 50:1. I genuinely want more data.

There's plenty, right?

You’re not going to find dirty Ultra pics from the Stihl website.

 

[Hundred Acre Wood]

You’re not going to find dirty Ultra pics from the Stihl website.

Of course not. They're going to paint their product in the best possible light as any company would.

But running a product at other than the manufacturer's recommended (and therefore tested) specification is always at your own risk. You make a choice to do something that the manufacturer doesn't recommend, that's your choice. Live with your choices.

I don't doubt that Stihl Ultra at less than 50:1 has residue problems. It wouldn't surprise me. What does surprise me is people who do it and then complain about it not working.

 

[huskihl]

Of course not. They're going to paint their product in the best possible light as any company would.

But running a product at other than the manufacturer's recommended (and therefore tested) specification is always at your own risk. You make a choice to do something that the manufacturer doesn't recommend, that's your choice. Live with your choices.

I don't doubt that Stihl Ultra at less than 50:1 has residue problems. It wouldn't surprise me. What does surprise me is people who do it and then complain about it not working.

They run lower ratios because at 50:1 the crankcase is dry. Minimal residual oil. But even at 50:1 with most fuels, Ultra builds carbon that starts to flake off after a few hundred hours.

 

[Hundred Acre Wood]

They run lower ratios because at 50:1 the crankcase is dry.

I understand the desire to run at more than 50:1. More oil in moving parts has historically always been a better answer. But time moves on. Oils improve. If Stihl thought their chainsaws needed that, why wouldn't they recommend a richer mix and offer an oil for the richer mix? I'm not talking about ported saws or anything custom. I'm talking about a stock saw. Clearly they don't think it's necessary. And I've seen zero evidence that it is. I've looked for it. It's not out there. If someone can point me to a higher risk of carbon and mechanical failures with Stihl Ultra at 50:1, I seriously want to see it. I want to know.

 

[MacAttack]

There is zero reason to use castor or castor blend oils in a saw. And yes corrosion and deposits are major issues.

I've only seen it used by guys racing snowmobiles or dirtbikes, engines in a whole other universe of performance than a chainsaw. I wouldn't even consider the stuff in a utilitarian piece of equipment.
Despite the downsides though, there are many claims it's the absolute best oil for a high-performance 2 stroke.

 

[huskihl]

I understand the desire to run at more than 50:1. More oil in moving parts has historically always been a better answer. But time moves on. Oils improve. If Stihl thought their chainsaws needed that, why wouldn't they recommend a richer mix and offer an oil for the richer mix? I'm not talking about ported saws or anything custom. I'm talking about a stock saw. Clearly they don't think it's necessary. And I've seen zero evidence that it is. I've looked for it. It's not out there. If someone can point me to a higher risk of carbon and mechanical failures with Stihl Ultra at 50:1, I seriously want to see it. I want to know.

The info is here and on the other power equipment forum in hundreds of threads. I believe I actually posted pics early in this thread, or another that was going on at the same time. The longer you’re on these forums the more you read and less you care about proving a point because someone new comes along and questions your findings all over again and again.

 

[huskihl]

I understand the desire to run at more than 50:1. More oil in moving parts has historically always been a better answer. But time moves on. Oils improve. If Stihl thought their chainsaws needed that, why wouldn't they recommend a richer mix and offer an oil for the richer mix? I'm not talking about ported saws or anything custom. I'm talking about a stock saw. Clearly they don't think it's necessary. And I've seen zero evidence that it is. I've looked for it. It's not out there. If someone can point me to a higher risk of carbon and mechanical failures with Stihl Ultra at 50:1, I seriously want to see it. I want to know.

The info is here and on the other power equipment forum in hundreds of threads. I believe I actually posted pics early in this thread, or another that was going on at the same time. The longer you’re on these forums the more you read and less you care about proving a point because someone new comes along and questions your findings all over again and again.

Bottom line is that most just pull the muffler and take a peak at the piston. If it’s oily they’re satisfied. Very few look inside.
A homeowner cutting his firewood will likely never wear out a saw. Do the math on the honest actual hours as compared to what a logger, firewood company or arborist puts on a saw and you’ll find that they put hundreds of times the hours on a saw. These forums contain a few of each type of user, but the majority are homeowners cutting firewood, or they’re just fans of chainsaws and cut very little. 99.9?% of folks using them as a professional aren’t on here explaining their findings.

We’re all free to run whatever we want. But there are better choices if you want your stuff to last

 

[Hundred Acre Wood]

The info is here and on the other power equipment forum in hundreds of threads. I believe I actually posted pics early in this thread, or another that was going on at the same time. The longer you’re on these forums the more you read and less you care about proving a point because someone new comes along and questions your findings all over again and again.

Superstition, voodoo, and wives tales are unfortunately human nature. The tales grow everytime they're told.

If you've got real photos that can show excess residue and/or mechanical failure with Stihl Ultra at 50:1 I'd genuinely appreciate seeing them.

Even Randy says Stihl Ultra at 50:1 is fine, and if you don't trust him I don't know who you'll trust.

 

[Hundred Acre Wood]

Bottom line it that most just pull the muffler and take a peak at the piston. If it’s oily they’re satisfied. Very few look inside.
A homeowner cutting his firewood will likely never wear out a saw. Do the math on the honest actual hours as compared to what a logger, firewood company or arborist puts on a saw and you’ll find that they put hundreds of times the hours on a saw. These forums contain a few of each type of user, but the majority are homeowners cutting firewood, or they’re just fans of chainsaws and cut very little. 99.9?% of folks using them as a professional aren’t on here explaining their findings.

