billybovine
Active member
I see that the warning that using API - SM rated oil will damage the clutch has been dropped for the 2014 RT. I wonder if they changed the clutch material in the 1330 ACE engine?
-
There were many reasons for the change of the site software, the biggest was security. The age of the old software also meant no server updates for certain programs. There are many benefits to the new software, one of the biggest is the mobile functionality. Ill fix up some stuff in the coming days, we'll also try to get some of the old addons back or the data imported back into the site like the garage. To create a thread or to reply with a post is basically the same as it was in the prior software. The default style of the site is light colored, but i temporarily added a darker colored style, to change you can find a link at the bottom of the site.
SM rated oil in 2014 RT
- Thread starter billybovine
- Start date
Magdave
New member
No more centrifugal clutch It is hydraulic. A totally different transmission.
billybovine
Active member
Model years 2008 to 2013 SM models are not centrifugal either. The exploded view of the clutch pack does not look much different than the 990 and 991 series engines.
It does not look totally different to me!
Magdave
New member
My WAG is with the new clutch engagement and lower RPMs it will result in less shear. The Previous years were probably using what the SE5 needed in all models to avoid confusion over which oil to use even though the SM5 MIGHT have been able to use SM rated oil, but even they had higher idle and RPM ranges to develop max HP. It is simply a different engine with different needs. Only BRP knows for sure. But I would still use the best oil available.
The clutches for both SM and SE's are essentially the same -- multi-plate wet motorcycle clutches. The centrifugal part of the SE arrangement is a centrifugally actuated mechanism that disengaged the conventional multi-plate clutch when the rev's dropped low such as when you were stopped and the engine is idling. For normal shifting, the clutch operation was not centrifugal but was operated by oil pressure and control solenoids that would quickly disengage the clutch perfectly synchronized with the shifting solenoids to get the next higher or lower gear. The 2014's did away with the centrifugal mechanism for the SE's and use computer programming to gradually engage the clutch from a standstill so you get a smooth start without stalling the engine or without excessive clutch slipping. The same way the automotive "dual clutch" transmissions do.
If BRP did away with the SM restriction, it probably has more to do with the design of the clutch pack itself -- number of plates, materials, spring pressure, etc. For the higher-torque engine, they probably had to do a complete redesign of the clutch so perhaps they learned from all the previous years that occasionally had slippage problems if the incorrect oil was used and designed a more robust clutch that was more resistant to slippage.
I personally would still use only motorcycle-specific oils designed for wet-clutch operation. Such oils should meet JASO MA spec's or preferably JASO MA2 spec's. Automotive oils are too slippery for motorcycle clutches, especially when they are denoted as "energy conserving". They should never be used in a wet-clutch motorcycle.
There are other differences, too, like higher zinc content for better lubrication after longer periods of non-use, formulation to withstand the rigors of a gearbox as opposed to "just" an engine, suitability for high rpm's, etc. I had a conversation with BRP tech people about the oils and JASO MA ratings and they were unaware of them. They consulted come tech employees who rode motorcycles and came back and said it sounded like a good idea -- they'd have to look into it. Since they still don't spec it, I doubt they did.
Looking at it the other way, not all "motorcycle" oils will state they meet JASO MA. If they state it, and they state either MA or MA2, then presumably they've tested it to those specs and it passed. Usually it's then stated in the print somewhere. If they want official certification, they have to apply to JASO in Japan, submit detailed test results, and get approval from JASO. If they pass, then JASO permits them to use the official JASO seal and gives them a serial number for that particular oil that becomes part of the seal. The oil producer can then put the seal and serial number on their bottles. Each different oil (different viscosity, etc) must be submitted, tested and gets a different serial number. For example, if you look at Amsoil or Mobil 1, they will state they meet JASO MA2 or JASO MA respectively, but they don't display the seal. If you look at a Japanese motorcycle oil like Honda oils, they will display the seal and serial number. My personal opinion is that the official seal means more in Japan and Europe and you tend to find the seal on oils for those markets. In the US, it doesn't seem to be as well known and so oils more commonly just state they meet it and don't have the official seal. I have no doubt Amsoil and Mobil 1 and many others who state they meet JASO specs do indeed do so. Personally I would be leery of any motorcycle oil that didn't state they meet JASO specs or show the JASO seal. I can't give you an example but I would just say check the bottle.
