Not another break-in/engine oil thread!

[Samer]

I've been looking into a bunch of the forums for a while now to try to get at least some consensus about this issue of when to put synthetic oil on my new Ninja.

Here's what I've concluded (for myself) about this issue and a few others:

Due to a lack of clear, reliable, scientific, referenced, data on certain issues, from what I can find anyway, a flood of noise fills its place. One person, who I'm sure means well, puts up what looks to be a well thought out website which promises to give the end-all answer to a question and bring clarity to an issue. Many people praise it and when a new forum member inevitably asks the same question, someone quickly links to said webpage. Thus reinforcing the information.

For me this is extremely dangerous. Because there is no first hand information which is reinforcing the statements. There is a very high risk of mythology taking over.

Okay, so if you've read this far, I would like to ask one question. Please only answer this question if you had a new bike and have done your first oil change early on (50 to 300 miles say) with synthetic oil (like Rotella T for example).

I can't imagine that I will be the first person in this forum to ever do this. But if it is the case, then I'll be sure to report to the forum members how it goes for my engine. All I'm asking for of course is anecdotal evidence which doesn't prove anything, but I still think it will be a start!

Thanks!

[kkim]

Originally Posted by Samer

I've been looking into a bunch of the forums for a while now to try to get at least some consensus about this issue of when to put synthetic oil on my new Ninja.

Here's what I've concluded (for myself) about this issue and a few others:

Due to a lack of clear, reliable, scientific, referenced, data on certain issues, from what I can find anyway, a flood of noise fills its place. One person, who I'm sure means well, puts up what looks to be a well thought out website which promises to give the end-all answer to a question and bring clarity to an issue. Many people praise it and when a new forum member inevitably asks the same question, someone quickly links to said webpage. Thus reinforcing the information.

For me this is extremely dangerous. Because there is no first hand information which is reinforcing the statements. There is a very high risk of mythology taking over.

Okay, so if you've read this far, I would like to ask one question. Please only answer this question if you had a new bike and have done your first oil change early on (50 to 300 miles say) with synthetic oil (like Rotella T for example).

I can't imagine that I will be the first person in this forum to ever do this. But if it is the case, then I'll be sure to report to the forum members how it goes for my engine. All I'm asking for of course is anecdotal evidence which doesn't prove anything, but I still think it will be a start!

Thanks!

lol... I don't see a question in your entire post.

what is it that youi're asking?

[Samer]

Originally Posted by kkim

lol... I don't see a question in your entire post.

what is it that youi're asking?

If you've done this, what has been your experience with the bikes performance. Just getting a response that someone has done it is already some information.

[kkim]

like I said... ask a question and you'll get an answer. I'm not sure what it is you're asking.

[bob706]

has anyone with a new bike switched to synthetic before reaching 300 miles?
No. Never. If you do this you will bring an age of darkness upon us all.

[Cedilla]

I switched at 4k miles, and would not even think about switching at 500mi, although im sure some have with no ill effects. I read somewhere, that the engine is not fully broke in until about 5k miles.

[rockNroll]

Originally Posted by Cedilla

I switched at 4k miles, and would not even think about switching at 500mi, although im sure some have with no ill effects. I read somewhere, that the engine is not fully broke in until about 5k miles.

Synthetic oil won't prevent "breaking in" at all, it's just expensive to use for the first few oil changes as most people don't put many miles on those oil changes.

I get my info from someone who has tested and designed oil tests for almost 30 years. When mobil 1 wants a formula independently tested, this is where they go.

[kkim]

Originally Posted by rockNroll

Synthetic oil won't prevent "breaking in" at all, it's just expensive to use for the first few oil changes as most people don't put many miles on those oil changes.

I get my info from someone who has tested and designed oil tests for almost 30 years. When mobil 1 wants a formula independently tested, this is where they go.

I'm not so sure about this. Explain why Honda (automobiles) say in their owner's manual not to change the oil in their new vehicles before the first scheduled 5k oil change so the engine can break in with their break in oil?

[Samer]

Originally Posted by kkim

like I said... ask a question and you'll get an answer. I'm not sure what it is you're asking.

No offense, but I think any reasonable person would agree that I have asked a question. Not saying you aren't reasonable, just that I don't understand what has hung you up. No need for you to reply since I take it the question doesn't apply to you.

