I don't use grease much, but I do a few places on my bicycle, (bearings and internal gear hubs). I have turned to oil when possible, there's noticeably less resistance and everything shifts better. I have noticed the same with my 201K, so I oil the meshing gears, it's belt driven so there's no worm gear or potted motor. I like Finish Line Ceramic Wet Lube, it's the only bottle I have bought over and over in their brand. It's classified as a syntetic oil but of petroleum origin. I keep a bottle of TriFlow too, it's nice and smooth. I'm side tracking; I couldn't find any other grease than triflow on Sewclassic, no own brand stuff?

The gears need grease because the oil flings off of them leaving them unprotected. The general rule for anything high speed rotating or reciprocating - is oil every 8 hours. The gears though, I think would need it sooner than that because of the cross cut gears meshing together and squishing things out. My 201HC is greased (as is my potted motored one) and all I can hear when I crank is the hand crank.

From what you're saying then Tri-Flow isn't a direct comparison for Finish line then. On the TF bottle at least, there's no mention of synthetic.

Right. 2 other vendors are selling their own formula for grease and state that you shouldn't ever use PJ.
Sew-Classic doesn't sell her own brand and on the link I posted above that links to her Tri-flow grease page - it states that you should not use TF Grease in the motors, only PJ.

Oh, I see, I was a bit slow the PJ part, abbreviations have really caught on!

I keep an eye on the gears and I swear, the Finish Line Ceramic Wet stuff sticks well to the metal. I oil frequentily everywhere, two drops on the gears. When I have taken of those black caps covering the two gears underneath they are well coatet in oil, I assume I reach them by the oil points. The manual for my 201K, which I assume is the original, calls for oil, I really can't be way off? My machine has the motor sound when running, but still, I think it runs better on oil. I have greased them with best telfon grease, but I ended up cleaning it off and since I have only used oil.

I have several owners manuals for I believe White and White made Kenmores that actually states to use petroleum jelly in the motor lube pots. So that is what I use in those machines and it works quite well.

For Singers I use Singer motor lube in a variety of vintage tubes. I've amassed quite a few. No two look the same as they come out the tube, but they work.

I haven't bought any of the newly made replica stuff yet, so I don't know how it works. And I've not used any PJ in my Singers as of yet. However I fail to see why it would not work as the Singer motors work on the same principle as the White motors.

When I rewired my first 15-91 I used Singer motor lube as the lube pots lube both the gears and the motor shaft bearings. That has worked well.

Somewhere back a couple years ago someone, perhaps here on the QB, did a test where they melted Singer motor lube, PG and IIRC Tri-Flow grease and measured the temp when it started to melt. The temp for this test was, again IIRC, 115 degrees for the Singer grease and PJ. The Tri-Flow of course never melted.

I do not know much about greases other than what I used in automotive applications. Sometimes, like in drum break type wheel bearings you need a grease that will soften up with heat and flow back onto the bearings. With disk breaks that run far hotter you need a more heat resistant grease that will not melt at as low a temperature.

I think sewing machine motors are more like the drum break bearings than the disk breaks. The temp is lower and needs grease that will soften up at a lower temp.. Hense the PJ as stated in the old White manuals or the grease Singer sold.

I do wish we could find a readily available source of grease that was the same as the Singer grease. It would sure make matters simpler.

Joe

Well, I looked in both the owner's manual I have here and in the service manual. They both say oil, so I'd say keep on with it. I've always used grease but that might be because my first machine was a featherweight (sort of) and that's where I learned G for G - Grease for Gears and it was reinforced through other sources. If the 201 manuals specifies oil, it should be fine as long as you keep an eye on it.

For what it's worth, Joe - I agree with you. I think that a lot of the "PJ BAD!!!!" information is FUD. Properly used - there should be no risk with it. i.e. there's not enough put into the grease pots/tubes without seriously forcing it in there to flow as far as the commutator - causing smoke, glazing, etc. A properly adjusted belt should eliminate the issue of excessive heat that leads to over melting as well. If it were put in the brush tubes - as we've all seen and heard about - of course there will be damage - Singer Lube and the other products would do the same.

I can't seem to use the old lead tubes without them bursting at the seams lately, which is what prompted this thread. I'm tired of the cleanup every single time and I've decided to just start using something else. That's when I did that test (the new scientific way - you know, with a result in mind and the testing to prove it. ;)) and then was shocked by how late the original lube started to melt.

Mickey2 and I were discussing the same thing - the motor shaft shouldn't ever get so hot as to melt a grease that melts at 300F or more. If it does, something has already gone very very wrong. So, a low melting point is needed - that seems an argument for the PJ again. I've heard/read the same things about the Singer Lube and PJ being the same - spread rate and melting points. I suspect there was an additive in the Singer lube to make it look different. That said, according to a video on the lubes from one of the companies I mentioned above with their own formula (who notably doesn't test or mention PJ in the video) - the UK and US formulas have different melting points. That may mean I tested the US version which is why I got a different result than I was expecting.

Technically there is a source for something that's claimed to be functionally identical - you'll have to pay the premium price though. My goal was to find something readily available at, near or below the price of the original.

Here's what I'm thinking:

• According to older tests, PJ and original lube were functionally identical for melting and spread rate.
• According to the test I did on Friday, PJ, and both of the lubes I have in the pink and red tubes (one of which is still available) melted -below- the temperature at which my (assumed) US tube of lube melted.
• I think that at this point, we know that the "new" singer lube is not synthetic - or if it is, it's formulated to melt at an appropriate temperature when compared with the US tube of original lube - I didn't like seeing the "old" one percolate and boil though - perhaps this is what they meant when they were having trouble with "cold weather" - I wonder if some of the batches were freezing leading to a permanent change to the lube.

As far as I'm concerned, I will use the new Singer lube (with tests to new batches as they come in) until it's no longer available - I also have an email in to the supplier to ask the manufacturer if it's still suitable for use in the motors. In a pinch, I will use Petroleum Jelly and when the Singer Lube is no longer available (or the formula changes to be unsuitable) - I will switch to PJ exclusively.

In the days of cast iron machines, motor lube was probably either along the lines of petroleum jelly or a purified petroleum derived oil emulsified and thickened with soap (made from lye and oil). They should still be available.

As far as the Singer lube goes, there is at least two versions made in recent years. The old style amber, clearish, and kind of grungy looking lube and the white stuff.

The white grease is from that I've read meant for the plastic gears used on modern machines. Weather it will work in motors or not I have no idea at all. I've not tried it in the motors and don't intend to.

Joe

If you look at the original pics I posted- neither is the white stuff. I can't even get my hands on that stuff - my supplier and their supplier has no idea what it is. The only lube I've tested and will use is the stuff I showed. That said, I would test the white and IF it tested ok, I'd use it. I think it might be the white that left the residue on the test video though - which means I wouldn't use it.

I'd believe either of those possibilities. The old stuff has a feeling slightly different than straight PT, but behaves the same. In theory, saponizing wouldn't have to change melt point, or spread rate.

Tammi,

I got the one tube of White stuff from JoAnn fabric in IL several years ago. I haven't purchased any new stuff since.
I'll grab another tube next time I see some to see what's in it.

I'm wondering if the white stuff wasn't perhaps just a different lot of product or some from another manufacturer.

Joe