• Welcome Guest! If you are already a member of the BMW MOA, please log in to the forum in the upper right hand corner of this page. Check "Remember Me?" if you wish to stay logged in.

    We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMWMOA forum provides. Why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the club magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMWMOA offers?

    Want to read the MOA monthly magazine for free? Take a 3-month test ride of the magazine; check here for details.

  • NOTE. Some content will be hidden from you. If you want to view all content, you must register for the forum if you are not a member, or if a member, you must be logged in.

ON Magazine's article on oil?

oils well

A big thanks to Kurt for that article. Up here in the frozen north (read Canada) many of the listed oils are not available.
However thanks to Kurts info I see that there are several I can pick up locally that are reasonably priced and contain enough ZDDP.
No more Michigan runs just for Spectro ......
 
Great article Kurt, thanks for printing it in our mag., really saves times squinting at PC. and a big thanks to many others who contribute to the News.

The oil thing, might change back to Valvoline from Castrol because of the slightly better numbers. Can't hurt and it's always on the shelf at fleetfarm. the other slightly better numbers may be redundant and seem not command the much higher costs.

and, one person simply cannot tell someone else, today, what to do, we all make out own individual choices, then we let the chips fall. Kudos.
 
I have not read the article; however this thread has moved it up on my to read list. I have read this thread (at least through the point I left to bang this out) and frankly donÔÇÖt get the thread.

Is it an oil thread about an oil article? If so there has been precious little about oil and a great deal of credential posturing while attacking the author and his writing product rather than the underlying data and conclusions. Silly me, I thought the critical thinking process in things like this is to focus on the data or conclusions and vet that in the discussions.

Is it a thread about technical writing/editing? If so there is a dearth discussion of how to structure an article (introduction, body, conclusion), a paragraph or even sentence structure. As owners of the Owners News you are publishers so where is the publisher discussion of editing of technical, or at least non - how I spent my summer vacation articles?

And you guys wonder why Vince has trouble getting technical articles.
 
I have not read the article; however this thread has moved it up on my to read list. I have read this thread (at least through the point I left to bang this out) and frankly donÔÇÖt get the thread.

Is it an oil thread about an oil article?.... .

Yes, and the article is in your current issue of BMWON. You really should read it.
 
I assume you are referring to Mobil 1 15w-50? If so I agree it's a good oil (according to Mobil's specs, it's almost up there with V-Twin) for our BMW's :D

Yes, sorry, it is 15W50. The other one is 10W40
 
I found ZDDP addative you can put in any oil you choose! At autozone around 9 bucks a pint and 2 shot glass's full added to the crank case does it. just saying:whistle
 
Let's acknowledge our Airhead moderator, Kurt 20744, for taking the time to do his homework and write the story. Writing a post here is easy - writing an article is not.

There's so many posts about oil - for people who really want to know what the differences are, Kurt did a thorough job.

Also agree that any oil is better than no oil.

Most BMW's are the marvels of modern engineering - it's good to know all the specifics that allow our machines to operate to their maximum potential w/out doing long term damage to the components.

My 2c

+1

Here is my take on oils. On the airheads, Dino oil. On the new machines say in the last 15- 20 years synthetic or semi synthetic is fine. Clean oil with a new filter changed regularly is better.
 
Last edited:
I have not read the article; however this thread has moved it up on my to read list. I have read this thread (at least through the point I left to bang this out) and frankly donÔÇÖt get the thread.

Is it an oil thread about an oil article? If so there has been precious little about oil and a great deal of credential posturing while attacking the author and his writing product rather than the underlying data and conclusions. Silly me, I thought the critical thinking process in things like this is to focus on the data or conclusions and vet that in the discussions.

Is it a thread about technical writing/editing? If so there is a dearth discussion of how to structure an article (introduction, body, conclusion), a paragraph or even sentence structure. As owners of the Owners News you are publishers so where is the publisher discussion of editing of technical, or at least non - how I spent my summer vacation articles?

And you guys wonder why Vince has trouble getting technical articles.

Awesome. A review of a thread that reviews an article you haven't read.
 
Purpose of the original question

First of all, I DO commend the author of the article for the sheer amount of work put into the project. What I was questioning was the explanation of all of that overwhelming data. Still, having read the article carefully 2x through, I am still at a loss on how to "evaluate and come to my own conclusion." I think the article could have been much better if it had taken each of the test criteria, and then said something like this. Oils with higher ZDDP are better for these types of applications...and so on through other data as well. Then overall, NOT make a recommendation of any one of the oils, because that would differ from person to person based upon their particular priorities and perspectives. For example, someone who rides in extremely cold weather will have a priority to find the best oil for cold flow. Others, in Arizona, will want an oil in hot weather which will not foam and provide lubrication in extremely hot, dry weather. Others along the coastlines may be concerned about the affects of an salty atmosphere affecting oil longevity and so on and on. This is one of reasons for differing opinions.

