Motor oil database

[Pressureangle]

This came from the technical section of Access Norton. Compiled by Jim Comstock of Colorado Norton Works. There are a few surprises amongst the expecteds.

https://www.accessnorton.com/Oil-Tests/NortonOil.php

Well worth adding to our own tech section.

[GuzziMoto]

1 hour ago, Pressureangle said:

This came from the technical section of Access Norton. Compiled by Jim Comstock of Colorado Norton Works. There are a few surprises amongst the expecteds.

https://www.accessnorton.com/Oil-Tests/NortonOil.php

Well worth adding to our own tech section.

Very interesting.

Surprising as well. It appears only one of the Amsoil oils tested rated in the top class, one was in one of the middle classes, and three Amsoil oils were in the bad oil class. Interesting data. Certainly makes ya think.

[Pressureangle]

If you read the underlying thread, he explains his equipment and techniques which are much more thorough than 'usual'. 
 

What I'm trying to reconcile in my mind is how you may have a lower film strength while at the same time having a lower heat value. The only thing I can figure so far is that the oil is more effectively removing heat from the metals.

[p6x]

How do we differentiate a V11 engine with a Norton Commando one?

The article is interesting in presenting tests and results and providing the data.

I don't think we can infer what is good to a V11 from what's good for a Norton Commando though.

 

[GuzziMoto]

1 hour ago, p6x said:

How do we differentiate a V11 engine with a Norton Commando one?

The article is interesting in presenting tests and results and providing the data.

I don't think we can infer what is good to a V11 from what's good for a Norton Commando though.

 

If you read the whole thing, he is a Norton Commando guy but the testing he performed was not in a Norton Commando but rather using a test rig he devised. The tests are generic and not Norton specific. He simply tested how the various oils performed on his test rig, and published the results.

[Pressureangle]

43 minutes ago, GuzziMoto said:

If you read the whole thing, he is a Norton Commando guy but the testing he performed was not in a Norton Commando but rather using a test rig he devised. The tests are generic and not Norton specific. He simply tested how the various oils performed on his test rig, and published the results.

The test equipment was, if I read it correctly (not thoroughly) an actual set of Norton tappets and presumably a Norton camshaft. It's directly applicable to 'Guzzi because both use non-roller cam followers. Norton tappets have a narrower profile than MG, and largely due to mediocre quality control had cam and follower wear issues (as have *all* British bikes). So the test rig is as close to real-world testing as possible, rather than the old 'Timken test' which didn't allow for a moving line of contact nor the heat dissipation of the oil itself. The rest of the engine is similar- air cooled, plain bearings and shaft rockers, etc. 

[p6x]

3 hours ago, GuzziMoto said:

If you read the whole thing, he is a Norton Commando guy but the testing he performed was not in a Norton Commando but rather using a test rig he devised. The tests are generic and not Norton specific. He simply tested how the various oils performed on his test rig, and published the results.

I looked at the plots more than the narrative.

[p6x]

2 hours ago, Pressureangle said:

The test equipment was, if I read it correctly (not thoroughly) an actual set of Norton tappets and presumably a Norton camshaft. It's directly applicable to 'Guzzi because both use non-roller cam followers. Norton tappets have a narrower profile than MG, and largely due to mediocre quality control had cam and follower wear issues (as have *all* British bikes). So the test rig is as close to real-world testing as possible, rather than the old 'Timken test' which didn't allow for a moving line of contact nor the heat dissipation of the oil itself. The rest of the engine is similar- air cooled, plain bearings and shaft rockers, etc. 

One aspect of the oil which he has not touched upon is the infamous additives. They were not the point of focus of this test.

Noticed that a many of the top performers in the "extreme protection" list are oiled aimed at V Twin engines.

 

[Pressureangle]

1 hour ago, p6x said:

One aspect of the oil which he has not touched upon is the infamous additives. They were not the point of focus of this test.

Noticed that a many of the top performers in the "extreme protection" list are oiled aimed at V Twin engines.

 

There are two particular peculiarities to "American V-Twin" (H-D of course) engines not shared by any other modern motorcycle engine; one cylinder cooling in the hot air of the forward one, and roller bearings everywhere except the rocker arms. The cylinder arrangement causes the rear cylinder to run much hotter, but also receive far more oil from the crankshaft than the forward cylinder, as the windage from the crank causes the oil to climb the crankcase wall until it finds the rear cylinder with little left for the front. Roller bearings do not tolerate deposits, nor skidding; if they skid they flat-spot. So film strength is paramount here. Additionally, the rod journals oval when overspeeded to the point that the side clearance goes negative, creating an enormous pressure point. So both heat and film strength are paramount, even if it's only in these particular, localized places under unusual conditions. It makes sense. Obviously, the test is a performance test without regard to composition or price.