|
Understanding Modern 2-Cycle Lubricants
by Mark
Zaic Legend Performance, Inc.
Current production
snowmobiles available from today's manufactures represent an advancement
in performance and technology. This level of sophistication has resulted
from years of continual improvement in manufacturing processes as well
as innovative engineering design. The lubricants that protect these
high‑tech machines have also undergone continual change over the years.
These advancements in chemistry have provided better protection and
reduced emissions, but as we will learn, not all these changes have
produced positive long‑term benefits.
This article will
describe the history of two‑cycle oils, the trend of technology through
the years to today's current petroleum and synthetic lubricants and
explain how they are chemically engineered. We will also compare the
advantages and disadvantages of both types of oils so you can decide for
yourself what oil is right for your snowmobile.
First of all,
two‑cycle oils (abbreviated 2T) differ from four‑cycle lubricants
(abbreviated 4T) in the fact that 2T lubricants "must combust or burn"
and are chemically altered to do so. Four‑stroke, 4T oils are designed
"not to burn" or combust and have different chemistry profiles that
inhibit consumption by the engine. It is therefore for those unique and
completely opposite operating requirements that a classification needed
to be assigned to differentiate the oils based on the engine design
cycle (2 vs. 4 stroke). The NMMA (National Marine Manufactures
Association) was the first to set the standards for two‑cycle oils (2T)
beginning in 1960. Listed below is a timeline for the various ratings:
NMMA Ratings
-
TC‑W (air cooled)
--
1960‑1988
-
TC‑WII (water cooled)
--
1988‑1995
-
TC‑W3 (water
cooled/marine) -- 1992‑1996
-
Recertified TC‑W3
-- 1996‑current
As you can see, we
are currently under a "recertified" TC‑W3 classification for two‑cycle
lubricants that was driven by some of the OEM's to improve detergency,
lubricity and reduce ring sticking. All 2T oils today must meet the TC‑W3
rating to be OEM approved and maintain your warranty requirements set
forth by the manufacture.
Back in the early
1990's, Japan as a major manufacture of two‑strokes, decided it needed
it's own standard to rate and develop 2T oils for quality assurance
purposes. The API (American Petroleum Institute‑USA) was the only
automotive standard at the time. This standard did not meet the higher
quality testing criteria for oils the Japanese desired as their testing
methods were much more severe and wider in scope than the API's TA, TB,
TC rating format. On July 1st, 1994, the marketing of JASO (Japanese
Automobile Standards Organization) oil began worldwide. Being of a
higher quality requirement than the USA API standard, this provided many
developing countries the criteria to formulate and test their lubricants
with. Figure 1 illustrates
the JASO Standard of
classification for 2T oils. JASO classification
for 2T oils are FA, FB, FC, FC is the highest JASO rating. Most
currently available 2T oils meet the JASO FB rating, only premium 2T
oils obtain an FC classification.
|
JASO TWO‑STROKE
QUALITY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM |
|
Parameter and Test |
Test Engine |
Fuel:Oil
Ratio |
JASO
Classification |
|
FA |
FB |
FC |
Detergency
(1 hr)
JASO M 341-91 |
Honda super DIO SK50M |
100:1 |
80 |
85 |
95 |
Lubricity
JASO M 340-92 |
50:1 |
90 |
95 |
95 |
Initial torque
JASO M 342-92 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
Exhaust smoke
JASO M 342-92 |
Suzuki SX 800 generator |
10:1 |
40 |
45 |
85 |
Exhaust system blocking
JASO M 343-92 |
5:1 |
30 |
45 |
90 |
| |
|
Minimum Values Shown Are
Based on JATRE-1 Reference Oil, which Equals 100
|
Since the inception
of the JASO ratings, maturing global standards and requirements driven
by the Europeans has created a demand for greater detergency and reduced
spark plug fouling for 2T oils over the current JASO FC classification.
This brought about the ISO (International Standards Organization) and
consequently, the ISO‑L‑EGD rating for 2T lubricants‑Figure 2.
| THE
GLOBAL SYSTEM OVERLAYS JASO QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS |
Parameter
and Test |
ISO Classification |
| N/A |
EGB |
EGC |
EGD |
|
JASO Classification |
| FA |
FB |
FC |
|
Detergancy (3hr) |
|
|
|
125 |
|
Piston Varnish (3hr) |
|
|
|
95 |
Detergency (1hr)
JASO M 341-92 |
80 |
85 |
95 |
|
|
Piston Varnish (1hr) |
- |
85 |
90 |
|
Lubricity
JAOS M 340-92 |
90 |
95 |
95 |
95 |
Initial Torque
JASO M 342-92 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
98 |
Exhaust smoke
JASO M 342-92 |
40 |
45 |
85 |
85 |
Exhaust system blocking
JASO M 343-92 |
30 |
45 |
90 |
90 |
| |
|
*Mininum values shown are based on
JATRE-1 reference oil, which equals 100 |
Figure 2 compares
JASO and ISO ratings with a "reference oil" with an assigned number
between 0 and 100. The higher the number, the better the test 2T oils
performance in comparison to the reference oil. As time marches on, more
classifications will appear based on OEM, EPA environmental and
geo‑political mandates. The higher the classification the better the
oils will become based on advancements in additive technology and
intelligent chemistry. But as we will see later in this article, "It's
what's NOT in an oil that really counts!!"
