Not trying to start a fight here

F

Flyman

Member
Guy's I,m not trying to start a fight here, beleave me.But this read
should be read by everyone.I was bored & started researching different
oils & so on.I found more than one read on dyno test regardings
premix ratios.

They all revealed the same conclusion. More oil in premix more
HP, to a point.Anyway this is just one read I came up with.

http://www.3wheelerworld.com/showthread.php/53212-All-About-2-stroke-Oil-Ratios-Interesting-find .Click on it, for you might learn a thing or two
from the results.
Fly .shft. PS if you read the replies it is funny to hear people that have never run a dyno argue
with the results.If you do a search you will find the same with other dyno test.
 
Last edited:
I posted in one of my recent threads about the readings concerning proper ratios and types of oils used in the early(antique)2stroke engines. There is the same debut there on which oils and ratios. The early engines mix as rich as 10:1. My Maytag is recommended to run on 16:1 with 30wt ND motor oil. The newer oils are not recommended as most are thinned to mix readily with the fuel. The early engines were designed/known to keep residual oil in the crankcase. Some even had plugs to add a bit on initial start up until the oil built up out of use. These early engines were largely bushing engines and required large amounts of oil to keep everything lubed. I actually ran a first tank of 20:1 30wt ND oil through my GG engine then pulled it down to inspect. It was very well oiled and breaking in nicely. And it ran ok(for a new CG).
But heres the problem with the rich oil argument making more power, at least as far as the Maytag engine goes. There are users that run the newer oils at leaner mix ratios as high as 50:1 and the entire Maytag community agrees they run MUCH better. The argument that is raised is how much those ratios shorten the life of the engine, not how much better they run. I run mine on 25:1 with the 30wt, a good compromise I feel and it runs much better than at 16:1. This may or may not be a valid argument for later faster performance engines, but it is certainly verified by my experience with the Maytag.
My CG is currently running synthetic @ 32:1. I plan to run around 40:1 when its broken in.
An interesting parting thought. We had an old(late 70s) Ezgo golf cart with a Fuji Robin 2stroke. Believe it or not its mix ratio was 128:1 that's right 1oz/gallon. I guess so it wouldn't smoke the golfers. I didn't catch this right off and ran it on the 50:1 mix I had for all the other equipment. It ran like crap on 50:1.
 
I'm still using the oil I bought at the ratio the oil is intended for... and I run mine at 9500 to 10000 rpm on a daily basis... I've used other oils at other ratios and it makes the most power with the oil I'm using at the ratio I'm using. If my engine was going to blow because I run less oil than some feel comfortable with, it would have grenaded at 10k rpm by now for sure. Follow the instructions on the oil you're using and all is good... deviate from those instructions in either direction and you'll either end up with a messy oily pig or you'll seize the engine.
 
Talking about the old engines of the day.The reason they ran 10:1 with non detergent
oil was there was no such thing as two stoke oil till the early 1960,s.I have a ole mercury
9.9 hp outboard I bought about 25 years back that ran 10.1 ND oil when it was new.I run it on 50.1 just like my 250 hp
bass boat, with out a problem.

I took a outboard class at a vo-tec just to learn about outboards because I fished bass
turnys & wanted to be able to work on my own out boards.We covered outboard oils
in that class.Now what I,m going to say applies to outboards mostly.

We had a mercury instructor teach the class.He said all outboard engines had a
lot of troubles early on running the ND oil.It burned very dirty & they knew the industry
had to come up with better oils.

The carbon deposits would cake under the ring lands till the rings did not whole
the blow by from sticking pistons. That nasty oil also gumed up the carb jets.Then
in the1970,s they came out with ww2 two stroke oil which helped a lot.But not as good
as they wanted.Then www3 oil came out & outboards have been so much better since.

Remember too, out boards don't run but 5000 to 6000 rpm ether so 50 to 1 works fine
in them.
I only brought this up because the Non Detergent oil post above.
Fly
 
I agree, I had an older Johnson V-4(late 50s?) that was I believe was to run on a 32:1 mix, I immediately ran a 50:1 with the newest oil at the time with no problems. By this time however these were bearing engines, and water cooled. They were more tolerant. The engine technology at the time(early engines) was why the rich oil mix . I also had a Saab 2stroke(one of many) that ran a quart of 30wt oil/8gals(32:1). or one small can of Saab oil per the same tank(16oz I believe) 64:1. Most cars at the time received the 30wt mix. It wasn't uncommon to eventually have a plugged exhaust from the 30wt. You eventually lost power, and pulled the front muffler and laid it in a charcoal fire to burn the coke from the oil, then beat it with a rod and shook it out. Carbon build up was a problem.
However gummed carb jets came from fuel not oil.
Go back and read the post. Im not touting the different oils, but the ratios. The original argument was more oil makes more power. To a point two strokes run better on leaner oil mixtures. You have to know the engines engineering/tuning/operational range and the oil you are running. Look at the common 2 stroke oil you buy today. It has the mix ratios on the label from probably 24:1 to 50:1 follow the engine manufactures recs, not the oil sellers.
If I wanted my Maytag to run fast and clean I would run it on 50:1., but I am loosely following the manufacturers recommendations and running 30wt oil slightly leaner because I want it to last.
Re-read the point on the golf cart.
 
