Another oil change related question

[jrt]

I'll throw out an alternative or addendum-

Castrol has detergent additives in it (If I recall). These will 'wash' carbon off...wherever carbon can be washed off. I've always had castrol come out pretty dark and that's with 2 or 3K mile changes. Maybe castrol just discolors more than other oils? I don't have enough experience to say definitively, but anecdotally, it seems that full synthetics tend to come out lighter when I infrequently change out the oil. Could be the various bikes I ride, I suppose.

Something else I remember hearing- and I have no idea if it's true or not- is that castrol foams when it's in the sump and getting thrashed by the crankshaft.

 

Carry on.

[Guest ratchethack]

my Guzzi has the stock factory paper unit

73143[/snapback]

Rick, may I suggest one of the higher-testing renewable air filters (you could do worse than the Amsoil IMHO, per previous post).

on all my other bikes the oil has never come out as black as the Guzzis,using GTX  castrol dino

You're gonna replace your oil more frequently if you want cleaner oil, no getting around that. The color of the oil is more of a function of the dirt it's picked up than the state of it's molecular breakdown - it all ends up with the same dirt that comes in thru the air filter. Do you want to replace synth or dino @3K or 4K mi? I reckon you've already made as good a choice as any. In a highly dusty environment, I'd go with your choice every time - but that's just me.

I was thinking the blackness may be caused by combustion carbon????

Not unless y'er gettin' some godawful blow-by past rings that haven't seated properly. If that were the case, you'd have symptoms of excessive cranckase pressurization.

 

You did say y'er oil is "black as ink" and "dust capitol of the southwest?" Methinks there might be a correlation here, but again - that's just me...

[emry]

All oil will aerate when thrashed by a crankshaft. Don't forget that mayonnaise is mostly blended oil. Most car manufactuers label "DO NOT OVERFILL" on their dipsticks because of this problem.

[Steve G.]

Combustion blow-by is by far the main cause of color change of oil, in any internal combustion engine. A perfect example is the extra dark color of used oil in diesels. Most all industrial diesel engines have at least 2 inline oil filters, and very elaborate air filteration systems. Kerosene [diesels fuel] burns dirty, hence the combustion and oil ring bypass, hence dirty oil. On the other hand, propane is extremely clean burning [we cook food on open BBQs flame], so much so, that record must be kept on oil changes, because visual checks show oil to be extremely clean even after thousands of miles.

Air cooled engines have a greater ability to stress an oil's viscosity to the point of burning it, which of course can be vastly reduced by using synthetic, which will withstand high heat without changing viscosity.

Of course non-synthetic is cheaper .

Ciao, Steve G.

[O2 V11]

Rick, I can only assume the oil you use is not motorcycle specific as I can't find it under the motorcycle oil types listed on Castrol's website. I myself use Castrol mineral but it is a motorcycle specific type unavailable in the US, Activ 4T, 15W-50. After the same mileage of 3000 my oil is not terribly discoloured at all. But I do change the filter at the same time, something I have always done with all my vehicles both petrol and diesel, 2 or 4 wheels. It is interesting to note that for many years I have used Castrol GTX2 and when it was superseded, GTX Protec in our petrol cars. After 5000k or 3000 miles this oil was always black. I put this down to the properties of the Castrol oil itself, not anything else like air filter efficiency or operating temperatures. Interestingly our bikes nearly followed each other down the assembly line, my VIN is...M114957.

Rob

[bigbikerrick]

Rick, may I suggest one of the higher-testing renewable air filters (you could do worse than the Amsoil IMHO, per previous post). 

 

You're gonna replace your oil more frequently if you want cleaner oil, no getting around that.  The color of the oil is more of a function of the dirt it's picked up than the state of it's molecular breakdown - it all ends up with the same dirt that comes in thru the air filter.  Do you want to replace synth or dino @3K or 4K mi?  I reckon you've already made as good a choice as any.  In a highly dusty environment, I'd go with your choice every time - but that's just me. 

 

Not unless y'er gettin' some godawful blow-by past rings that haven't seated properly.  If that were the case, you'd have symptoms of excessive cranckase pressurization.

 

You did say y'er oil is "black as ink" and "dust capitol of the southwest?"  Methinks there might be a correlation here, but again - that's just me...

