What oil is best? and what ratio?

[porsche965]

Those pics look great RedBull. What are you paying for the Schaeffers? Thanks.

 

[Redbull661]

Those pics look great RedBull. What are you paying for the Schaeffers? Thanks.

paid $45 for the gallon I bought of the 9000. The 7000 semi syn IMO runs even cleaner but people get hung up on the "tcw3". Yet Scott has ran the 7000 for the last 20 years in every 2 stroke engine he has. Swears by it. Place I got the 9000 for $45 had the 7000 for like $28 for a gallon.

I see Amazon has the 9000 for $56 shipped.

http://www.schaefferoil.com/retail-locations.html

I think the 9000 would handle more heat better. So I guess my plan would be to run the 9000 in ported saws and 7000 in non ported saws. Or the 9000 in any application that really pushes the saw like long bar or milling.

I would choose the schaeffer over the amsoil saber. pics attached 15 tanks on new 661 with saber 32:1

 

[porsche965]

I'm tracking a Tree Service doing 600k in business a year over the past 3 years of service on Amsoil Saber at 50:1. Not one failure running daily. So it does work. Is it the best? Maybe not, it is Blue though lol. But again, not one failure at 50:1. Cost savings too. From 880s to 441s. Not promoting Amsoil but just stating. Your running of Saber at 32:1 is way too rich for this quality of oil that will run at higher ratios. Saber at 32:1 is like a 50:1 oil at 15:1. (30% of recommended run rate) I run at 50:1 in ported saws and have ran leaner with no problems.

You should be right on with the 9000 and 7000 applications I would think. That's what I would do. Is this an FD rated oil? But then running it at 32:1 you can run TWC oil and it works. I like Shaeffers, my Dad ran it for decades. I'm really impressed with Dolmar's Full Synthetic right now, 2.4 gallons for $42 and rated FD. I will run Schaeffer's 9000 2 cycle this spring, looking forward to it in ported saws.

Keep it coming Red Bull! You keep us all on our toes.

 

[porsche965]

Schaeffer's 9000 2 cycle looks to be a really nice oil Red Bull. FD rated and on the back of the bottle it has mix ratios to 100:1. I like that. Not that I would mix at that ratio but it tells me they aren't afraid of 100:1. This is a concentrated oil. I still would like to run it at 40:1 and 45:1 and 50:1. Just to see. Thanks for the introduction to 9000.

 

[mdavlee]

We should take a poll on bearing failures documented due to lack of oil and the ratio of oil the bearings were run at. It would support your thesis.
Is this why Husqvarna is beefing up their bottom end of the new 572xp so they can still comply with the EPA @ 50:1 without further failures?

I've changed about 20-25 cranks in the last 5 years in saws they told me were run on 50:1. Never had changed one from someone who said they run more oil. Also had around 8 sets if cases that were trashed from spun bearing s or pockets beat up. Not sure any correlation between that but it was the same crews.

 

[bwalker]

I don't know. I will repeat something that @tree monkey Scott has told me a few times.

He doesn't run 32:1 so much for the film of oil between the piston and jug. He says you really don't need that much. He runs 32:1 because of the bearings. Those are what need the most oil.

There is some truth to that. However more oil helps seal the tings better and provides for a cleaner engine IME.

 

[bwalker]

We should take a poll on bearing failures documented due to lack of oil and the ratio of oil the bearings were run at. It would support your thesis.
Is this why Husqvarna is beefing up their bottom end of the new 572xp so they can still comply with the EPA @ 50:1 without further failures?

Anyone thats been running saws for awhile has noticed that the motors are using less fuel and as a result oil now than they did back in the 90's. Strato charging makes it even worse as those motors likely are less lubricated at 32:1 than an older saw was running 50:1.
H

 

[bwalker]

Ran Schaeffer 9000 full synthetic on a new 661. 32:1 for 12 tanks running 36"-41" .404

This is NOT the tcw3 7000 semi syn.

FWIW that oil is formulated exactly like a TCW3 marine oil. Schaeffer actually suggests it be used in boats amongst other things. They also claim that it "meets and exceeds" tcw3,jaso FC and ISO EGD. From a technical standpoint this simply is not possible. If you dont beleieve me try to find an oil on the jaso FD list thats also tcw3 certified.

 

[junkman]

Anyone thats been running saws for awhile has noticed that the motors are using less fuel and as a result oil now than they did back in the 90's. Strato charging makes it even worse as those motors likely are less lubricated at 32:1 than an older saw was running 50:1.
H

Can you explain why a strato engine would be lubricated less .I have a 441 and looking at the piston with muffler off when i changed the muffler ,the piston was wet with 40 to 1 saber .I am not saying they aren't i just don't understand how the strato stuff works .