Probably one of the things that I personally wish is to evaluate differing oils (but not so many as the article did) of the slipperiness of the oils under varying conditions. For example, I have heard that synthetics are far slipperier than conventional oils - not so much just after the oil change, but a lot after some miles are on them. Another example is that I have been told by oil engineers that the synthetics provide MUCH better lubrication before engine warm-up which is when most engine wear happens - at start-up and just after.

I used to work for a large corporation (which I am sure you have heard of) and our local plant (around 2,000 employees) used literally thousands of gallons of hydraulic oil each year. that company's choice was Mobil/Exxon which, I am sure, was largely chosen for cost/pricing reasons.

Another issue I heard was that of all the synthetics, Mobil 1 was the ONLY pure synthetic. The oil engineer who told me this stated that all the others in some form still had a regular oil base. True? I don't really know.

Years ago, I was told by an Amsoil rep, that he actually saw his car engine temperature gage go down after changing over to Amsoil! The problem with that logic was the the engine temperature gage is controlled by WATER temperature, and THAT is controlled by the thermostat. Even if the oil DID have the affect of producing less friction (thus less friction and less heat), the thermostat would simply have closed a little further to compensate and keep the engine at the desired constant temperature.

Finally, after all this, I would like to have seen the article say "under these conditions" such and such oil appears to be better, but "under these other conditions" this oil would be better.

Once people are shown HOW to sort through all that data then, and only then, can they make an "informed" decision based upon their own particular circumstances.
 
I have not read the article; however this thread has moved it up on my to read list. I have read this thread (at least through the point I left to bang this out) and frankly donÔÇÖt get the thread.

Is it an oil thread about an oil article? If so there has been precious little about oil and a great deal of credential posturing while attacking the author and his writing product rather than the underlying data and conclusions. Silly me, I thought the critical thinking process in things like this is to focus on the data or conclusions and vet that in the discussions.

Is it a thread about technical writing/editing? If so there is a dearth discussion of how to structure an article (introduction, body, conclusion), a paragraph or even sentence structure. As owners of the Owners News you are publishers so where is the publisher discussion of editing of technical, or at least non - how I spent my summer vacation articles?

And you guys wonder why Vince has trouble getting technical articles.


What I am wondering, Mika, is who appointed you to become the critic of the various commentors and criticizing them for expressing their reaction to the article.

Perhaps you should have read the article first, THEN read the comments/questions, before you got so critical of THEIR comments!
 
FYI oil bargain

Hit my local O`reilly`s auto parts in Michigan today to pick up some DOT3 brake fluid. They had Valvoline racing 20-50 in
Dino and synthetic on sale . $3.99 and $4.99 .as well as several other brands and viscosities. These were very highly rated
in Kurts article.
Before anyone jumps me : I am in no way affiliated with , or own stock in O`reillys...... I just love a bargain.
 
What I am wondering, Mika, is who appointed you to become the critic of the various commentors and criticizing them for expressing their reaction to the article.

Perhaps you should have read the article first, THEN read the comments/questions, before you got so critical of THEIR comments!

I did with the same authority and self appointment that everyone of you responds on the forum.

I have read the article since my last post and leave my comments where they are. I saw many of the comments as attacking the author rather than the subject matter and or how it was presented. The article can be legitimately analyzed and criticized in a number of ways. I just choose not to consider attacking the author rather than the product not to be one of the ways. If I offended any of you in the process I apologize. At the same time I must admit I will probably offend again. I tend to be willing to defend people even if I don't like or agree with their ideas, or writings.
 
Can you give me an example of someone attacking the author and not the product?
I don't see it.
 
What I was questioning was the explanation of all of that overwhelming data. Still, having read the article carefully 2x through, I am still at a loss on how to "evaluate and come to my own conclusion."

From the article, I stated the following:

"Matt recommended that the minimum level of ZDDP should be 1000 parts per million (ppm) each of zinc and phosphorus and that 1500 ppm is ideal. Anything over 2000 ppm can be excessive and even lead to formation of deposits in the engine. Additional online research found at www.LNengineering.com suggests that optimal levels of zinc and phosphorus should be in the 1200ÔÇô1500 ppm range."

"When blending oil, the engineers have a range to meet in order to qualify for a 50-weight oil. Between oil change cycles, the viscosity improversdegrade and the rating of the oil can change with it. Thus, if an oil is blended to be in the upper part of the 50-weight viscosity range, despite degradation over time, it will still remain a 50-weight oil."

