why synthetic?doesnt that cause clutch slippage?maybe im just too much of ol'skool and set in my ways.i still use atf tranny fluid in the gearbox of my ktm 250 2 stroke from time to time.i figure if im gonna change the oil as much as i should,it shouldnt be too big of a deal,$9 a quart at autozone,i would need to see the proof.a piece of mind for me is obtained using the regular stuff just staying on top of the oil changes.i dont think synthetics are the differnces between these motors grenading or being bullet proof.I dont care what cannondale recommended,if they knew what they were talking about they would still be around today.
the synthetic is for the crank side not the trans side being as they are seperate. has nothing to do with the clutches and some people use atf in the trans side. as far as cannondale themselves piss poor management and a $8000 + price tag when the big quads of the day were the banshee and 400ex was not too popular for average consumer also the vendors didnt help the situation much at all.
Article from LUBE REPORT () April 8, 2009 Truth in Advertising: BP v. Royal Purple
By George Gill
Royal Purple Ltd. was black and blue after BP Lubricants USA took it to task over advertising claims for its synthetic motor oil, finding a receptive audience in the advertising industry????????s self-regulatory forum.
The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus recommended Porter, Texas-based Royal Purple modify or discontinue numerous advertising claims for its synthetic motor oil, following a challenge by Wayne, N.J.-based BP Lubricants. The NAD examined comparative performance and superiority claims in print, broadcast and Internet advertising. In some of the advertising, Royal Purple compared its performance to Castrol, Shell, Amsoil and other motor oil brands.
NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue its use of consumer testimonials reporting specific performance attributes in the absence of reliable independent evidence showing performance capability.
???????Anecdotal evidence based solely on the experiences of individual consumers is insufficient to support product efficacy claims, including claims related to horsepower, torque, fuel economy or engine heat,??????? the organization stated. ???????While the advertiser may quote from published articles if it provides clear and conspicuous attribution to the publisher, it may not rely on such articles to support efficacy claims for which it has no reliable independent validation.???????
NAD recommended Royal Purple discontinue claims such as ???????Increases horsepower and torque by as much as 3 percent,??????? ???????Reduces Engine Wear by 80 percent,??????? ???????Superior Oxidation Stability??????? and ???????Provides Film Strength Up to 400 Percent.???????
???????If industry-standard tests or tests with carefully documented controls were abandoned, there would be no basis whatsoever for making any meaningful claims about the relative efficacy of motor oils,??????? BP said in its challenge.
NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue claims that stated, ???????Improves fuel economy by as much as 5 percent??????? and ???????Fuel economy improvement up to 5 percent or more??????? because its Environmental Protection Agency testing was inconclusive and the ???????Oklahoma State Study??????? and single cylinder Labeco CLR diesel engine testing cited in Royal Purple????????s advertising was not relevant. The NAD noted the 1997 OSU Study was ???????outdated and nothing in the record demonstrated that the formulations of the competitors???????? oils were similar to those available for sale on the market today.???????
BP Lubricants said it hired the independent laboratory Southwest Research Institute, in San Antonio, to analyze power output of gasoline engines with Royal Purple Oil and with BP????????s Castrol oil for comparisons. ???????The results were provided to the challenger????????s expert statistician who was not informed of the identity of the candidate oils,??????? NAD stated. ???????The challenger????????s [BP????????s] expert determined a 0.9 percent difference in power between the oils, which did not rise to the level of statistical significance, and is well below the 3 percent claim made by the advertiser.???????
SwRI did additional tests to independently determine the differences in fuel economy, emissions data and engine temperature between Royal Purple and Castrol motor oils. According to SwRI, ???????there was no statistically significant difference between the fuel economy, emissions data or engine temperature between the two candidate oils,??????? NAD said.
Following its review of the non-anecdotal evidence in the record, NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue the claims, ???????Reduces emissions up to 20 percent or more??????? and ???????Reductions in emissions of 20 percent or more??????? because the studies on which the claims were based were outdated and not consumer-relevant.
