2016: oil thread new data

Who is the best person to rebuild your engine? You...

Moderator: sparkmaster1

Post Reply
User avatar
Piledriver
Moderator
Posts: 21716
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 3:01 am
Location: Van Alstyne, Texas

2016: oil thread new data

Post by Piledriver » Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:05 am

Stumbled across some very interesting test results while researching a response on TOS, needs to be seen.
It makes a great deal of sense, and seems to hold water.

Note that with automotive oil, formulations (largely) change at the manufacturers whim, commercial (Diesel) oil costs real money to change anything and recertify. (~$500K+)

MOST of the oils we swear by fare mediocre to poor in this testing.
One of the oils I swear AT did well, but there was always something not quite fully explained with the testing done previously.

I will be swapping to the 5W30 near the top of the list with a new Mobil1 filter this weekend, regardless of ZDDP content.
This probably isn't the end of it.
https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... t-ranking/
I, for one, regularly embrace our new robot overlords, as I am the guy fixing the robots...

Bruce.m
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 3:44 pm

Re: 2016: oil thread new data

Post by Bruce.m » Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:25 pm

VR1 still fares well.

Although further down the list, the PSI number is not significantly lower, IMHO

User avatar
andy198712
Posts: 1596
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: 2016: oil thread new data

Post by andy198712 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:25 am

Interesting.... A good argument for 30mm pumps and nice thin oil too.

I run a millers competition oil as I'm in the uk which is a little behind their nano oil so I'm happy.
Tempted to switch to the nano oil but then I doubt I'd notice the change and I've ran millers break in oil then the competition oil and it's working well.

Funny, I run 10/50w but switched to 10/60 for a period to get desired hot idle pressure, now I know that was a bit pointless.

Cheers for sharing

User avatar
Marc
Moderator
Posts: 23721
Joined: Thu May 23, 2002 2:01 am
Contact:

Re: 2016: oil thread new data

Post by Marc » Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:01 pm

That Oil Extreme Additive goes for $18 for a 6 oz bottle; even at half of the "racing" dosage which gave such impressive results with many oils that were tested, that's raising your price per quart by $3. There's also the concern about compatibility issues with the calcium, same as for Prolong's chlorine, with the oil manufacturer's additive package - so irrespective of these test results I'd be leery of using it without the endorsement of the base oil's maker.

The VR1 looks like a good value to me too. Not at all hard to find, either.

Big pumps w/thin oil? Perhaps, but I wouldn't go there if hot-idle pressure is of major concern. Generally speaking the clearances are tighter in the smaller pumps in my experience, and that's what's needed for good pressure at low speed.

User avatar
Piledriver
Moderator
Posts: 21716
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 3:01 am
Location: Van Alstyne, Texas

Re: 2016: oil thread new data

Post by Piledriver » Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:50 pm

I suspect the real culprit in most "low hot oil pressure" situations are the loose fitting oil pumps sold today.
If they are easy to slide in the case, it's wrong.
...Should be a minimum .002" interference fit, and that is pushing it, spec is ~.003-.005" (from memory).

Oringed pumps help, but really must be installed with the case split so as not to cut the orings.
I'm running one of the dreaded Mellings cast iron jobs (intentionally), dual orings (inner and at flange) so zero leaks, and pressure balance grooves like on a SBC but to reduce the pressure spikes.(usually done to reduce timing jitter as the distributor is driven off the pump on SBC etc)
Its also only 28mm.

If you have a big pump (26mm or larger), don't be terribly surprised if your hot oil pressure is better with a 5W-30 vs 20-50 or thicker, simply due to how the stock oil cooler thermostat works.

I picked up a 5 qt jug of the ~top scoring 5W-30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability ($22) and a K&N filter (same spec as Mobil1, but stocked by Wally World) for my next oil change.

The Prolong and the other additive are a nice teaser, but with high engine temps, an aluminum case and main bearings chlorine compounds are probably a Very Bad Idea.(Prolong)

The other additive is what is used as a base in some great greases (CAT Desert Gold), but note it made things worse in ~as many cases as it helped, depending on the base oils existing additive package.

