4-strokers: What oil do you use? What does your drained oil look like?

[Barry]

Thanks! Just order mine from Amazon.com
Barry

 

[The_Aleman]

It'll be a very tight fit with a shift kit, you'll need to have at least 12.5 links on the jackshaft input (or 25 links if using halflink chain) in order to fit it.

12 links probably won't be enough, it sure wasn't on mine.

 

[MikeJ]

400 miles on Castrol 10W-30 oil. Dirty, almost black. Aluminum and iron particles. This was my break-in oil for my Honda GXH-160. The second crankcase of lube is Mobile 1 10W-30 from the grey bottle. They color code the bottle caps for different grades of Mobile 1. I happen to buy the low-end product.

My first change was after letting the bike sit for two days. For grins, I captured the oil in a clear container just to see what would settle out. After a few days: Lots of the tiniest aluminum fine particles. I stuck a flexible magnet in the crankcase. Out came lots of iron particles about the size of tiny filings. More remain in the crankcase, I assume.

I thought of taking a computer drive internal magnet (very strong) and somehow hold it to the outside of the crankcase close to the oil fill port. Then when changing hot oil next time after a few long rides, aluminum particles in suspension will get sucked out. Remove the drive magnet and use the flexible magnet to pick up the iron particles concentrated in the magnet area.

Any more suggestions from anyone?

MikeJ

 

[zwebx]

(off topic) RESPECT for running a rotary. my dream car (one of the rx rotaries)

 

[zwebx]

i runn what ever 4 stroke engine oil that i can find, or have laying around and it is in a decent viscosity (and not the one i run in my road bike because it is too expensive)

 

[zwebx]

my 1st oil change was suprisingly clean (note only did about 8 hours- 15 hours on it)

 

[Quenton Guenther]

Hi everyone,

Some actual testing results using Mobil-1.

NEVER, ever use synt. oil in a new motor or one just rebuilt. [use regular oil for the first 500 miles].

DYNO tests on a 1999 and 2001 modified Whizzers [68 MPH & 62 MPH].

Top end speeds identical between Shell 40 weight and Mobil-1 10W 30.

Motor tempatures identical.

Mobile-1 "foamed" up and pushed more oil through the oil vent system.

Mobile-1 turned dark [almost black] after 5 hours of usuage.
Shell remained original color and looked almost new after 5 hours of usuage.

Considering the amount of oil changes and the factory "suggested" type of oil, I elected to save the money and use standard 40 W oil in my Whizzer collection.

I also tried the Mobil-1 in several of the EZM test bikes [Honda GXH50, HS 142, and HF 99CC] and noticed the oil "foaming".

Although I would think the synt oils are better for long time usuage, I can't help but wonder if the synt oil is "foaming" due to the "dasher" type splash system.

I currently have well over 9000 miles on one of the EZM test bikes with the HS 142 motor and using non-synt. oil hasn't damaged the motor in any way.

Have fun,

 

[Fabian]

Mobil 1 circulates in the domain of engines designed by Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, Mercedes, Audi, etc, though shamefully being used in a clunky (World War II inspired) and completely antiquated pushrod engine fitted to the Corvette.

My suspicion is that the oil was never designed with a splash system in mind, even though the General Motors clunker is so outdated that it could have been fitted with splasher technology dating back to the horse and carriage era.

 

[The_Aleman]

Mobil 1 circulates in the domain of engines designed by Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, Mercedes, Audi, etc, though shamefully being used in a clunky (World War II inspired) and completely antiquated pushrod engine fitted to the Corvette.

That doesn't matter - if the oil foams up it's not fit to use. Some oils are based on crude that should have never been used to make oil.
Pennzoil comes to mind, I've seen it foam up on quite a few engines. That Mobil that Quenton used to test probably wasn't the line recommended by Ferrari...

My suspicion is that the oil was never designed with a splash system in mind, even though the General Motors clunker is so outdated that it could have been fitted with splasher technology dating back to the horse and carriage era.

Why, because it has pushrods? That's a stupid reason to talk down an engine, IMHO. The LS series engine that's been in use since 1997 is world class. It's more compact and light than it would be if it had OHC, makes huge torque at low RPM and like just about all engines used in the Corvette, is extremely reliable. It makes so much torque that the stock iterations in Vettes can get better fuel mileage than cars with engines half the displacement (see Vette vs Honda S2000 of same years for example). Vettes can achieve better than 30MPG on the highway if you manage to keep your foot light. The LSx is also much cheaper to manufacture than it's competitors, which is why GM will put it in just about everything they can, including their trucks lol. Make no mistake, an engine doesn't need overhead cams and sodium-filled valves to be world class, nor does it need to make 100HP per liter. The Vette is a world-class sportscar for everyone, even people with upturned noses like you.

People talking down pushrod engines make me laugh. Pushrod engines have several inherent benefits over OHC engines. You also look like a hypocrite Fabian, since you're riding a bicycle with a Chinese copy of a 1930's Soviet engine in it's frame. Now THAT is antiquated lol. I much prefer my pushrod 4-stroke

 

[Fabian]

Dear Mr Aleman

Your thoughts have been considered and upon reflection it would seem that your argument has some merit, even if the Corvette has a rear suspension system dating back to the era of Roman Chariots!

Many pleasant regards
Fabian