NAD also recommended the advertiser discontinue its unsupported claim that Royal purple motor oil is ???????API/ILSAC Certified.??????? Noting that API and ILSAC licenses and certifications have many categories with different meanings, the NAD recommended that the company discontinue its claim that its synthetic oils are ???????generally ???????API/ILSAC Certified.???????????????
In fact, no Royal Purple products are certified to current ILSAC specifications.
The American Petroleum Institute licenses its trademarked Service Symbol, or ???????donut,???????? for display on qualified engine oils, and also licenses the ILSAC ???????starburst???????? logo for oils that meet the auto industry????????s latest energy-conserving standards. In API????????s online directory of licensees for its Engine Oil Licensing and Certification Program, Royal Purple has a total of 23 passenger car and diesel engine oil products listed, all licensed to use the API donut. Five of these may additionally display the words ???????energy conserving???????? within the donut logo, but none of the Royal Purple products are licensable to the current ILSAC GF-4 specification and they cannot display the starburst logo.
Royal Purple also voluntarily agreed to discontinue the claims, ???????most advanced,??????? ???????unsurpassed performance??????? and ???????unparalleled performance,??????? steps the NAD said were necessary and proper to avoid confusion in the marketplace.
???????While Royal Purple also believes that the tests and testimonials it supplied as evidence accurately portray the benefits of using its synthetic oil in a wide variety of applications, it defers to the NAD????????s position that those tests and testimonials alone are insufficient to support specific performance attribute claims in consumer advertising,??????? the company said in its response to NAD. ???????... [Royal Purple] has already made changes to its advertising in accordance with the NAD recommendations and will continue to implement NAD????????s recommendations and analysis in developing Royal Purple????????s future advertising.???????
BP Lubricants did not return phone calls from Lube Report requesting comment on NAD????????s decision. Published by LNG Publishing Co., Inc. Copyright ???? 2009 LNG Publishing Co., Inc. All rights reserved. George Gill, Editor. Lube Report (ISSN 1547-3392) is published by LNG Publishing Co., Inc., 6105-G Arlington Blvd., Falls Church, Virginia 22044 USA. Phone: (703) 536-0800. Fax: (703) 536-0803. Website: www.LNGpublishing.com. Email: info@LNGpublishing.com. For advertising information contact Gloria Steinberg Briskin at (800) 474-8654 or (703) 536-7676 or gloria@LNGpublishing.com. Powered by IMN
Bad advertising campane and bad product are two seperate issues and most companies seem to strech the limits of legal advertising to make their product to make it look better than it actually is.
Messing with API/ILSAC rattings without paying for the rating is a no no.
As long as it has Zinc in it to protest my cams I dont really worry about anything else.So far Amsoil Motorcycle and some of the Royal Purple oils are the only ones I have seen Analysis showing they have lots of zinc in them.SG rated.
i guess it just comes down to the individual,i would rather do frequent changes with regular oil than having longer intervals because synthetics are "supposed" to be able to last longer.
You may change your mind about that after you change your oil in the cannible. To me, it is a real pain in the ***. I changed the oil in my honda 450r last night and it took about 20 minutes, if that. The cannondale takes a lot longer. The polaris outlaw I have is even worse than the cannondale...I'm considering never changing the oil again in that thing.
You may change your mind about that after you change your oil in the cannible. To me, it is a real pain in the ***.
I have already changed the oil. It's not fun either. But I figure its better than dropping the motor all the time. Besides I won't do too many this year, it's more or less a play bike. The other quads will get the majority of the trail time. I am thinking about doing one of the local harescrambles on it though, just to be different. I figure every 3 rides or so I'll change the oil, which would be about 6 hrs or so of actual engine run time.
I can do an oil change on my Dale in 15 minutes. It's very easy.
I always ride it first, so the oil is hot. Then I put a big basket (I dunno the correct word) under it and loosen the 2 frame drain bolts and remove the engine sump bolt and tranny drain bolt. Clean the tranny filter.
Wait 5 minutes, put all the bolts back in (tranny filter sometimes takes 1-2 minutes) tighten the frame drain bolts.
Change oil filter and then put oil in the frame and tranny.
I use the highest quality synthetic oil from Sunoco. It's designed for high-end 4-stroke race engines. The stuff also works very good in the tranny.
