Guests - If You want access to member only forums on FM. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on Fishing Minnesota.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
cylinder

Question for oilman

7 posts in this topic

Do you (or anyone else) know of a study comparing the contaminants in the exhaust of synthetic oil vs standard oil in 2 strokes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question 2 is what are the differences in say 2stroke oil one is Mercury and the other is Citgo or something like the Fleetfarm brand.They both seem to have the same additives but prices are way different..WHATS UP...Sorry to piggyback on your thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very good and relavant question. The last specific data I saw has been quite a few years ago. At that time it reported up to 75% reductions in emissions and water pollution as compared to standard petroleum based lubricants. In the past few years I have watched blast-off at several tournaments - boats running petroleum 2-stroke lubes leaving an oil slick while those running AMSOIL left a clean wake - this is not technical data, but field observation only. Similarly boats running AMSOIL run nearly smokeless while others on petroleum lubes leaving far more smoke. I have watched Champ boat races: Terry Rinker (AMSOIL sponsored, champion for the last 2 years) puts out far less smoke than over half the field (and I would be expect to find out that almost all are running some brand of synthetic).

These are all purely field observations, not documented standardized repeatable test procedure results. Since you bring it up, I would like to know also. I will attempt to find the complete data and get back with it when I find it.

I expect it may take several days to get an answer, please be patient.

It is possible that information I find out may not be appropriate (commercial or excessively long) that I may ask you to contact me privately. Too many of my past posts have been inappropriately commercial, I appologize about that, and will do my best to keep from that in the future.

To address the second post in this thread, the additive information on the labels is very generalized only without giving any specific data. The Base Stock information on the labels is very sketchy at best. If it doesn't say it is probably a very basic petroleum base stock. If it says it is a partial synthetic or blended product the government requirement to put this on the label is that it contain at least 20% synthetic, and it probably has little more than 20%. If it says it is synthetic it can still be many different things. In the US it can be a group 3 oil - that is, it is a super-refined petroleum based lubricant. Or it could be any of several different technologies of completely man-made synthetic base stocks. AMSOIL uses ester based (by chemically combining an alcohol and a fatty acid, both agricultural byproducts) synthetic base stocks in the 2-cycle lubricants. These are ashless that leave no carbon behind. All petroleum 2-stroke lubricants will leave ash and carbon.

All oil companies use their own proprietary blends and additives and the specific ingredients used to make up the additives will never be made available. They may use similar wording, but they are all different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Cylinder,

I have gotten answers to your question, but I am not happy with the information I have learned as I am sure you won't be very happy with the answers either. However, in this case there isn't anything that can be done about it. This will probably open the "proverbial can of worms" and generate controversial discussion, but it comes from the way the specs are written, or more accurately not written.

First of all, I contacted the Power Sports Group Technical Service Manager at AMSOIL, Inc. today. The answer I got from him was, "Specific data is not available as to the degree AMSOIL two-cycle oils affect the envionment."

Then I looked further: I looked up the NMMA Certification and testing procedures for 2-stroke oils. I read through their "Product Approval System" manual. The TCW-3 spec does not have a quantitative test for emissions - believe it or not, but I read through the manual, there is just nothing there about it. The following is from the NMMA general statements, but not the approval manual: "The long term objectives of the two cycle engine industry have been to reduce emissions which contain burnt and unburned oil that has passed through the engine, and to develop a quality of oil that reduces the mixture ratio to fuel while extending the life of the engine. That means significantly reduced emissions to satisfy EPA requirements, less warranty problems, and increased customer satisfaction due to engines lasting longer with less maintenance and overhauls."

Did you notice that they say it is the objective of the industry, and not necessarily of the oil?

This leads me to believe that the emissions testing is a function of the EPA and the engine manufacturers, regardless of the oil, its quality and effect on the test. However with 2-cycle engines it seems to me that the oil is a very large contributor to the emissions (much more so than with 4-cycle engines).

All of this leads to the lubricant manufactures using broad, general qualitative statements about the products, and since the NMMA doesn't have a procedure that addresses the emissions, there just isn't a standardized laboratory test procedure that can be used to quantitatively give specific test data. (No test, No results.)

I apologize about the political type of non-specific answer, but re-read my complete post. There just isn't any other way to answer the question.

If anyone has any better technical answer please add it, but from the information I have been able to find, I doubt if there really is.

Now to give the ultimate non-specific, qualitative (not quantitative) answer. Compare to the 2-cycle oils used by many ice fishermen in their augers. Many have previously AMSOIL, and a lot more started using AMSOIL in their air cooled 2-stroke augers this winter. I have read many comments posted in replies in quite a few different forum threads as well as several who have called me and e-mailed me privately: AMSOIL greatly reduces the smoke and emissions compared to the oils you previously used. Many now use their augers inside a closed house withoug being smoked out.

NOTE: Do NOT use AMSOIL Saber Professional (prod. code ATP) that you bought for your auger in your outboard. The Saber Professional is ONLY for pre-mix AIR cooled engines. The products for you outboard (water-cooled) are different products. Specific info, please e-mail me privately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a bit of looking around too--couldn't find a thing other than the claims of reduced emissions and less smoke using synthetic oils. I believe that. My concern was mostly about the relative toxicity of the exhaust particles. I'm sure that if synthetic exhaust had some particular hazard we'd be hearing about it in commercials and promotional materials for the traditional oils.

Thanks oilman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cylinder, as to your last concerns - Of the oil itself, relative toxicity (before combustion, that is, if you spilled the oil directly on the water) of petroleum lubes, and most of the synthetics is going to be about the same - frown.gif bad!

However after combustion through a 2-stroke marine outboard things are going to be different. With AMSOIL's pre-mix (Saber Outboard) used at 100-1 mix ratio, it will produce 30% less emissions just due to there being less oil used. smile.gif

With both AMSOIL's pre-mix oil and injector oil you will get substantially less emissions due to the chemistry - with the full ester base lubricant you get complete combustion of the lubricant (leaving no ash or carbon) and hence reduced emissions and reduced toxicity. smile.gif This number however is back to the original statements - there is no test definition so there is no quantitative analysis system for it. (Note, this would similarly apply to some other synthetics, but you need to know what their base stock family is.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • brianfisher
      I recently had a chance to go fishing with my friend who recently purchased a Vexilar fishfinder. However we find it incredibly difficult to identify fish in the Sonar image. We tried even the fish alarm under settings but it didn't work reliably, going off at times with nothing on the Sonar image that looked like fish.   Any tips of what we should be looking for in the Sonar image?  
    • river rat316
      Getting the 6" clam plate hopefully this week. Picked up a brush less 20v dewalt on sale for black Friday. After using moose's drill a couple times last year I am all in on the drill plate!
    • brianfisher
      MN DNR is the most authoritative resource even though it may take a little getting used to. You can also study the contours on this website to identify humps and holes.   Minnesota Fishing Contours
    • Hoey
      Looking for a freeze up on Friday.  Temps will have been favorable for over a week and then the wind lets up.  
    • monstermoose78
      I am not that talented to carve and paint like that. But I love wooden duck decoys.