The thing is that if you wanted to prove that 20:1 would make more power than 50:1, it's not that hard to do, even with a dyno. All that needs to be done here is simply jet the carb properly for the ratio you want, run the test, switch the mix and run the test again. The engine will make slightly less power running on the 50:1 and you can pass that off on most people because they're not going to be paying full attention to everything and by not rejetting for the richer fuel mix due to the leaner oil mix is the real reason the engine is making less power, this trick works both ways becajse going the other way the engine will be running leaner because there's now too much oil in the fuel... so now you can say the engine runs hotter when too much oil is used as well since really the engine is running lean.

Most people will only see the test results and believe it simply because they saw the test first hand and all that wss done different was changing the fuel oil mix. But usually the guy running the test isnt aware that he didnt rejet when changing ratios and that's the real reason for the results.

People have done testing like this either contiously or directed by someone else at trade shows etc to boost sales on inferior products and it works good because people in general will believe something when they see it first hand and that small misdirection of their full attention makes it work everytime on most people.
 
Agree with Davezilla.
Modern oil is proven by decades of racing and factory race teams don't run rich mixtures.
 
Well the clogged jets problems with outboards in more predominate because
people don't winterize them.The gas evaporates over winter & leaves the oil
behind & it jells & gets hard & clogs the jets.I rebuilt my brother Yamaha
carbs this summer he bought off a fellow.The bottom carb needle & seat was
stuck so bad, I broke the needle off in the seat.I never saw one that bad ever.

Fly
 
You want me to post one of the best two stoke exserts to ever have lived,Gordon Jennings one week dyno test on this subject & what he had to say.I will if you like.I,m
not here to ague, just post results of people a lot smarter than us.Run what you
like but to say you right & they are wrong is another thing.

Dave NEVER said that, he said that worked for him.You will not find ONE kart
racer that runs anything higher than 20 to 1.Why those engine run between
12000 to 22000 rpms.They take more punishment than any other two stroke made.

Well enough on this.Just read that link & if you know more than those engine builders then
so be it.
I just posted it for the open minded here that can make there own choice.

It works for you great.
Fly
 
Last edited:
The thing is that if you wanted to prove that 20:1 would make more power than 50:1, it's not that hard to do, even with a dyno by rejecting Dave re read his testing he covered that same
thing your saying & still had higher HP.why would he go to the trouble to prove anything one way or the other?If you know Who Gorden Jennings is, he wrote
the most famous two stroke engine tuning book of all times he even spent over a
whole night with a flow bench getting the jets to flow the same in his test.He came
up with the same results.

I don't know if you guys are the Amzoil 100-1 bunck are not.But if you are go pick
up that bottle & read the small print.It say if run in racing mix 50-1 OR MORE.

I will look up that Gorden Jenning read on this topic I warn you it's long, so I will
just post the link.I did not post this here to PROVE anything.I have nothing to prove.
I let my ego go along time ago.I just posted that read for people here to make up
there own minds.

You guys are the ones to jump me.I never said your wrong are right.Just throwing
out facts that have been proven.But I will look up that other link so any body else
can read it also.

Fly
 
Last edited:
Try this, it covers the basics:

http://ffv8.com/2-stroke-oils.html

Jennings did a fair test, re-jetting for every mixture. The only thing that has changed since then is the stability of Castor mixes. Modern castor oils sold for engine use are as stable as any synthetic now.
 
Gorden Jenning published the article 'Two Stroke Oil Premix Ratios' almost forty years ago, within it he openly admitted his testing was limited and the findings controversial even then. Like so many other profoundly outdated publications by erstwhile experts, it's been misinterpreted & selectively misquoted to "substantiate" whatever bias ever since.

The point of the paper wasn't to test the modern 100:1 ratios & synthetics, it couldn't as they didn't exist yet as synthetics were barely in their infancy. The paper didn't even address differing petroleum oils at their varying ratios, additives or otherwise as that wasn't the point either, in fact there was no testing of any oils other then castor at all - the only thing the paper presents is a narrow spectrum testing of various ratios using just castor and only Castrol40R specifically.