73149[/snapback]

Hey Ratchethack, where can I get a good renewable air filter for my guzzi? (that isnt a K/N) Thanks.

[bigbikerrick]

Rick, I can only assume the oil you use is not motorcycle specific as I can't find it under the motorcycle oil types listed on Castrol's website. I myself use Castrol mineral but it is a motorcycle specific type unavailable in the US, Activ 4T, 15W-50. After the same mileage of 3000 my oil is not terribly discoloured at all. But I do change the filter at the same time, something I have always done with all my vehicles both petrol and diesel, 2 or 4 wheels. It is interesting to note that for many years I have used Castrol GTX2 and when it was superseded, GTX Protec in our petrol cars. After 5000k or 3000 miles this oil was always black. I put this down to the properties of the Castrol oil itself, not anything else like air filter efficiency or operating temperatures. Interestingly our bikes nearly followed each other down the assembly line, my VIN is...M114957.

Rob

73171[/snapback]

Hmmm, I guess we are related then,4th cousins twice removed or something? I use castrol GTX automotive oil 20/50 grade . I have always used it in my cars and bikes for 30 years or so, except for my nomad, they are clunky shifting devils,and most forum members recommend rotella T ( oil for diesel cars and trucks) seems to smooth out the shifting some.

[g.forrest]

yep..cheers..sp

Hmmm, I guess we are related then,4th cousins twice removed or something?     I use castrol GTX automotive oil 20/50 grade . I have always used it in my cars and bikes for 30 years or so, except for my nomad, they are clunky shifting devils,and most forum members recommend rotella T ( oil for diesel cars and trucks) seems to smooth out the shifting some.

73189[/snapback]

[Guest ratchethack]

Hey Ratchethack, where can I get a good renewable air filter for my guzzi? (that isnt a K/N) Thanks.

Rick, may I commend you most highly for thinking for yourself and for successfully avoiding being swept up by another well-entrenched popular delusion based on nothing more than sales & marketing hype!

 

I note that the most shrill and emotional defenders of the indefensible have yet to offer the level of credible evidence (or any at all, for that matter) that would challenge what I've provided with 2 independently corroborating tests - ref. the "WHAAAAAT" thread. Heh, heh...

 

Ooooooo, I'l bet that gets 'em riled up. Evidence, Gents! Logic. Rational thinking. Truth trumps prejudice and bias. Scientifically developed fact. Proof - or at the very least, something approaching a reasonable facsimilie thereof!

 

It could get more interesting now, y'never can tell, hope y'all enjoy...

 

Why, oh, WHY do I do this? Well, I reckon as a kid I was always the one to poke a stick in the hornet's nest. Always enjoyed skeet shooting, too. "PULL!"

 

Rick, I picked up a BMC at my local Guzzi dealer, GP Motorcycles http://www.gpmotorcycles.com/gp_vintage2modern.htm.

 

You can verify the BMC "code" number here: http://www.bmcairfilter.com/. It's 164/01.

[Guest Nogbad]

Ratchet, there seems to be a pile or two of bullshit on the BMC site.... Look at the VAS for example.

 

Where does the energy come from to increase the air speed? Answer, in the form of increased pumping losses in the engine, so how can this crap increase performance. Load of cack.

 

As I said before, the filtration efficiency is proportional to pressure drop per unit area of filter and if you have a high efficiency medium you need a large area to get a low pressure drop to minimise pumping losses. Hence large airboxes and corrugated elements. The only way a pod filter can flow as much or more air is by having a low pressure drop and a low dirt capture efficiency as a result.

 

As any woman will tell you, the size of your pod matters.

[Guest ratchethack]

In the profound words of Antonio, "Eeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhmmmmmmmmm?"

 

And your point is???? I can't tell how any of this might relate to the results of the Duramax test, or any other objective analysis &/or comparison of air filters, Noggers?

 

As I suggested, I'd prefer to work with meaningful data and information wherever possible here - or at least something that stands a reasonable chance of passing for meaningful data and information. Any mfgr's Web site can be expected to contain heavy bias with a healthy dose of Bravo Sierra on top. Would you expect anything different?