So today, we have
NMMA TC‑W3, API TA, TB, TC, JASO FA, FB, FC and ISO ISO‑L‑EGD
classifications for 2T lubricants. Any oil you select for your
snowmobile must and should fall into the minimum TC‑W3 rating as noted
on the container. Higher quality petroleum and synthetics 2T oils will
be classified as API TB, TC, JASO FB, FC or ISO‑L‑EGD types.
Fortunately, most
oils today meet these strict requirements, but snowmobile engines
require different chemistry than boats and other two‑stroke applications
to provide the higher BMEP (Brake Mean Effective Pressures) and
horsepower output the modern snowmobile powerplant is capable of
producing. Snowmobile engines generate a higher specific power output
per cc (cubic displacement in centimeters) than most engines and at a
higher sustained rpm. Cold operating temperatures and air‑cooled vs.
liquid‑cooled adds to the fray as to which formulation will provide the
best protection and low temperature pour point/fluidity. As you can see,
our beloved snowmobiles challenge reliable operation by operating in a
severe environment that most two‑strokes won't have to deal with.
Back in the 1960's
and 1970's a 20:1 fuel/oil ratio was common. In the late 1970's and
early 1980's 30 & 40:1 ratios become more the trend. This gradually
evolved into a 50:1 which is today and has been the standard pre‑mix
ratio recommend by most manufactures and oil blenders. For racing or
all‑out performance, there are 100:1 ratios available that will give the
best engine response and protection by minimizing octane dilution of the
fuel. These "leaner" oil ratios are fully synthetic (ester or di‑ester)
formulas and can be engineered to meet the demands of high rpm/extreme
load operation.
With oil injection
systems standard on most every production snowmobile today, pre‑mixing
is generally reserved for racing only. Not all two‑cycle oils are
formulated for pre‑mix applications and only premium 2T oils can be used
for both forms of lubrication. When pre‑mixing the oil, the ratio of gas
to oil is the same at all RPMs. Only the best lubricants with advanced
chemistry and additive technology can burn at the "richer" oil to fuel
ratios in pre‑mix applications.
Today, many
snowmobile engines are designed with power valves to enhance the low and
midrange performance. This requires an oil to be exceptionally clean
burning to prevent the "gumming‑up" and eventual sticking of the power
valves in the open or closed position. This is one reason the OEM's
recommend expensive synthetic oils to help reduce valve sticking and
contamination. The majority of synthetics tend to burn cleaner because
they are not a fossil derived petroleum by‑product, rather a man‑made
chemically designed molecule.
Modern synthetics
have advantages over most petroleum based 2T oils in the areas of high
rpm protection, lower sub‑zero pour point, cleaner burning with less
smoke, lower carbon deposits on pistons, rings and power valves. The
most notable disadvantages of synthetics are high price, poor off‑season
rust protection, irritating smell along with eye and respiratory
discomfort due to the solvents used in manufacturing and loss of ring
seal due to "glazing" of the cylinder walls with extended use. After
several years of intensive research, we have documented that the use of
synthetic 2T oils will in fact cause the cylinder walls to "glaze over"
and cause "blow‑by" at the piston rings eventually resulting in a power
loss. This will be evident when you remove a cylinder and find
discoloration below the ring lands most notably on the piston sides. Our
research has determined this begins around 1500‑1800 miles and worsens
with continued use of synthetics. Why all the hype then about
synthetics? And why do the manufactures urge you to use them?
The synthetic
molecule by virtue of design is "chemically" superior to the petroleum
molecule. The real benefit of a man‑made synthetic molecule occurs at
extreme high RPMs. When the reciprocating loads and heat saturation
limits reach engine component failure levels (10‑12,000+ rpm),
synthetics provide the needed protection. This level of operation is
rarely ever seen in snowmobiling today except in drag racing or full‑mod
engines tuned for maximum performance. The disadvantages of synthetics,
namely the unacceptable loss of ring seal with continued use, poor
off‑season rust protection for the crankshaft bearings from ever present
internal moisture and unpleasant exhaust fumes far outweigh the
advantages. Most people expect when paying 30‑50% more for an oil to get
something for their investment, not a loss of performance or an
expensive repair bill when they lose a crank bearing at the beginning of
the season caused by internal rust.
