Hello lads . I ride a 1964 Meridon Tiger100 ss, and a1965 Royal Enfield 250 Crusader Sports. Has anyone ever used an oil additive in the engine to reduce wear, and what is their opinion as a result.
Alan Atkinson Yes i use it in all my bikes gives me peace of mind. Don't know if it helps or not but won't change now. Welcome to the family by the way. Do hit the upload a file button and show the inmates the steed. Joe
Personally I never leave the house without dousing myself in tiger repellant. It's expensive but I've never been bothered by a tiger in all time I've used it. So it must work.
Pure snake oil. If it was so good why don’t the lubricant manufacturers include it in their products? Well they kind of do. Their formulations already do everything STP etc., claim to ‘improve’. Bikes of your vintage just need quality gloop of a traditional kind like Castrol Classic 20w/50.
Wow, this is one enormous can of worms you're opening. Additives have been around for years, some of them making some pretty incredible performance claims. Oil manufacturers will never recommend mixing anything with their products for obvious reasons. IMO it comes down to the individual, read the label and make tour choice. Personally, the only time I have used additives is on engine rebuilds with an equal parts mixture of engine oil/STP/Molyslip during assembly to prelube the bearing surfaces during the crucial first few seconds of startup. JMO
Something to shine a little more light on the subject. https://www.amsoil.com/newsstand/classic-and-vintage/articles/reduced-zddp-and-wear-protection/
Thanks boys for the replies. My problem is my Crusader Sports big end. The journel is cast in one piece with the flywheels, therefore it has shell inserts. The shells break down between 10- 12 thousand miles. My first Crusader, which I bought brand new in 1962 had the same problem. Also my pals who rode this model at the time said. "Crusaders all do that". From this l can only conclude that it is an inherant fault in the bike. The oil feed to big end is through the crankshaft under pressure. Via a quill at the shaft end. The feed hole is .125" dia. I consider this to small as the stroke is 64mm and therefore revs higher per mile of road travelled. I can open up the feed holes from .125" to .141" which would give me 11% more area of feed. I thought an oil additve might help. I know this is not a Triumph problem they have their own. If anyone can help in anyway with this one. As it is a mechanical problem as usually comes down to basic logic. Thanks boys. AL.
getting back to the addiitve question... I worry that using an oil additive in the wet clutch Hinckley Triumphs would be a good move or a harmful one .... I don't know enough about the use of additives so I leave well alone... what a chicken I am 8)
Alan Atkinson Great idea if you can supply more oil and worth doing. Also check with the engineering shops like SRM see if they do a needle roller conversion job for almost eternity then. And don't worry about the bike on here we are all enthusiasts and love bikes it is in our blood and to help a brother is rewarding. As to additives never just pour them into the engine. I pour in a quarter of the oil first then thoroughly and add. Joe.
If you have an engine with a design flaw as the OP is suggesting then no additive is going to fix that IMO. A needle roller bearing conversion certainly would be a permanent fix at the expense of a slightly noisier bottom end. NRB's can survive on an oil mist instead of positive lubrication, hence their use in many 2 strokes. The early Z1 based Kawasaki engines had them and they had legendary reliability even when tuned to 2-3 times standard power.
Hi Al and welcome to the forum Best of luck with your purchase, it will help reduce your mileage on the others