 

Can we get as far beyond the sales jargon as possible, and focus on independent, comprehensive, scientifically conducted testing and results? Or lacking that, how about personal experiences such as Rick's with his Trooper? Hey - it's relatively simple and very limited, but at least it's an independent source. (ref. post #29 here):

 

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...opic=6815&st=15

 

If you look at this little "experiment" with an open mind, there's no outstanding reason to dismiss it as less than valid. Sure Rick could have made it all up. It's possible that Rick's on the payroll of BMC or Amsoil. Sure, it's possible. But is it reasonable to expect? Level of credibility... fairly high, IMHO -

 

BAA TJM & YMMV (but not by much, IMHO)

[badmotogoozer]

The one thing that you are claiming "that there is NO GAIN from having a K&N filter" is not proven by your precious study, ratchet.

 

I agree completely that a K&N will allow a greater amount of air and therefore dirt into an engine. Is this significant? Hardly in my opinion. Regular changing of your oil and regular cleaning and oiling of filter will deal with the harmful bits (and your study makes no mention if they have or have not oiled their filter). I suspect they haven't as the INTENTION of the study, as stated, is to DISPROVE the K&N ability to filter.

 

There are NO horsepower tests done. Yet they claim that there is no gain from flowing more air into the engine.

 

To place your arguments on this study is foolish and I certainly will not waste time searching for another flawed "internet story" to provide the "reasonable chance of passing as meaningful data" you so desperately crave in a debate.

 

Sorry buddy, your study proves what we already know - a K&N filter lets more dirt in your engine. It does not prove anything at all about performance increases.

 

And there most certainly are performance increases when allowing more air into an engine.

 

When this study does make mention of horsepower, they are careful to state that their is little to gain in "the engine of OUR trucks". Again scope of study is limited to the Duramax Diesel engine. Period. And their horsepower statement is a stretch, at best, to conclude from their data.

 

Please stop flogging this dead horse, or at lest stop constantly flinging its remains at those of us who see this for what it is.

 

No personal attack - I still think you're a great guy, I'm just getting really tired of the stick poking.

 

cheers,

 

Rj

[bigbikerrick]

Rick, may I commend you most highly for thinking for yourself and for successfully avoiding being swept up by another well-entrenched popular delusion based on nothing more than sales & marketing hype!

 

I note that the most shrill and emotional defenders of the indefensible have yet to offer the level of credible evidence (or any at all, for that matter) that would challenge what I've provided with 2 independently corroborating tests - ref. the "WHAAAAAT" thread.  Heh, heh...

 

Ooooooo, I'l bet that gets 'em riled up.   Evidence, Gents!  Logic.  Rational thinking.  Truth trumps prejudice and bias.  Scientifically developed fact.  Proof - or at the very least, something approaching a reasonable facsimilie thereof! 

 

It could get more interesting now, y'never can tell, hope y'all enjoy...

 

Why, oh, WHY do I do this?  Well, I reckon as a kid I was always the one to poke a stick in the hornet's nest.  Always enjoyed skeet shooting, too.  "PULL!"

 

Rick, I picked up a BMC at my local Guzzi dealer, GP Motorcycles http://www.gpmotorcycles.com/gp_vintage2modern.htm. 

 

You can verify the BMC "code" number here: http://www.bmcairfilter.com/.  It's 164/01.

73251[/snapback]

Thanks for the link, RH, Im going to order one . Its cotton like a K/N only better,Huh?

[Guest ratchethack]

The one thing that you are claiming "that there is NO GAIN from having a K&N filter" is not proven by your precious study, ratchet.

Well now Ryan – welcome back, my friend! I thought you had left this topic to stew in it’s outrageous abominations… Couldn’t stay away, could ya?? Heh, heh…

 

I wasn’t the author of the first paragraph of my opening post in the “WHAAAAAT?” thread. As I clearly indicated, It was a direct quote from the Duramax study – see “The Story Behind the Test” section of the study at the link I provided. Let’s take a look at what Arlen Spicer likely meant when he said, “Unless you have modifications out the wazoo, a more porous filter will just dirty your oil!”

 

As I’ve mentioned many times on this Forum, I’m neither racing, pursuing a land speed record, nor am I chasing higher peaks on a dyno chart. What I am doing is what I figure the vast majority of other V11 riders are doing – riding on the road. Seems to me that what Spicer’s referring to in his comment above isn't addressed to racers or engine tuners, but rather to most consumers of air filters - more or less, guys like most of us. So when he refers to a “more porous filter” that we all know to be sold based on dyno results, “NO GAIN” (your choice of words, not the test's nor mine) wouldn't necessarily mean just "no horsepower gain", as he suggests, but more'n likely he also means “no real-world benefit”. The findings of Spicer's work would seem to back this up pretty strongly, IMHO - and on more than one level (see EDIT below)!