Manufactures insist
on using synthetics because they lack the technology to blend a
petroleum 2T oil that will burn clean and not cause pre‑mature power
valve sticking. Cleaning power valves is a drag and the OEM's realize
that most people would rather ride than spend time doing maintenance
caused by a poor grade of oil. Blending oil is an art, a skillful
balance of chemistry and component selection along with additives that
perform in a predetermined manner. This art is referred to as "chemical
engineering" and unfortunately do you rarely find a professional engine
builder working closely and in conjunction with a qualified lubricants
chemist.
Petroleum or mineral
based 2T oils have more advantages than disadvantages: They provide
superior off‑season rust protection because mineral oils are natural
lubricants, not man‑made, they are affordable and provide good
all‑around performance without destroying piston ring seal by glazing
the cylinder walls. Their disadvantages are that they are not as clean
burning as synthetics, and some will not provide the film strength in
"extreme" high rpm load or heat conditions.
What would be the
"preferred" two‑cycle lubricant is combining the best features of both
mineral based oil and a synthetic with the undesirable traits chemically
altered or removed to obtain the best of both worlds. This "hybrid" 2T
formula would be an ultra‑pure, highly refined, superior quality base
oil combined with an additive package that would offer all the benefits
in film strength and cleanliness of a synthetic yet still be classified
as mineral oil. The good news is this technology exists, yet very few
people understand the importance and the balance of chemistry to make it
a reality.
To understand this
concept, let's look at what 2T oils are made from.
Figure 3 represents
the basic formula structure for current petroleum and synthetic oils.
The chart on the left illustrates typical mineral base oils and on the
right synthetics.
| Traditional Oil
Quality |
|
OEM Recommended
Quality |
| ISO‑EGB/JASO FB/API
TC or JASO FA/API TA/API TB |
|
API TC / ISO‑EGC /
JASO FC ISO‑EGD |
| DI Additive |
|
Balanced DI System |
| Brightstock |
|
PIB |
| Heavy Neutral
Basestock |
|
Heavy Neutral
Basestock |
| Minimal Solvent Level |
|
Higher Solvent Level |
Notice the use of PIB
(poly‑iso‑butane) instead of bright stock and the higher solvent content
in the synthetic 2T oils. PIB does contribute to lubricity with
"anti‑scuffing" properties. The PIB is part of the man‑made synthetic
molecular structure that inhibits ring seal on engine "break‑in" and
leads to glazing of the cylinder walls. The reason for this lies in the
fact that some of the synthetic molecules "high molecular weight" and
chemical compounds (sulfur) cannot combust completely and thereby leave
a residue on the cylinder wall. This residue continues to build over
time and ' eventually prevents the rings from making contact with the
cylinder walls leading to blow‑by. This condition deteriorates
performance and can be corrected only by honing the cylinder walls and
installing fresh piston rings or switching to a high quality mineral
based lubricant.
The higher solvent
content in synthetics not only drive up the cost, but contribute to the
typical "foul odor" and incomplete combustion based on improper solvent
selection. The DI (detergency) portion of the formula controls the oils
ability to minimize residue and build‑up on internal components. While
the charts show what would be an ideal progression towards improved
lubricant performance, the basic ingredients used in blending of 2T oils
and the "closeminded" approach by most chemist has prevented
technological advances in oil formulation. As engine technology improves
so should the lubricants, this has not been the case with two‑cycle
synthetics.
What must take place
is a change of attitude from: 'It's worked in the past, it should work
now’ chemistry to a mentality of: 'If it worked in the past there must
be plenty of room for improvement’. Then we can move forward and conduct
an in‑depth research of modern combustion engines, the effect of
lubricants in a "post‑combustion" atmosphere and "chemically engineer"
the lubricant to perform without the compromise typical in today's 2T
oils. The successful art of blending a "hybrid" ultra‑performance
lubricant is a balancing act of chemistry:
"Quality In = Quality Out."
Premium quality ingredients, advanced additive technology and an
experienced team of professionals working together will produce a better
class of lubricant for extreme conditions.
Legend Performance &
Technologies, Inc. has led this change and has accomplished our mission
in blending a mineral based two‑cycle oil with synthetic‑plus
performance. While most oil companies and OEM manufactures blend their
oils to achieve a certain level of engine reliability for warranty
purposes and a "price point" for attractive sales, we at Legend
Performance do quite the opposite. Listed below is a comparison of
blending practices compared to the innovative approach used by Legend
Performance.
