i agree. i'd like to hear from some high mileae guys too. i just changed my oil this afternoon. used valvoline racing oil. "Valvoline VR1 Racing Oil contains .13% of Zinc and .12% of Phosphorus..." from their website. i think that means 13ppm & 12ppm. i went with the valvoline because it was cheaper than the synthetics and had the levels of zinc and phosphorous everybody was saying was important.

anyways, yammi is quiet as a mouse and if i didn't know better, i'd say the clutch works better too.

Questcap wrote:
I still think it would be of huge interest to hear from high-mileage guys who DON'T use bike specific oil. Agreed?

Sorry but I don't agree. A high mileage R* would most likely be an early one, and so at least half of it's lifetime may have been running a car oil with sufficient Zn content. I've been using car oil in mine since 1000 k, but it's SG rated. BTW ... I did have a lifter fail ... no it was not the oil.

Again, you need a lot of information to come to any meaningful conclusions regarding failures. In the absence of sufficient data, one draws conclusions whch are usually biased.

Doc

Yeh, point well taken... the latest round of zinc and phosphorous reductions were about '07.

And, it goes back to what I saw in my owner's manual for '01... at the time about ANY 10w-30 or 10w-40 was okay, so long as it did not have the energy saving, friction modifiers in it.

Things certainly have changed, and we have to be up to that speed on the subject.

And don't be so opposed to biased conclusions... I've been living by them all my life!

Questcap wrote:
And don't be so opposed to biased conclusions... I've been living by them all my life!

... and I deal with them every day at work ..

Doc

Questcap wrote:
Well, just so you know, I wasn't trying to conduct a scientific survey, nor was I trying to compile any hard stats.

I was just curious... how many reported cam and lifter failures that could pretty much be attributed to running improper oil?

Scott says he recalls some 6 or 7 failures altogether, and some of those may have been due to auto/truck oil useage.

I still think it would be of huge interest to hear from high-mileage guys who DON'T use bike specific oil. Agreed?
===================================

Hi Questcap,wasnt trying to be negative but withoiut oil info from new people cvhiming in with cam/lifter failure stating gee wiz i ran proper bike oikl and my cam/lifters still went bad.

well when you get a few posts like thgat people with automatically think its BS when in fact nobody address the fact the bike waqs on its 2nd or 3rd owner that ran cheaper pass car oil with low zddp for who know how many miles prior to this person buying the bike with a 3/4 worn out set of cam/lifters in it .

Thats why i wanted to nip that issue in the butt so that issues isnt overllooked so the wrong idea doesnt get out that when you run right oiol with corretc zddp in a ft camd R* it doesnt properly protect it when thats rteally not the case.

I went thru this very issue in team chevelle and it took quite a while to get people to realize that even when running proper oil in thier ft cam'd muscle cars that if prior owners didnt run proper oil with correct zddp lvl that all bets were off if they didnt have prior oil used history from day 1 when car was new or from when motor was rblt iwhen car was restored.

Also,just a reminder those 6-7 cam/lifter failures i saw here in RSC were over the last 1.5 yrs tops,i dont know about prior yrs and or how many other lifter/cam issues i have missed over that 1.5 yr timeframe iv'e belonged to RSC or that were not noticed due to post not having cam/lifter in post title .

So i would not be surprised if there werent t least a couple more cam/lifter issues i didnt see that were posted here to add the 6-7 i had already seen pushing that # closer to 9-10 cam/lifter fails & still counting.

Some of the cam/lifter issues here in RSC had titles with no rfeerence at all to cam lifter fails and didnt know that was the case untill i opened the posts with ref to lifter/cam failures.

Those were posts i had seen that started out as for ex " my motor is running poorly " that were later found thru diagnostic help from RSC members to actually be flat cam lobe/worn lifter issues so there was absolutely no ref to and cam/lifter issues at all in the original post so easily missed as a true cam/lifter failure.

So i bet there have been a couple more of those type posts along the way adding a few more cam/lifter failure posts here in RSC along the way we are not aware of.