Again to be 100% crystal clear, any sane person will agree that the following is a series of questions. So for the last time:

1) Did you buy a sportbike brand new from a dealer? If so, continue to section 2.

2) Did you change the oil to a synthetic at or before ~500 miles, despite the fact that some often referenced, yet highly questionable (by me at least) websites say it is very ill advised? If so, please go to section 3.

3) If you would, post your experience with the bike since this has been done.

If you still think I haven't asked a question, then I apologize and I quit

[kkim]

Yep, that leaves me out.

IIRC, I think Richard of Racebikerentals throws synthetic in his race bikes (or maybe it's only his personal bike) after a very short break in (less than 100 miles???). He could give you some great feedback as to how his bike(s) have fared.

Sorry, I've learned that to get the correct answers for what you're seeking, you need to ask the right questions to get an accurate answer for the information you seek. I just didn't get that from your original post.

No offense taken here, either.

[rockNroll]

Originally Posted by kkim

I'm not so sure about this. Explain why Honda (automobiles) say in their owner's manual not to change the oil in their new vehicles before the first scheduled 5k oil change so the engine can break in with their break in oil?

Of course you're not sure of this, you don't test oils for a living. As far as Honda goes, you'll hafta find out on your own cos I don't know anyone at Honda (though I do know a couple Honda technicians) nor do I intend to get wrapped up in another break-in/engine oil thread pissing match about it (read the thread title).

[adouglas]

It seems to me that what you're fishing for here is a horror story about problems that can be conclusively linked to the use of synthetic oil before X miles, thereby proving that you should not switch early on.

With all due respect, that is not going to happen.

First of all, unless you've got controlled conditions you can't link any difficulties to the choice of oil alone. A failure might be due to the owner loading the engine too heavily during break-in, modding it and cooking the valves, anything. You need to have a large data set with the only variable being the mileage at which the switch was made in order to get a meaningful result.

Second, it's almost impossible to prove a negative. Getting no indication of problems from a given data set is a result, but it actually proves nothing.

Say you get ten people to meet your narrow qualifications regarding who may and who may not answer. Say they all changed to synthetic at the exact same number of miles. (Those two items right there make this a real stretch.) Say they all state that they've had no problems.

You now know that ten people running the bike in an unknown manner under unknown environmental conditions and using unknown break-in techniques haven't had any problems. That's a long, long way from being a statistically significant answer from which you can draw conclusions.

So....

Why not just play it safe, put a few thousand miles on the bike using good-quality dino oil, then chuck some synthetic in it and stop worrying?

Kawasaki explicitly states that any oil which meets the ratings shown in the manual is adequate. Need not be synthetic, or even motorcycle-specific.

These aren't Formula 1 engines!

[Samer]

Thanks Kelly, Thanks Rock,

You're exactly right Rock, I definitely was not intending for this to be any kind of pissing contest, flame war, or whatever else you'd like to call it.

Ever watch the show "Millionaire"? well me either, but I did watch a few episodes when it first came out, with Regis as the host. I often thought that the "ask the audience" lifeline would be close to 100% accurate if only the people in the audience who knew the answer would vote. My point is, only one knowledgeable person is needed of all others are not guessing or using hearsay.

So what I was hoping for is not the rehash any opinions, but to get real world experience from people in this forum on one topic. If they happen to exist and have read this thread of course. It is a shot in the dark but worth a try anyway.

[Samer]

Originally Posted by adouglas

It seems to me that what you're fishing for here is a horror story about problems that can be conclusively linked to the use of synthetic oil before X miles, thereby proving that you should not switch early on.

With all due respect, that is not going to happen.

First of all, unless you've got controlled conditions you can't link any difficulties to the choice of oil alone. A failure might be due to the owner loading the engine too heavily during break-in, modding it and cooking the valves, anything. You need to have a large data set with the only variable being the mileage at which the switch was made in order to get a meaningful result.

Second, it's almost impossible to prove a negative. Getting no indication of problems from a given data set is a result, but it actually proves nothing.

Say you get ten people to meet your narrow qualifications regarding who may and who may not answer. Say they all changed to synthetic at the exact same number of miles. (Those two items right there make this a real stretch.) Say they all state that they've had no problems.