We’re all free to run whatever we want. But there are better choices if you want your stuff to last

Agreed that the use matters. And homeowner vs professional are completely different in terms of hours and stress on the machine.

So if a professional uses Stihl Ultra at 50:1 (high hours, high stress), shouldn't they see excess residue, carbon, and/or mechanical failure?

Where are these stories? Why haven't there been lawsuits? Recalls?

The answer is simple. Because they don't exist in any kind of number.

The problem with the internet is people hear a story about a thing and it immediately becomes the whole truth because "I heard from Joe that Stihl Ultra sucks" even though they were never told that Joe was running it 32:1 in a ported saw.

 

[huskihl]

Agreed that the use matters. And homeowner vs professional are completely different in terms of hours and stress on the machine.

So if a professional uses Stihl Ultra at 50:1 (high hours, high stress), shouldn't they see excess residue, carbon, and/or mechanical failure?

Where are these stories? Why haven't there been lawsuits? Recalls?

The answer is simple. Because they don't exist in any kind of number.

The problem with the internet is people hear a story about a thing and it immediately becomes the whole truth because "I heard from Joe that Stihl Ultra sucks" even though they were never told that Joe was running it 32:1 in a ported saw.

Sounds like you’ve got it all figured out.

I open up 4-6 saws every week, btw. I’ve seen enough to make up my own mind

 

[bwalker]

I've only seen it used by guys racing snowmobiles or dirtbikes, engines in a whole other universe of performance than a chainsaw. I wouldn't even consider the stuff in a utilitarian piece of equipment.
Despite the downsides though, there are many claims it's the absolute best oil for a high-performance 2 stroke.

Even in those particular applications it doesn't make much sense.
Now, if younwere running something like a shifter cart or a KT100 it might make sense. Both of those are way different than a saw..

 

[bwalker]

Sounds like you’ve got it all figured out.

I open up 4-6 saws every week, btw. I’ve seen enough to make up my own mind

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

 

[Hundred Acre Wood]

Sounds like you’ve got it all figured out.

No, but I'm always looking for more information.

I open up 4-6 saws every week, btw. I’ve seen enough to make up my own mind

I know you do. I've done my homework Kevin. I was happy to see you jumped in because your experience is a valuable perspective.

Everyone's fully entitled to their own opinion and I respect yours. But I have zero concerns with Stihl Ultra at 50:1.

What does concern me is when other folks just repeat the stories they've heard without being able to provide a single example of actual evidence. I've read thousands of pages of nonsense. Misinformation and rumor is not a good basis for decisions and it doesn't help anyone here to learn and improve.

 

[Hundred Acre Wood]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

Couldn't address any of my questions so that's what you post? Helpful, thanks.

What happened to your mountain of evidence?

 

[bwalker]

Couldn't address any of my questions so that's what you post? Helpful, thanks.



What happened to your mountain of evidence?

It's an ashless oil that was formulated to make the poorly designed 4mix motor function better. Why would you expect it to work well in a saw.

Back when Ultra first came out I was given a bunch of it by my dealer. I burnt it up and opened up the new 361 I was using at the time. The results were easily the worst I had ever seen.
The visual evidence is out there. I'm not going to search for you.

 

[Hundred Acre Wood]

It's an ashless oil that was formulated to make the poorly designed 4mix motor function better.

I love wives tales. They're really entertaining, but contain very little fact. Yes, it's ashless. That much is true.

Why would you expect it to work well in a saw.

Because Stihl tested it in their saws? Or again you're saying they want their product to underperform their competition and fail prematurely? This argument makes zero sense.

Chainsaws ran for decades using nothing but SAE 30. No fancy formulations. No high solvency synthetics. No PAG/PAO. Nothing. It's amazing what you can put in a 2-stroke and still have it run a long life. The wives tale of "designed for 4mix" started at least 10 years ago and it still propagates today. It really needs to end.

Back when Ultra first came out I was given a bunch of it by my dealer. I burnt it up and opened up the new 361 I was using at the time. The results were easily the worst I had ever seen.
The visual evidence is out there. I'm not going to search for you.

Ok, so now we're getting somewhere. We've gotten away from "piles of evidence" to "I had a bad experience". I can relate to that. I had a bad experience with a pair of Redwing boots, but I don't go around saying "All Redwing boots are garbage" and treating that like Gospel that everyone should listen to.

Did you run it at 32:1 or 40:1? What about the results drove you to conclude that Stihl "Ultra is crap oil and there is plenty of evidence of this"?

 

[Lawless]

Richard has lots of videos about Ultra

https://www.youtube.com/@richardflagg3084/videos

 

[lone wolf]

It's really weird how some people say Stihl Ultra is bad oil. Every actual photo and video I've seen proves it's really clean when used per the manufacturer's instructions at 50:1.

Why would Stihl produce an oil that makes their product run worse than the competition?

Do you think 50 to 1 lubricates the lower end properly?

 

[Hundred Acre Wood]

Do you think 50 to 1 lubricates the lower end properly?

That's a good question. Stihl certainly thinks so.

I think the reason some people conclude it doesn't lubricate adequately is based on visual perception. They observe its appearance based on other oils they've seen and think "that doesn't look right".

You know what they say though? Looks can be deceiving. How many premature bottom end failures are people experiencing when using it at 50:1? Where are the horror stories of "Stihl Ultra at 50:1 killed my 881 in 100 hours?".

Again, they don't exist. If you know of one, please share.

The bottom end doesn't need gobs of oil. So I'd say sure it may look light, but the wear and tear tells another story. Even Richard Flagg says that in his videos.

"I do see a tiny amount of oil in the crankcase and there's a little bit of sheen on everything, so we're getting adequate lubrication" - 11:13 second mark