But i guess it would still be fun to see what people post on your questions as long as we all keep in mind the
issues/discrepancies with the data when they RVU this post so this doesn't discredit (in thier minds) the need for zddp in our FT cam'd R* when people running proper oil have ft cam failures loikely due to prior owners running wrong oil wirth low zddp.

Scott

Questcap wrote:
Yeh, point well taken... the latest round of zinc and phosphorous reductions were about '07.

And, it goes back to what I saw in my owner's manual for '01... at the time about ANY 10w-30 or 10w-40 was okay, so long as it did not have the energy saving, friction modifiers in it.

Things certainly have changed, and we have to be up to that speed on the subject.

And don't be so opposed to biased conclusions... I've been living by them all my life!


=========================

FYI,the Yami manual for my 06 silverado rec's 20w-40 with no mention of 10w-30 like is rec for the 1600's or any other grade oil for that matter though many mfg's dont make 20-40 anymore or mfg that i'd want to use.

Will a 1700 blow up with 10-30 bike oil having proper zddp lvl no,but will that same 10w-30 oil protect as good in hot temps as 10-40 or 20-50 with same zddp lvl,no.

So with 20-40 being rec for the 1700 running 20-50 with same 20wt base stock oil is a good replacement for thast oil because many oil mfgs dont make 20-40 anymore.

But steeping down to 50% less base wt oil at 10-40 vs rec 20-40 simply doesnt protect as well even with same zddp lvl becasue the 50% thiiner 10wt base oil sheers/breaks down easier then 50% thicker 20wt base oil does when exposed to extreeme heat/strees that the lrg old shcool air cooled v-twin R* creates.esp in traffic also affecting/slightly reducing the top end visc grade of the multi visc oil too so if 40 wt is top grade of a 10-40 it may then be a 30wt when slightly sheered.

And another thing to keep in mind is when the multi visc oil heats up it's then that the chemical adiditives in its additive pkg starts ti increase its base 20wt visc to 30wt,then 40wt and even to 50wt when oil is at its proper/higher operating temp.

So if for ex your running 20-50 in 45-50 deg temps on open raod crusing the oil may never get hot enough to go from lets say for ex the temp the oils currently running at to achieve 40wt and not get hot enough at cruise to reach it's max 50wt untill you hit traffic/stop lights to heat the oil up the rest of way on a cool day to reach top end grade of 50wt.

So if yami recs 20-40 that not mfg by many oil mfg's for 1700 your better off running 20-50 to retain the 20wt base oil for slightly better protection from sheer/visc breakdown vs running oil with 50% thinner base stock oil like a 10-40 .

And for those that are wondering where i came up with that ,i have seen in oil testing done by oil mfgs and also indipendent test labs that when they tested 5-30 vs 10-30 or maybe 10-50 vs 20-50 multi visc oil the multi visc oil with the lower base wt oil would be slightly less resisdtant to themal breakdown when exposed to higher stress situations. That's with all else being equal in all the oils tested base wt oil & chemical additive pkg's as far as quality of materials goes which can also effect thermal breakdown/oils protective ability too.

These days Oil technology is more complicated for application then they were 30-40 yrs ago so when running improper oil mfg'd these days for a specific application being run that oil can be missing needed elements like zddp for ft cams. It can also have whats not needed like fric mods,too much detergent like some diesel oils used to have and some still have today ,or too little zddp or marginal at best zddp lvl for safe FT cam operation & many here in RSC are still run improper diesel oil in thier bikes too like for ex Rotella in std dino and syn for whatever the reason.

BTW,most all multi vics oils thin fuel conserving or thckerr like 10-40/15-50/20-50 have fric mods in them which i verified thur coversations with oil enginners/techs at muly oil mfg's.

So what was true only a few yrs back with mostly the lighter fuel conserving multi visc oils like 5-20/5-30/10-30 the only oils to have fric mods that simply is not the case today.