billybovine
Active member
You're close, but a little off regarding the JASO T 903 specification for 4 Stroke Motorcycle Engines. In the original specification oils could be rated MA or MB. With MA more suitable for wet clutch applications. Almost immediately after the spec was created the Japanese manufactures began to complain that spec for MA was too broad and they were having clutch slippage issues with oils that met the lower end of the spec. It was then revised to JASO T 903:2011,the MA spec was sort of split in 2 creating 2 additional ratings, MA1 and MA2. So motorcycle oils may be labeled MB (for non oil bath clutch applications) or MA, MA1, MA2 (with MA2 meeting the high friction requirements for all 3 types of friction tests)
Not off; just referring strictly to JASO MA oils in my post. Actually, T903 was issued in 1999 with the MA spec and then split in April 2006 with the MA1 and MA2. Yes, MA2 is the higher performance (that is, better resistance to clutch slippage) end of the original MA spec. If you survey oil bottles, I don't think (IMO) that you'll find any oils labeled MA1. That's like admitting you're good but not great. They're either labeled MA or MA2. If you meet MA2, you're going to brag about it. If you don't and just meet MA1, you're allowed to just say MA and that's what producers do.
As for JASO MB, I didn't mention that as I don't consider it relevant to Spyders. I can't say I've ever seen an MB oil but I guess they are out there. There are no specs for MB per se. An oil is rated MB if it fails one or more of the three test procedures for meeting JASO MA. Apparently Red Line has an ester-based oil that they state is MB. May be some others. Agreed?
billybovine
Active member
BRP does not mention the JASO spec at all, but does say use a synthetic motorcycle oil. Since for example at my local autoparts store I found Lucas synthetic motorcycle oil that is not API rated SM but is rated JASO MB. For that reason it is important, I think, that people need to understand that although it may at first seem to meet the BRP spec it may not be a good choice for your Spyder. It does state in small print "FOR NON WET APPLICATIONS". Folks may not realize it means wet clutch. I also came across a oil rated MA1. I don't recall the brand but they do exist.
:agree: Completely. It's scary that you found a Lucas motorcycle oil on the shelf that was rated JASO MB -- an oil that would satisfy all of BRP's stated requirements and yet be totally unsuitable for use in our Spyders. That's exactly the reason I had my conversation with BRP on the subject of JASO specs. It seems to me that you're always better off specifying what something should be rather than specifying what it should not be. Obviously BRP didn't take my advice to heart.
Further to the point, the goal here is good wet-clutch performance and compatibility. The JASO T903 spec measures that directly. The API specs of SG, SH, SJ, SL, SM etc do not. They are severity of service specs with different tests measuring different properties and with different requirements. Also, SM and JASO MA2 are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The JASO T903 spec allows submission of oils rated SG up to and including SM. If the oil passes the wet-clutch tests, then it's qualified.
So the question is, can an oil be made that is both JASO MA2 and API SM? An oil that meets the most demanding wet-clutch standards and meets the most demanding severity of service requirements? Apparently so. Shell of Europe markets Advance 4T Ultra 10W-40 motorcycle oil that is both JASO MA2 and API SM rated. Ducati recommends that oil for use in some of the latest wet-clutch Ducati's. Unfortunately it's not sold here in the US unless you find someone to import it for you from a European seller.
As long as I've gotten down to the point of useless trivia, I looked through a listing of officially JASO-approved oils that can use the seal and serial number. Worldwide oils totaled 608 different oils. Of that, I spotted only 4 that actually used the MA1 designation -- three from Waco Chemcial Triple R (whoever that is) and one from Elf called Elf Moto 4 Pro Tech (Elf does have about 20 oils that are MA or MA2). There were about 70 or 80 MB's and the rest -- the vast majority -- about equally split between MA and MA2.
There we've gone and done it -- another hopeless oil thread!
NancysToy
Motorbike Professor
Not really...although it does turn out that way for the most part. The old MA spec would have included all oils marked MA2. The new specs split that category.