"TBN provides some information about the reserve levels of additives that are present to deal with the acids that are produced during the combustion process."


For me that says, you want a zinc and phosphorus levels to be at least 1000 ppm each and 1500 each would be the best. The higher the viscosity rating in the 50w range, the better. The more base components you have (a higher TBN), the better. I didn't state that in black and white, but I think it's a natural conclusion from the statements.

Probably one of the things that I personally wish is to evaluate differing oils (but not so many as the article did) of the slipperiness of the oils under varying conditions.

I've mentioned many, many ASTM tests are avaialble, some of them are very interesting and would have been nice to conduct...but it's all about money. If you want to see another comprehensive oil test, find the June 2009 test by AMSOIL...it can be found on-line. As you would imagine, AMSOIL does well in all categories. I don't know whether that is due to the superiority of the oil, or is a function of who's paying for the analysis. I can tell that the AMSOIL numbers I got are not quite as good as what AMSOIL reported. That could also just be the scatter of the data from testing and the individual laboratories.

Finally, after all this, I would like to have seen the article say "under these conditions" such and such oil appears to be better, but "under these other conditions" this oil would be better.

But that's a recommendation and I can't make a recommendation and have someone try it or make some mistakes while trying and then have a problem with their bike. I'm not an oil engineer and I don't know the myriad of conditions and variables in the conditions. It's not my place to suggest to do one thing or another. I tried to provide the general guidelines for oil, present the numbers, and let the reader come to their own conclusions.
 
Can you give me an example of someone attacking the author and not the product?
I don't see it.

In the case of this thread my reaction is to a what I see as a subjective personal attack, intended or not, rather than an overt one that would yield the ÔÇÿsmoking gunÔÇÖ you ask for. It begins with the OP.

The choice of starting a thread in the forum in manner done, to my eye, is a form of attack. No effort was made to contact the author for any clarification, nor did it seem phrased in any way that would constructively engage the author in conversation or discussion of the article. To me the criticisms, valid or not, came across with a very mocking tone. Much of what followed struck me as piling on.

I donÔÇÖt mean to be Pollyannaish. The forum has had some very good and heated debates about articles in ON. The curious thing is by and large those discussions focused on content, editorial policy or general appropriateness for ON rather than doing much of anything that could be misconstrued as a personal attack on the author.

There are frequent calls from readers and the editorial staff for technical articles. There are some very bright and talented people out there. When asked they demure politely saying they are uncertain of their abilities and when pressed harder will tell you they have no desire to chance subjecting themselves to the memberships tendency to eat their amateur authors alive.

I frequently tilt at windmills. I will freely admit I am often wrong in that process. If I am and offended I apologize. I continue in my belief while accepting YMMV and does.
 
It is my opinion and my personal experience that there are a few people on this forum here who tend to cry "personal attack!" rather quickly and frequently for reasons that I suspect I know, but will not cite for concerns of being accused of a personal attack.
The OP was made about something that appeared not here, but elsewhere. It is a coincidence that the author of the ON article is also a member of this forum. The OP in no way belittled the effort and work that was put in, it just pointed out that the reader had difficulty getting out of the article what he personally expected. That, as far as I am concerned, is legitimate. Kudos to Kurt, who stepped up and participated in the discussion and tried to explain his motives rather than sulking and calling the forum administrators because he felt he was "attacked".
And while very very few of us want another "oil thread", I think it was still good to hear the one or other detail about it again. It may even help those who just started riding or re-entered riding after several years of absence in making their own personal decision about what oil to use. :type
 
To disagree is not to attack. It is very difficult to say things on the web in the context of the emotions that generated the comment. To debate a technical issue should be about facts not the pedigree of the person stating them. I believe the article presented useful facts and was done in a very professional manner. I don't agree with some of the conclusions being drawn from it. Debating those conclusions is in my opinion, the subject of another thread. NO NO NO, forget I even mentioned that! OIL THREADS NEVER ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING :laugh
 
I thought it was an interesting article. As someone else mentioned, a nice break from the travelogues. Thanks to Kurt for putting it together.

But were there some printing/proofreading errors? Or did I mis-read some things? The text said that in Fig. 1 it showed the API rating at the bottom of each column but it wasn' t there. And Fig. 2 and 3 both had a Zinc/Phosphorus legend in the lower left corners but it wasn't relevant. And I didn't understand the red curve in Fig.2...there weren't any units on the right vertical axis, just 0 to 90. These didn't particularly detract from the article but made it a little confusing. I know...picky, picky, picky... :rolleyes
 
Back
Top