Scott

Correct me if I am wrong but there has been a lot said here about FT lifters.
According to Yamaha our engine use Hydraulic lifters, when I took mine a part it had hydraulic lifters in it.
FT cams use higher valve spring pressure than Hydraulic lifters which would cause the lobes to wear if not properly lubricated.
I have read on the RS warrior forum about the same issue even one Raider Forum mentioned a guy that had less than 500 miles on his new bike and wore two of his lifters out.
Which that bike should of had proper break in oil you would think.
I am more convinced that yamaha has some defective lifter material that is being used a metal that isn't properly hardened to run on the cam surface.
Other wise you would also be hearing about cams wearing out, some on the RS forums have said that they didn't even change out the old cams just put new lifter in the engine.
Something to think about.
.

BSG wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong but there has been a lot said here about FT lifters.
According to Yamaha our engine use Hydraulic lifters, when I took mine a part it had hydraulic lifters in it.
FT cams use higher valve spring pressure than Hydraulic lifters which would cause the lobes to wear if not properly lubricated.
I have read on the RS warrior forum about the same issue even one Raider Forum mentioned a guy that had less than 500 miles on his new bike and wore two of his lifters out.
Which that bike should of had proper break in oil you would think.
I am more convinced that yamaha has some defective lifter material that is being used a metal that isn't properly hardened to run on the cam surface.
Other wise you would also be hearing about cams wearing out, some on the RS forums have said that they didn't even change out the old cams just put new lifter in the engine.
Something to think about.
.
==============================

Unfortunately your misinformed,FT/Flat tappet cams come in both hyd and solid tappet/lifter versions ,higher spring rates are mostly associated with aftermarket higher perf hyd and solid lifter flat tappet cams resulting in considerably higher top end rpm lvl's.

As far as new motor wiping out cam/lifters,people make mistakes and its possible some $10 hr bike shop person puit wrong oil with low zddp inb the bike when new and or when mfg'd maybe the required assembly lube tjhats supposed to be applied to the cam lobes/lifters when assembled to avoid dry lifter to cam lobe interface on 1st fireup was not applied or maybe not enough.

There are many reasons ft cams can go bad new or when used,could even be as you stated new defective parts(lifter-s/cam lobe-s) causing cam/lifter failure.

Heck,2 of the last 3 aftermarket ft perf cams i installed in classic muscle car motors had defects from 2 dif cam mfg's

One cam had a couple dings on the cams bearing journals and a ding on a high point of a lobe and other cam from the other cam mfg actually had little chipps in the metal on the edges on approx 7-8 of 16 hyd lifters all of which would have lead to quick and untimely ft cam/lifter death ih i had not caught it prior to assembly so maybe that happened to the new bike that trashed the lifter/cam.

On replacing hyd ft lifter-s & reusing same cam,i have done just that successfully a few times over the yrs as long as the cam lobe is still in decent cond with liitle or no wear/scratching//damage and you use proper lube on cam lobe/lifter to properly breakin in new lifter-s to used cam lobe-s and oil with proper lvl of zddp for FT cams too though many engine builders rec against doing that.

Scott

E_man_89 wrote:
i agree. i'd like to hear from some high mileae guys too. i just changed my oil this afternoon. used valvoline racing oil. "Valvoline VR1 Racing Oil contains .13% of Zinc and .12% of Phosphorus..." from their website. i think that means 13ppm & 12ppm. i went with the valvoline because it was cheaper than the synthetics and had the levels of zinc and phosphorous everybody was saying was important.

anyways, yammi is quiet as a mouse and if i didn't know better, i'd say the clutch works better too.
==========================

But even the thicker visc multi grade oils have fric mods not good for wet clutch bikes and the bike oils chemical additive pkgs are slightly dif in other ways too. So have at running inmproper pass or truck car oil in your bike if you want,its your bike not mine.

And valvoline was 1 of the oil mfgs i personally contacted asking if thier heavier multi grade/NON fuel conserving oils had fic mods in them and they say YES.

Will your bike blow up with that pass car or truck oil,no,will your bike have proper oil protection thats designed in bike oil esp oil meant for a lrg old school air cooled v-twin motorcycle motor,no,thats the point.

Scott