You now know that ten people running the bike in an unknown manner under unknown environmental conditions and using unknown break-in techniques haven't had any problems. That's a long, long way from being a statistically significant answer from which you can draw conclusions.

So....

Why not just play it safe, put a few thousand miles on the bike using good-quality dino oil, then chuck some synthetic in it and stop worrying?

Kawasaki explicitly states that any oil which meets the ratings shown in the manual is adequate. Need not be synthetic, or even motorcycle-specific.

These aren't Formula 1 engines!

Hey Andrew, I agree with you on many levels. Definitely, this is a minor issue. Maybe I don't have enough real problems so I focus on these mundane things, I don't know. But let's not get psychoanalytical here

However, I'm an engineer, Mechanical Engineer, but my expertise is in Aerodynamics, so unfortunately I don't have a clue about ring seals or break-in wear, etc. I only do airfoils Anyway, I won't drop the issue because I'm hard headed like that. I want to know the physics and the facts. Ideally it would be a peer-reviewed journal article about the issue.

You've discussed some possibilities, let me discuss one more:

Isn't is possible that the wait 2 or 3 K miles before Synthetic is BS?

Let's assume it is BS, but is a myth that people keep perpetuating. I know this to be an absolute fact for the vast majority of cars already. So how is a motorcycle piston ring different than that of a high revving supercar? Anway, that is for another thread. Please let's not go there!

Again, assuming it is BS, then people are waiting for no reason at all to use synthetic. Of course the engine works fine because either way it would have worked fine.

You said proving a negative is impossible. That is just not true. Every single drug that is approved for use in the US is tested for side effects. It's quite simple, they get two control groups, they give one a placebo and the other the drug and compare the rates of occurrence of whatever to each other. Then statistical analysis is used to determine if the differences are statistically significant or not.

I already stated that I would like anecdotal evidence which I already stated would prove nothing. Did you read that part? Again, I'm being friendly, it is hard to convey tone in a web forum. I appreciate all of the input

[adouglas]

I'm not an engineer. I just play one on TV...

Not trying to be difficult, just asking where the heck the emperor's clothes are in the spirit of open and honest debate. It seems to me you're asking a question that cannot yield useful information.

Originally Posted by Samer

I want to know the physics and the facts.

Do you seriously believe you're going to get that kind of information by asking an open question on a motorcycle forum? The only thing we all have in common around here is that we're interested enough in the Ninjette to yak about it. Some of us clearly have a certain degree of knowledge based on education. Some of us are dedicated enthusiasts who pay a lot of attention and do their best to promote what they believe to be accurate information. Some of us can barely spell.

In your OP you allude to the danger of believing self-proclaimed experts. But isn't that just what you're seeking here? What exactly makes you believe that what any of us says is any more valid that what you're going to find on the well-reasoned web sites you mention?

Any information you obtain here is worth exactly what you're paying for it. If you want expert information, ask an expert, not some random bunch of people on the net.

Originally Posted by Samer

Isn't is possible that the wait 2 or 3 K miles before Synthetic is BS?

Of course it is.

Originally Posted by Samer

Again, assuming it is BS, then people are waiting for no reason at all to use synthetic. Of course the engine works fine because either way it would have worked fine.

Right. So, what are you trying to establish here? Play it safe and your engine will run fine.

To get a valid answer that leads to anything but "the engine will run fine if you wait to switch" you need to run a controlled experiment with a large sample size.

Originally Posted by Samer

You said proving a negative is impossible. That is just not true. Every single drug that is approved for use in the US is tested for side effects.

Nobody I know died today. From this negative result may I conclude that none of us will die tomorrow? Of course not. This is the kind of faulty logic that leads to the myth that you can "prove" a hypothesis based on negative results.

The example you cite relies on rigorous methodology, large sample sizes and control groups. None of which you have access to by just asking the question here.

Even if you did, you'd have no absolute proof. All you'd is a high degree of confidence that your hypothesis (that waiting thousands of miles before switching is unnecessary) is correct. This is the essence of the scientific method, no?

There is also the matter of degree. To use your example again, no drug is PROVEN safe in every instance. All we know is that it's SAFE ENOUGH that the risk of using it acceptable, despite the extensive approval process.