 

I’ve read many air filter comparisons over the years that likewise put the K&N’s out on the extremes in filter comparisons. Other than the parameters used, overall, the Duramax study came up with essentially the same thing - and I have no reason to expect that any others wouldn't follow suit. If you've got some reason to suspect differently, you've ample opportunity to provide your best evidence. The Duramax study's not the ONLY one, Ryan. I had linked to another study I found that corroborates the results as well as any I’ve seen. I never seen one that would differ in any meaningful way.

(and your study makes no mention if they have or have not oiled their filter

Come on, Ryan. This sounds way too much like grasping at straws. Testing an air filter in a way it wasn’t designed to be used would clearly be fraudulent, and this would mean that the test was intentionally falsified to fit an agenda. Is there any part of what you saw in the study that would lead you to suspect fraud here – other than results that you didn’t like and therefore won't accept?

 

In your haste to discredit the study, you had previously cited bar graphs on one test in the study that didn't show the (identical, useless) bottom ends of the bars (!), the use of "a GM test vehicle" for the tests - (there were no test vehicles used in the study!), accuracy to too many decimal points (!), and of course the fact that it's published on the Web (!) as reasons to discredit it, among other sorry nonsense that I had quickly dispatched in my immediate response. It looks like y'got nothing else to back up your low opinion of the study, and this is slimmer than zip. Y'er gonna have to do lots better than that, Ryan. I’m pretty skeptical and highly critical of tests. I couldn’t find a thing. But that’s just me.

I suspect they haven't as the INTENTION of the study, as stated, is to DISPROVE the K&N ability to filter.

Well, Ryan, unless I missed it, I can’t find any mention in either the study or anything I posted that states that, ”the INTENTION of the study, as stated, is to DISPROVE the K&N ability to filter.” Perhaps you could point this out, or could you be imagining it?? Now Spicer did state that one of the intentions of the study was to "Shed some light on the misleading marketing claims of some aftermarket manufacturers" - if this is what y'er referring to. So was he gunning specifically for K&N? Not likely. If so, he wasn't shootin' very straight, 'cause he ended up taking out quite a few others in the process! Again - nothing here stands out from what's already been found in other studies.

There are NO horsepower tests done.  Yet they claim that there is no gain from flowing more air into the engine. 

That’s right. Once again - not everyone thinks that gain = horsepower! If you had actually read the study, you’d have found that the study is based on an International standard, the ISO 5011 Test, which has 2 main components: 1. Capacity-Efficiency and 2. Flow Restriction. The scope of the test doesn’t include horsepower measurement.

To place your arguments on this study is foolish and I certainly will not waste time searching for another flawed "internet story" to provide the "reasonable chance of passing as meaningful data" you so desperately crave in a debate.

Ryan, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, and I appreciate you offering it – even as many times as you’ve done so. We’re obviously limited here to the kinds of information we can include in a post on a Web-based Forum. If you can suggest a more credible way to present information of the nature of an air filter comparison study than what I’ve done in linking to this study that would be "less flawed" - I’m all ears?? Just how, exactly, would you propose to do better than this? (independence from mfgr. bias, scientifically conducted, accuracy, "real-world" application, Internationally recognized test parameters??) I sincerely can’t imagine how you could improve on this?? You’ve had an on-going opportunity to contribute refuting evidence, but I still haven’t seen anything from you or from any other source that would as much as call into question the merit of any part of the Duramax study.

 

You’ve repeated your objections, so maybe I need to repeat my response. I think you’re grasping at straws to deny the validity of a test just because it's published on the Web. As is true with most of the global economy today, on an increasing basis, if a study ISN'T published on the Web, it's immediatley suspect!!

 

Now you have to use discretion, for sure, and consult corroborating data to build confidence in things. I've done this here with another test at the other link I provided. I don’t know for certain, but though you may disagree strongly with the studies (both of 'em), with all due respect, neither you nor I can presume to speak for everyone on this Forum. I might be wrong, but I think it’s possible that others might likewise find value in what appears to be a credible, impartial, and well-conducted a study as I’ve ever seen.