BajaRon
Well-known member
Turns out we're both wrong! (though not by enough to be serious). There IS a difference between MA and MA1 (MA being the better oil, which is surprising)
Here are the facts, according to 'OilSpecifications.Org'.
There ARE actually 3 designations within the MA Spectrum! (Just to maximize the confusion) :yikes:
'The motor oils that meet the JASO T 903:2006 standard can be classified into four grades: JASO MA, JASO MA1, JASO MA2 and JASO MB. The classification is based on the results of the JASO T 904:2006 clutch system friction test.'
Here is how it works.
'If all three properties of a JASO MA oil fall within the limits specified as MA1 then the oil can be classified as a JASO MA1 oil. If all its properties fall within the limits of MA2 then it can be classified as a JASO MA2 oil. If some properties fall within the MA1 subcategory but others in MA2 then the product is simply a JASO MA product.'
So, in simple terms, here is how it pans out.
Best = MA2 (Meets all 3 highest criteria)
Next = MA (Meets all MA1 criteria and at least 1 MA2 criteria)
Next = MA1 (Meets all MA1 critera)
Next = MB (Falls short of at least 1 MA1 criteria)
You can see the entire article here - http://www.oilspecifications.org/articles/JASO_MA_JASO_MB.php
Bob Denman
New member
Wow :shocked:
Will my hair fall out and my dog run away if I just use whatever it is, that BRP suggests?? :yikes:
Will my hair fall out and my dog run away if I just use whatever it is, that BRP suggests?? :yikes:
Turns out we're both wrong! (though not by enough to be serious). There IS a difference between MA and MA1 (MA being the better oil, which is surprising)
Here are the facts, according to 'OilSpecifications.Org'.
There ARE actually 3 designations within the MA Spectrum! (Just to maximize the confusion) :yikes:
'The motor oils that meet the JASO T 903:2006 standard can be classified into four grades: JASO MA, JASO MA1, JASO MA2 and JASO MB. The classification is based on the results of the JASO T 904:2006 clutch system friction test.'
Here is how it works.
'If all three properties of a JASO MA oil fall within the limits specified as MA1 then the oil can be classified as a JASO MA1 oil. If all its properties fall within the limits of MA2 then it can be classified as a JASO MA2 oil. If some properties fall within the MA1 subcategory but others in MA2 then the product is simply a JASO MA product.'
So, in simple terms, here is how it pans out.
Best = MA2 (Meets all 3 highest criteria)
Next = MA (Meets all MA1 criteria and at least 1 MA2 criteria)
Next = MA1 (Meets all MA1 critera)
Next = MB (Falls short of at least 1 MA1 criteria)
You can see the entire article here - http://www.oilspecifications.org/articles/JASO_MA_JASO_MB.php
With all due respect, I think you are reading something into the oilspec.org text that isn't there. The MA spec covers the entire range of properties. The MA1 covers the lower half and the MA2 covers the upper half. If you look at your tables, that is what they show. The statement "If some properties fall within the MA1 subcategory but others in MA2 then the product is simply a JASO MA product.'" is an illustration of what to do if your oil happens to meet some MA2 requirements but not all of them. It is not a mandate that an MA oil must meet some of the MA2 requirements. This is explained clearly in the actual spec for the oil performance which is JASO T903. The spec JASO T904 is the spec for the actual testing procedures. They have one spec for procedures (T904) and one for the results the oil must meet when tested to those procedures (T903). Same as ASTM standards in the US. I was on ASTM committees for several years and that is the norm.
Anyway, in T903 it is very clear. They even have a table showing sample test results and which oil class would then be correct. One example oil has all three test values fall within the MA1 ranges. Their table shows that oil could be labeled either MA1 or MA. Another example shows all three values falling within the MA2 range. That oil can be labeled either MA2 or MA. Now, where it gets tricky is they then show several examples where one or two values fall within MA1 and the remaining value(s) fall within MA2. In those cases where the results are mixed, their table shows the oils should be labeled just MA. So you are correct that in those cases MA may be better than MA1. But it doesn't have to be if you go back to my first example where all three values fell within MA1. Since the consumer doesn't have the test results in front of him, he doesn't know if his MA oil had mixed results or had all three values fall in the MA1 range.
Similar threads