Originally Posted by Samer

I already stated that I would like anecdotal evidence which I already stated would prove nothing.

So..... huh?

If you're proving nothing and you're getting only anecdotal information...

What will you know after this exercise that is in any way different from what you know right now?

What answer are you actually seeking?

My point is simply this: You're asking a specific question of people who fit a specific profile. Even in the best case, the responses are highly unlikely give you useful information for the reasons stated above.

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

Logic can be a tricky thing. You need to be truly rigorous and avoid relying on anecdotal evidence like that which you seek.

A funny thought experiment that you might appreciate as an engineer:

Observation: Airplanes fly.

Theory: Airplanes fly because they are lighter than air.

Known fact: Fuel is required for an airplane to fly.

Hypothesis: We know that fuel is lighter than water because it floats in water. We also know that clouds are made of water. We further know that clouds float in air.

Therefore, water is lighter than air, and by extension so is fuel.

There is nothing in the statements above that refutes this conclusion. Every one of them is true, so the conclusion must also be true (NOT!).

So, placing fuel in the tanks must make the airplane lighter than air.

Anecdotal "proof" that this is true: Go to any airport and look at the rows of small airplanes parked on the ramp. They're all tied down. Since we have established that fuel is lighter than air, this must be because if they weren't, they'd float away (since we know that you're supposed to park an airplane with full tanks to avoid condensation, so it's reasonable to assume they've got a full load of fuel). An airplane that isn't tied down can be assumed to have insufficient fuel in the tanks to offset the weight of the airframe.

[Samer]

Hey Andrew, I'm not trying to say that I have any special authority because I'm an engineer. I am seeking or was seeking anecdotal evidence. So what? Am I allowed to do that? If not, then please just ignore this post.

What being an engineer does qualify me for is logic. No offense, but I doubt you can teach me anything on logic. Again, I mean no disrespect. But nothing I have stated is incorrect on this thread.

In mathematics, there is rigorous proof. In the case of other things in the real world, we do studies and after many different studies that draw the same, repeatable conclusions, hopefully, we can agree to something.

For example, I believe that smoking causes cancer. If you don't that is fine for you. To me, it is "proven". It doesn't mean that I guarantee every smoker will get cancer. This is not mathematics, this is the real world.

Your airplane example proves nothing to me. Actually it is funny that you mention airplanes because most people have been taught in school a completely incorrect reasoning of why planes fly. If you want to know the real reason, you can PM me.

If you think I used logic incorrectly, please specify where.

[kkim]

lol... bet you never thought this thread would be going in this direction when you originally posted it, did you?

I love it how some threads take on a life of their own entirely different of what the OP intended.

[Samer]

Originally Posted by kkim

lol... bet you never thought this thread would be going in this direction when you originally posted it, did you?

I love it how some threads take on a life of their own entirely different of what the OP intended.

Yep, at lest the thread lived up to its title. So far, no takers. So I can already conclude that of the ~170 views to date, nobody fits these qualifications.

If nobody responds by the time this thread dies, then it suggests that maybe not too many people tried synthetic on a new Ninja 250, of the people in this forum.

[adouglas]

The airplane example was intended mostly to give you a chuckle...

And also to illustrate how it's possible to come up with an internally consistent argument that leads to a totally wrong conclusion through lack of rigor and incomplete information.

To make that silly illustration relevant to the oil question... Say I switch at 500 miles and I now have 1500 miles on the bike, and I'm starting to use a lot of oil. A superficial look at those two facts would lead you to conclude that the synthetic oil was the culprit. (Clouds are made of water and they float in the sky so water must therefore be lighter than air...)

But what if I then told you that I was flogging the bike horribly and lugging the engine routinely for the whole 1500 miles? Your conclusion would (or should) be different. You'd blame my horrible break-in habits, not the oil, and you'd be right to do so.

So, based on your methodology, I do indeed see some faulty logic in your quest, as worthy as it might be.

First, it is not logical to believe that you can draw any conclusion from negative-result, uncontrolled, unverified anecdotes. As an engineer surely you know the value of properly controlled testing. In your profession do you base your work on the kind of input you're asking for here, or do you do the calculations and base your efforts on hard data?