Which is great, if you're still using the original 40R castor in a forty year old engine... remember this paper is so old tuned expansion chambers were rare & hotly debated, unleaded was heard of but not found at any pumps yet and the epitome of any CAD application in the field was likely Space Invaders.

Gorden Jenning said:
FEBRUARY 1978 pg 5 of 6
Why didn't we use one of the non-castor, additive oils? Actually, for what we planned that wasn't possible, because we wanted to try different mix ratios, and doing that with additive-package oils is just asking for trouble. These oils' additive contents presume that the user will follow the directions on the can
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Fly, I apologize If you feel I jumped you(if it was I), I was just pointing out some facts of my earlier post.
However you are wrong still about oil clogging the jets. It is the evaporated fuel. There is simply not enough oil present to clog them if in fact it did. The same thing happens to 4stroke engines where no oil is present. I have seen this and cleaned many a carb that has sat over a season with fuel in the tank/carb. Often for the same people year after year that just wouldn't winterize their small engine. If you want to test this, drop a jet in a quart of oil and a quart of gas with the lids off. Come back in a year. you will find a nasty mess in the gas jar, but all will be well with the oil jar.

Now we need to qualify this discussion a bit, perhaps I missed the point that the testing was done with re-jetting at each ratio change. In the real world I suspect we experiment with ratios while leaving everything fairly stock. When we break in an engine we don't usually rejet, though I suspect that would be the proper way. So we have to concede that Joe Public experiences a poorer running engine with a richer oil mix than a leaner one. If the recommended mix is 50:1 and Joe decides to break in on a 32:1 he is going to experience a lower performance level.. Joe will be elated when he switches to the 50:1 mix and the engine runs as it should. He will think he has done a wonderful job of engine break in. When in reality he could have just used the 50:1 from the get go. I have seen this time after time with people breaking in R/C gas engines. The machining today just doesn't require it.
It seems the dyno testing reveals a power increase with more oil and proper jetting though the percentage is very low. In a very high HP engine it might be worth it.
For the engines we deal with here on the forum, this becomes a hypothetical discussion.
Seems in practicality the members are better served here with the real world approach that dumping more oil in ones mix is not going to have the result that they might assume.
 
Well I will close with this, because this, as many of the motorize bicycle
experts here will never except what has been proven by many other
motor cycle engine builders during & after Gorden Jennings published that.

I can dig up more, but not going two.As I said I,m not here to PROVE anything.


I just posted two test from two top names old & new.This was for people reading with a open minds .As I said Amzol 100-1 says there self on the bottle
of there 100-1 oil in small print, if used for racing one may need 50-1 or more oil.

Not ONE two stroke engine maker, out board, bike, snowmobile, ect now
or ever has ever recommend 100-1 oil in any of there two strokes.Only Amsoil markting
does, & they don't even make there own oil.I did not post this thread to get
into another argument, but just some good reads on the subject.

I also never said what anyone should run or not run.You folks read the entire articles & make your own minds up.

Good day Fly
 
This kinda reminds me of trying to get a 1 flavor Kool-Aid guy to change his flavor -----

If he's already got a permanent 'red moustache', it's gonna be darn near impossible to change his moustache to 'green' --- or 'blue', etc. Sometimes, people just like what they like. It's not wrong, it's not right, it just is.
 
xseler said:
This kinda reminds me of trying to get a 1 flavor Kool-Aid guy to change his flavor -----

If he's already got a permanent 'red moustache', it's gonna be darn near impossible to change his moustache to 'green' --- or 'blue', etc. Sometimes, people just like what they like. It's not wrong, it's not right, it just is.
Click to expand...

Amen brotha... my favorite kool-aid is red and my favorite oil is blue.... nothing gonna change that...
 
Sorry but I see a conflict between the title of this thread and the apparent intent.
This subject was covered, discussed and argued over in the old '100:1 thread' with the same results that are developing here.

The bottom line being that if you disagree with the results others have had with a particular product, then move along and ignore it. Starting a new thread with the sole intent to promote discord will only result in discord. I see no advantage to it and it is counterproductive at best.

I will say this again. If it works for you, good. If it doesn't, move along, cause like the old Irish cop said, "there's nothing to see here".

Tom
 
Sorry but I see a conflict between the title of this thread and the apparent intent.Your Right I should have NEVER posted anything on this form From another form
When a moderator Controls free speech of others you need to move on to
another form.I have said over & over it was never my intent to start a fight.But you just won't agree with that , because it
goes against your belief in thin oils.

My post here have been taken out of context as I was just giving other experts view.
I can see if there not inline with yours they most likely should be removed.

I have enjoyed posting here & reading info.But I will not post again.Hope I,m not
bared from reading from time to time.

Fly
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top