 

Sorry buddy, your study proves what we already know - a K&N filter lets more dirt in your engine.  It does not prove anything at all about performance increases.

Nor does it attempt to measure or "prove anything" about performance increases, though there were some very interesting comments made about horsepower not presented as "proof" that were derived from the study in "The Story Behind the Test"! Well-conducted, meaningful tests are always carefully and strictly limited by their scope, and show only what they show, nothing more nor less, and this one was no exception.

And their horsepower statement is a stretch, at best, to conclude from their data.

One of the concepts that seems to have eluded you is that for most riders, initial low air filter restriction would seem to have no real-world benefits on the road - particularly when it's only temporary, as the study shows for the K&N. If you actually read and think about such aspects of the Duramax study as “Dirt Passed vs. Total Test Time” and “Dust Loading”, these are very powerful, very significant findings that would be important to anyone interested in and capable of understanding what they mean to the performance of a filter in their vehicle.

 

EDIT: Let's get back to the "NO GAIN" thing for a moment from an engine performance perspective. A minimum low-to-moderate ability to analyze technical test results is required! Again - You've gotta actually READ the study, since I can hardly re-publish it here! As the above 2 tests in the study in particular, along with a few others in the study, clearly indicate, any "GAIN" that would occur due to the initial relatively low restriction of the K&N is evidently very temporary (per the test results), as most of the life of any filter in the real world is spent past the point where any initial benefits of low restriction have long passed! The K&Ns reached the RESTRICTION LIMIT in the tests earlier than most other filters in the study. Of course K&N sells their filters based on dyno results, and of course they use NEW filters on the dyno! The tests show that they don't stay NEW very long! (See the "Time to Restriction Limit" test and discussion.) Therein lies another aspect of your "NO GAIN" in real-world usage!

When this study does make mention of horsepower, they are careful to state that their is little to gain in "the engine of OUR trucks". Again scope of study is limited to the Duramax Diesel engine. Period. And their horsepower statement is a stretch, at best, to conclude from their data.

Ryan, I’ve attempted very clearly in previous posts to point out that you’ve made a pile of incorrect statements about the Duramax study. These aren’t small omissions. They’re pretty huge mistakes, and they're completely misleading. This indicates that not only have you not read the study very carefully, but that you haven’t read my follow-up posts where I’ve called you on 'em! Now if you’d actually read the study, once again - you’d know that there were no trucks or diesel engines at all in this study! A test stand was used for all the data collection. They had to pick a standard model of filter across all brands so that the test would be fair and valid. The model they picked fit a truck. It might as well have fit a motorcycle or a car. As long as they used equivalent models, the model they chose would seem to be 100% irrelevant.

Please stop flogging this dead horse, or at lest stop constantly flinging its remains at those of us who see this for what it is.

On the contrary, my friend - as I think I've very clearly pointed out numerous times and in numerous ways, you've very evidently been unable to see the Duramax study - or it's significance - for what it is! Need I remind you again that this is a Technical Forum we’re posting to? Technical analysis usually requires careful attention to detail, my friend. Comprehension can only follow reading, and it's pretty clear you haven't read it very carefully. Again with all due respect, you've left a trail of posts that show just how far out there in the weeds you've been on your response to the study, man! This doesn't necessarily suggest to me that others see (or don't see) things the way you do.

 

Far as I can tell, this is an open Board. I’m sorry if what I’ve posted has threatened your views. Them’s the breaks, my friend. But if y'er gonna take shots, you oughta have something other than opinion and wild speculation to back y'erself up with that can't be discarded by simply reading what you're attempting to refute! As far as I know, no one’s forcing you to either read or reply? I for one find stuff like this of value and evidently I’m not the only one. At last count, the “WHAAAAAT?” thread had 126 replies, including yours. Yeah, I reckon there’s been some real interest.

 

BAA, TJM, & YMMV

[badmotogoozer]

Well now Ryan – welcome back, my friend! I thought you had left this topic to stew in it’s outrageous abominations… Couldn’t stay away, could ya?? Heh, heh…

 

 

 

I keep getting poked with a stick.

 

Like I've said, it's like arguing creation vs evolution with the pope. Both sides have all the proof they need, yet neither side can prove anything at all.

 

Time to roll over and play dead.

 

 

Rj