 

[brandonstclair20]

Would a saw that has a uncaged needle bearing for the lower rod bearing need more oil. I’m talking about a two piece connecting rod. For example a Mcculloch pro Mac 10-10. I have been running 35:1 in everything


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bwalker]

Can you explain why a strato engine would be lubricated less .I have a 441 and looking at the piston with muffler off when i changed the muffler ,the piston was wet with 40 to 1 saber .I am not saying they aren't i just don't understand how the strato stuff works .

Pretty simple. They use less fuel, thus less oil moving through the motor.

 

[mdavlee]

Pretty simple. They use less fuel, thus less oil moving through the motor.

I had a guy argue with me over that. He said you're still using the same oil and gas.[emoji848]

 

[Keith Gandy]

I had a guy argue with me over that. He said you're still using the same oil and gas.[emoji848]

Seems the main goal of EPA is to put less pollutant into the air so that kinda speaks for itself?

 

[mdavlee]

Seems the main goal of EPA is to put less pollutant into the air so that kinda speaks for itself?

Pretty much.

 

[Dub11]

Seems the main goal of EPA is to put less pollutant into the air so that kinda speaks for itself?

The EPA is Hypocritely funny.

And I say this cause I remembr in grade school being told that every 12oz pop can you don't recycle you more or less throw away 6oz of gas.

So wouldn't it be more eco friendly to run stuff a little richer to keep them out of the garbage?

 

[mdavlee]

The EPA is Hypocritely funny.

Yes. The diesel trucks are a big fail. Got from 16-20 to 11 but it's cleaner they say. At least now with DEF fluid they're back to pushing 20.

 

[Dub11]

Yes. The diesel trucks are a big fail. Got from 16-20 to 11 but it's cleaner they say. At least now with DEF fluid they're back to pushing 20.

Ed Zachary and funny thing on diesel and the scary NOX that comes out of them. I was reading a test that was done for the BBC. They had a 5 year old diesel car vs a 15 gas car. The gas car was like 10 times dirtier lol.

 

[mdavlee]

Ed Zachary and funny thing on diesel and the scary NOX that comes out of them. I was reading a test that was done for the BBC. They had a 5 year old diesel car vs a 15 gas car. The gas car was like 10 times dirtier lol.

Of course. The US and EPA has a war on diesels

 

[retro]

Anyone thats been running saws for awhile has noticed that the motors are using less fuel and as a result oil now than they did back in the 90's. Strato charging makes it even worse as those motors likely are less lubricated at 32:1 than an older saw was running 50:1.
H

This is a flawed and misleading statement. Less fuel consumption per unit of work performed = improved (gas exchange process) efficiency. The same oil supply ratio exists per unit of fuel though. You assumed that fuel consumption is always equal to oil consumption, which is never true in any two-stroke motor design.

Lubricating oil separates from the transport media (the fuel in this case) more readily while the transport media is vaporizing its mass containing a 32:1 non-vaporizing oil ratio, than a 50:1 oil ratio. So a much higher volume of oil is always separating from a 32:1 ratio per unit of Time. Available oil supply exits the exhaust directly related to Time (RPMs), whether fuel consumption increases or decreases relative to each unit of time.

Pretty simple. They use less fuel, thus less oil moving through the motor.

The oil/fuel ratio is still the same, so the same amount of oil is always available, separating from the carrier fuel and lubricating and carrying heat generated by friction away from those same parts.

The only issue that comes into play here is whether the oil supply pass-through (volume of oil) is sufficient to begin with. That is determined by the mix ratio vs friction loads @ operating RPMs, because fuel is just a transport media for the lubricant. As RPMs increase, more oil supply is always required. And as friction loads are increased, more oil supply is always required.

No matter how you slice it, it boils down to having a sufficient oil/fuel ratio vs loads@RPMs to begin with. Oil consumption rates always differ from fuel consumption rates at any given RPM.

EDIT: I'm not trying to bust any balls here... its just that most people read blanket statements like these and accept them as fact without thinking... then repeat them over and over for years without ever understanding what in sam-hell they are talking about. Where we allow that to happen we end up tolerating a population of diarrhea-mouthed herd animals. Much like we got in the world today... :-(

We all make mistakes. Life isn't a competition... its co-operation.

 

[Chainganger]

paid $45 for the gallon I bought of the 9000. The 7000 semi syn IMO runs even cleaner but people get hung up on the "tcw3". Yet Scott has ran the 7000 for the last 20 years in every 2 stroke engine he has. Swears by it. Place I got the 9000 for $45 had the 7000 for like $28 for a gallon.

I see Amazon has the 9000 for $56 shipped.

http://www.schaefferoil.com/retail-locations.html

I think the 9000 would handle more heat better. So I guess my plan would be to run the 9000 in ported saws and 7000 in non ported saws. Or the 9000 in any application that really pushes the saw like long bar or milling.

I would choose the schaeffer over the amsoil saber. pics attached 15 tanks on new 661 with saber 32:1

I assume you bought the Schaeffers at a shop
Where did you get it?