Blending Practices
Traditional Technology vs. Innovative Technology
|
Aftermarket / OEM 2T
Oils |
Legend ZX‑2 / ZX‑2R |
|
Basestocks
|
| Average quality base
oils‑ adds cost / higher profit. Most are high ash content‑
contributes to
carbon, deposits and higher exhaust emissions |
Ultra‑high quality
"pure ashless" base oils‑maximum purity, internal cleanliness,
lubricity and protection adds cost, reduces exhaust emissions |
|
Solvents |
| High solvent content‑more profit with higher exhaust
emissions, post‑combustion smoke and odor |
Select
quality solvent content for cold weather fluidity and desired flash
point. Reduces cost / lower exhaust emissions smokeless, odorless |
|
Additive Package (DI,
Brightstock, PIB,etc.) |
| Higher
additive "treat‑rate" to obtain TC‑W3 rating due to lower the
quality base oils, adds cost / raises exhaust emissions |
Superior
proprietary additive technology, controls cost due to lower
"treat‑rates" by use of the highest quality ultra‑refined base oils.
Lowers cost / exhaust emissions |
| Add PIB's to synthetics replacing Brightstock,
adds significant cost with slightly enhanced cleanliness. Promotes
high rpm protection |
Balance Brightstock with proprietary blend of "chemically engineered" molecules
to obtain synthetic quality protection‑lowers cost, provides high rpm
protection |
After comparing
traditional vs. innovative blending practices and philosophies, then
comparing the differences, it becomes obvious that Legend Performance,
Inc. has produced a superior formulation that is petroleum‑based. We
have achieved our goal by combining the best of both chemistries through
a "common sense" approach. By using the most advanced additive
technologies available in the world, we have created 2T lubricants which
out‑perform the best synthetics at a mineral oil price! By investing in
the best quality base oils then refining to an "ultra pure" state
combined with a chemically advanced additive package, we develop what is
called a hybrid "super" lubricant. While eliminating the use of low
energy solvents at "high treat" rates and expensive synthetic additives,
we produce a superior lubricant at a lower cost to the consumer.
The ZX‑2 / ZX‑2R
formulas are engineered to completely combust with minimal if any
deposits after combustion. Synthetics and
conventional mineral oils produce by‑products of combustion due to their
chemistry content. Figure 4 shows the visible difference between a
mineral, synthetic and the ZX‑2 / R base stocks refined purity.

CLICK IMAGE FOR LARGER VIEW
The ZX‑2R base oils
are "super‑refined" to a "turbine oil" pureness. With the higher
molecular weight, low energy, poorly combustible constituents (tar,
asphalt, waste minerals, etc) refined out, we are left with a more
"pure" natural lubricant. It is this combination of base stock quality
and advanced additive technology that provides the oil its lubricity or
the level in which it is capable of protecting your engine.
The "cleaner" a 2T
oil can burn, the less octane it requires from the fuel to combust,
thereby leaving more octane available for performance.
Figure
5 shows the "post combustion" results on pistons along with mileage
documentation.

CLICK IMAGE FOR LARGER VIEW
Synthetic "blends",
which as the name implies are a blend of mineral oil base stocks with
synthetic "fortifiers" added to improve protection and cleanliness at a
lower price than full synthetics. Again, the chemistry is complicated in
achieving the ideal balance between petroleum and synthetic. Our testing
has shown most synthetic blends fall short of any worthwhile improvement
for the higher price they demand.
In the future, with
more stringent protocol for lower global emissions from our venerable
two-stroke powerplants, governing entities will dictate the acceptable
emission levels. Manufactures are now responding with Direct Injection
and four‑strokes engines to help lower exhaust pollution. At Legend
Performance, we have taken steps to do our part in developing "state of
the art" hybrid lubricants that will contribute to lower exhaust
emissions and boost performance while providing maximum engine
protection.
Legend Performance,
Inc., in conjunction with SUNY Canton (State University of New York)
conducted exhaust emissions testing on a 500cc two‑stroke snowmobile
engine in February 2003. The results from the test proved the ZX‑2R
formula produced lower exhaust emissions than the leading "synthetic"
oils and provided better throttle response as noted by the SUNY staff.
While fuel management is responsible for the majority of emissions, 2T
oil does have an effect as demonstrated by our testing.
The technology is now
available to extend your engine life dramatically while virtually
eliminated carbon deposits and internal rust or corrosion. The best
part? No longer any compromises in which oil to choose from: mineral or
synthetic? Or the higher price for cleanliness.
ZX‑2 / ZX‑2R have
been developed for the most demanding riders, trail or race and are
hybrid "super" lubricants that provide the ultimate protection and
internal cleanliness. Now you understand why: "It's what's NOT in oil
that really counts!!"
|