To put it more formally, IF there are reports of no problems with early switching AND there is no further information to put the report in context THEN it must always be okay to switch early... is not logically valid. Neither is the reverse...that problems reported in the absence of complete information can be linked to the oil.

Second, it is not logical to believe that information gained here will be any better than the "often referenced yet highly questionable" websites you refer to. Do you know my qualifications, or those of anyone who might answer your question? Do you even know if we're telling you the truth? What makes you think anything you read here is more than just a repetition of more questionable information?

Anecdotes are one thing. The underlying facts and science are quite another. If you want to know the facts (and I applaud you for seeking greater knowledge) then IMHO you really should go find some actual experts.

To put it more formally... IF the source of information is Ninjette THEN the information is more trustworthy than that found on other websites... is not logically valid.

I think it's great that you want to know more about this subject. I just think you're not asking the questions that will get you there, and you're not asking the right people.

It seems to me that to actually get to the bottom of your search you need to formulate your questions differently and start asking for real data instead of random anecdotes. How about this:

- What role does oil play in break-in, from an engineering standpoint?
- What specific characteristics does non-synthetic oil possess, versus synthetic oil, that make it better for break-in than synthetic oil?
- Is there any hard evidence from comparative tests done under controlled conditions to show that those characteristics do indeed make a difference when it comes to engine longevity or performance?

Get definitive answers to those questions, and then you'll really have something.

Oh, by the way... I am a pilot and was an aviation journalist for ten years. Yeah, I know the problems with the way Bernoulli is taught. Gave me fits as a kid.

[Samer]

Originally Posted by adouglas

The airplane example was intended mostly to give you a chuckle...

And also to illustrate how it's possible to come up with an internally consistent argument that leads to a totally wrong conclusion through lack of rigor and incomplete information.

To make that silly illustration relevant to the oil question... Say I switch at 500 miles and I now have 1500 miles on the bike, and I'm starting to use a lot of oil. A superficial look at those two facts would lead you to conclude that the synthetic oil was the culprit. (Clouds are made of water and they float in the sky so water must therefore be lighter than air...)

But what if I then told you that I was flogging the bike horribly and lugging the engine routinely for the whole 1500 miles? Your conclusion would (or should) be different. You'd blame my horrible break-in habits, not the oil, and you'd be right to do so.

So, based on your methodology, I do indeed see some faulty logic in your quest, as worthy as it might be.

First, it is not logical to believe that you can draw any conclusion from negative-result, uncontrolled, unverified anecdotes. As an engineer surely you know the value of properly controlled testing. In your profession do you base your work on the kind of input you're asking for here, or do you do the calculations and base your efforts on hard data?

To put it more formally, IF there are reports of no problems with early switching AND there is no further information to put the report in context THEN it must always be okay to switch early... is not logically valid. Neither is the reverse...that problems reported in the absence of complete information can be linked to the oil.

Second, it is not logical to believe that information gained here will be any better than the "often referenced yet highly questionable" websites you refer to. Do you know my qualifications, or those of anyone who might answer your question? Do you even know if we're telling you the truth? What makes you think anything you read here is more than just a repetition of more questionable information?

Anecdotes are one thing. The underlying facts and science are quite another. If you want to know the facts (and I applaud you for seeking greater knowledge) then IMHO you really should go find some actual experts.

To put it more formally... IF the source of information is Ninjette THEN the information is more trustworthy than that found on other websites... is not logically valid.

I think it's great that you want to know more about this subject. I just think you're not asking the questions that will get you there, and you're not asking the right people.

It seems to me that to actually get to the bottom of your search you need to formulate your questions differently and start asking for real data instead of random anecdotes. How about this:

- What role does oil play in break-in, from an engineering standpoint?
- What specific characteristics does non-synthetic oil possess, versus synthetic oil, that make it better for break-in than synthetic oil?
- Is there any hard evidence from comparative tests done under controlled conditions to show that those characteristics do indeed make a difference when it comes to engine longevity or performance?

Get definitive answers to those questions, and then you'll really have something.

Oh, by the way... I am a pilot and was an aviation journalist for ten years. Yeah, I know the problems with the way Bernoulli is taught. Gave me fits as a kid.

Okay, last response on this, I promise.

Please read my posts carefully. My very first post stated clearly that getting anecdotal evidence would prove nothing. I don't know how I could be more clear than that.

There is a huge difference between what I'd like to know and what I hoped to get from this post. What I simply asked for, sorry to repeat myself, is anecdotal evidence. Do you want to know why? It seems that that was a sticking point for you. So the reason is that I have a theory. One great thing about a forum like this is there are a lot of people in different situations but they all have the same bike, so it would be a good place to find trends and anecdotal evidence. That is the starting point for any study, a hypothesis. Of course I cannot go any further, I can't do an actual study, I know I can't conclude anything from it. Is that a crime? Just because it won't give me the ultimate goal in one shot doesn't make the effort worthless for me.

To answer your faulty logic claim. If I had all of the resources in the world, and I was actually carrying out a real study, your example would not pose a problem. The study, which would compose of two large sets of new bike owners chosen at random, and we would make one set change their oil at say 100 miles with synthetic and the other set change to synthetic at 3000 miles. Then we could agree on certain performance measures which we could compare at say 6000 miles. I'm making these numbers up but I'm trying to make a general point.

So the one guy you used as an example would be an outlier, assuming my original hypothesis was correct and so it wouldn't have any impact on the result of the study.

Just because you can think of other variables which can affect engine performance doesn't mean the study I am proposing is faulty. Far from it. I am not conducting a study on every single thing which could possibly affect engine performance, during break-in or otherwise. So as long as there are two large random samples then the impact of other factors should be similar between the two samples.

[Alex]

Whatever anyone believes going in for this issue is exactly what they'll continue to believe going out. It's why break-in threads and oil threads are destined to fail. You're asking the impossible, albeit reasonably articulately; yet you aren't realizing the impossibility of the request actually helping you come to a provably correct solution.

Change to synthetic now, don't change to synthetic now, it's terribly unlikely anything bad (or good) will happen either way.

[Samer]

Originally Posted by Alex

Whatever anyone believes going in for this issue is exactly what they'll continue to believe going out. It's why break-in threads and oil threads are destined to fail. You're asking the impossible, albeit reasonably articulately; yet you aren't realizing the impossibility of the request actually helping you come to a provably correct solution.

Change to synthetic now, don't change to synthetic now, it's terribly unlikely anything bad (or good) will happen either way.

I think you're absolutely right Alex.

I think Andrew, you probably originally missed the section in my first post when I said that I understand that this proves nothing. You have been trying to convince me that this anecdotal stuff proves nothing. So we are kind of going in circles. Let me put some statements out there that I think we can both agree with:

1) Anecdotal evidence proves nothing
2) In theory, a study could be done to determine if there is a statistical correlation between two things. This includes for example the fictional work;

"A Study of the Impact of Synthetic Oil on Kawasaki Ninja 250 Motorcycle Engines During Break-In"

Authors: Andrew and Samer

I like to think that I am willing to change my mind given new evidence or arguments. It has certainly happened before. And I hope others feel the same way, so maybe I'm not quite as pessimistic about these posts as Alex is Maybe I'm just naive.

[backinthesaddleagain]

some say syn oil should be avoided early on as it might cause rings to not seat properly. i don't know if its true or not. as someone stated owners manual doesn;t say not to use it. but i used golden spectro conventional as their products have never let me down. i have also seen test sheets that showed spectro broke down quicker than other oils. some also say motorcycle specific oils are a marketing ploy. again i don't know but their products have never let me down. lastly some say syn oil will cause clutch friction plates to eventually not grip well. i don't know.

as Alex stated what you believe going in is what you will believe going out. i say if you find an approach that works for you (be it break in method, oil philosophy, braking style) then stay with it.

[Reswob]

In my opinion if an engine needed to run synthetic oil, then the manufacturer of said engine would have supplied the vehicle with synthetic from the factory...

[karlosdajackal]

oil is oil, synthetic is more pure, dino has more crap in it, both are treated with additives to get them to a "good enough" state.

Don't they say you can easily turn Synthetic into dino, just take a 12 inch candle and melt it into a gallon of Synthetic oil, then add more additives to make the wax crap work better at different temperatures and effectively you have dino oil

You can use either/or interchangeably, so why do ninjas come with dino, and porsches come with synthetic? Ninjas are dirt cheap, dino oil is dirt cheap, and during its early life a ninja will have a fair amount of oil changes, so it makes no economic sense to put the most expensive oil in an engine just to switch it out again and again on a very cheap bike. Porsche's on the other hand are not cheap, so you may as well put what is considered a premium product in them, also if you do a hard break in on a porsche 911 (996 model) its considered very early if you change the oil for the first time at 3000miles. So your not going to be using a lot of that expensive mobil one product. But if you can afford a porsche to begin with......

My bike is coming up to 450 miles, it gets whatever oil the dealer puts in it as that's part of the 2 year warranty. If I bought 2nd hand and didn't have to comply to warranty terms I'd put in synthetic, only because its a simpler product with less ingredients to make it do the job its supposed to do. Less potential for one of those ingredients to be bad, and its doesn't break down as quickly so it should last longer (negating some of the additional cost)

So you have some proven facts and figures to go with, 1000's of ninjas sold with dino oil, 1000's of reliable ninjas out there. 1000's of porsches sold with synt, 1000's of reliable Porsches out there. Like was stated before, manufactures don't usually state the make up of the oil, just the performance characteristics it should have. So arguing about which is best is not to far removed from arguing which color is better red or green

Its a solution looking for problem

[NaughtyusMaximus]

My anecdotal evidence: I did an oil change to dyno at 500Km, and then again at 1000Km. Switched to Synth at 2500Km. At 8000Km, the bike still runs well.

...That settles it, right?

[Samer]

Originally Posted by NaughtyusMaximus

My anecdotal evidence: I did an oil change to dyno at 500Km, and then again at 1000Km. Switched to Synth at 2500Km. At 8000Km, the bike still runs well.

...That settles it, right?

YES. Thank you. I can sleep easy tonight.

Actually, I don't know why I didn't do this before. I check journal articles routinely for work (gas turbines), but I didn't think to do a simple google check on this topic for journal articles in the automotive industry.

A quick search yielded this very interesting article from University of Michigan. Doesn't answer my specific question, but I learned something for sure:

me.engin.umich.edu/autolab/Publications/Adobe/P2008_01.PDF

[adouglas]

Excellent. I love real data.

(Side note... in my career as an aviation journalist I developed a healthy skepticism regarding anecdote and opinion, which is why I'm so adamant that you can't rely on word of mouth for much of anything. I've seen too many snipe hunts and red herrings.)

Now... the next step is obviously to determine whether the reduced friction that synthetic provides (according to this study) has an adverse effect on break-in. As an engineer, what do you think? I defer to your judgment because you are in fact a trained professional with experience in materials science, while most of us are not.

Speaking of anecdote... here's mine for what it's worth. I bought my bike with less than 1200 miles on it at the end of July. It had a documented oil change at about 600 miles and was probably ridden pretty much in accordance with the manual recommendations up until I bought it (i.e. very low RPM). I have not taken any particular precautions, other than taking care to avoid high load/lugging conditions.

I did an oil change at about 1950 miles and used ordinary Castrol GTX 10-40 auto oil, which meets Kawasaki service specs. Soon after that I took a very long trip over the course of two weeks, which means long stretches of easy load.

I've ridden the bike responsibly but have not babied it. I've had it up to 85-90 mph, and over 10,000 rpm, but have not made a habit of riding that fast.

I did my second oil change this past Sunday, at 5100 miles, immediately before parking the bike for the winter. Once again I used Castrol GTX.

I noticed that the oil had something of a pearly appearance to it, which I assume was caused by metal particles that are the result of continued break-in. I did not examine the oil closely nor did I take a sample to test.

The bike runs flawlessly so far and gets decent gas mileage, generally between 55 and 70 mpg depending on how I ride.

I have not noted any usage of oil.

I have not noted any smoke or oil smell.

I have not yet switched to synthetic.

When I put fresh oil in it next spring, I'm going to go with Castrol semi-synthetic motorcycle-specific oil, simply because it happened to be on sale the last time I was at the local Cycle Gear store. I had no reason other than the sale price and mild brand loyalty to choose that particular oil.

After that I'll probably start using Mobil 1 motorcycle oil because a) based on what I've read synthetic does offer advantages and b) I own some ExxonMobil stock and it makes sense for me to support the company.

Hope this helps.