If I really wanted that I'd be inclined to just buy their pre-mixed oil, to avoid compatibility issues. Probably cheaper anyway.
I, for one, regularly embrace our new robot overlords, as I am the guy fixing the robots...

User avatar
Tony Z
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2000 2:01 am
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Re: 2016: oil thread new data

Post by Tony Z » Sun Nov 06, 2016 1:20 pm

I had a oil analysis done on an oil that we use at work in Jan 2016.
Shell Rimula R4 X 15w40
ZDDP levels are 1250ppm
I've got the analysis in pdf form. Maybe someone here can post it to the forum?

User avatar
Dan Dryden
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:56 am
Location: Kent, England

Re: 2016: oil thread new data

Post by Dan Dryden » Mon Feb 06, 2017 7:28 am

Piledriver wrote:Stumbled across some very interesting test results while researching a response on TOS, needs to be seen.
It makes a great deal of sense, and seems to hold water.

Note that with automotive oil, formulations (largely) change at the manufacturers whim, commercial (Diesel) oil costs real money to change anything and recertify. (~$500K+)

MOST of the oils we swear by fare mediocre to poor in this testing.
One of the oils I swear AT did well, but there was always something not quite fully explained with the testing done previously.

I will be swapping to the 5W30 near the top of the list with a new Mobil1 filter this weekend, regardless of ZDDP content.
This probably isn't the end of it.
https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... t-ranking/
Hey Pile,

I think I've been barking up the wrong tree for a long while!
Having read the blog and the authors results, I think I'm going to give Mobil 1 5w 30 a go.
I've been running 20w 50 and even 10w 60 in an effort to address high oil temperatures and low idle oil pressure.
The pressure could be down to my aftermarket Schadeck pump, but the temps are probably a result of the way the relief system works.
Have you noticed any difference since switching the oil in your motor?

User avatar
Piledriver
Moderator
Posts: 21716
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 3:01 am
Location: Van Alstyne, Texas

Re: 2016: oil thread new data

Post by Piledriver » Mon Feb 06, 2017 12:16 pm

No, about the same, but I switched from Rotella T6 5W-40, so not a huge viscosity change.
Still running dual springs on a web73.

Have been running the QS ultimate 10w-30 for about 4K so far.

I did a test ages ago switching from gtx 20-50 to 10-30 on a well worn stock motor, oil temps went down//hot idle pressure went up with the thinner oil.

Still not a definitive test, I'd probably still use something with 1250-1400 ppm zinc for break-in, as GTX shows up ~high on that list and I wasted 2 cams breaking in on that.

I would grab something towards the top of that list tho.
I, for one, regularly embrace our new robot overlords, as I am the guy fixing the robots...

machineshopjohn
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:29 am

Re: 2016: oil thread new data

Post by machineshopjohn » Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:14 am

you did know that any oils with the API sticker on it that says sm or sn has been reduced to lower zink and phros this was done by the oil companies to conform to the newer engines and not to ruin the oxygen sensor and contaminate the catalytic convertor..

also there is some controversy on the was 540rat is doing his oil testing

User avatar
Piledriver
Moderator
Posts: 21716
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 3:01 am
Location: Van Alstyne, Texas

Re: 2016: oil thread new data

Post by Piledriver » Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:23 am

machineshopjohn wrote:you did know that any oils with the API sticker on it that says sm or sn has been reduced to lower zink and phros this was done by the oil companies to conform to the newer engines and not to ruin the oxygen sensor and contaminate the catalytic convertor..

also there is some controversy on the was 540rat is doing his oil testing
This has been beaten to death, but I'll play again.

1: Partially true Old Mechanics tale.
That Sn/SM=800ppm zinc is ONLY required for fuel-efficient oils carrying the API "starburst".
SN actually raised the bar a little.

Heavy duty oils (xw-40 or higher) can be sm or sn with any amount of ZDDP they like.
Same if you call it a "heavy duty oil", at any weight, as long as the API starburst is MIA.

You would think Castrol would have done GTX "Heavy Duty" oil right, but they switched to 800ppm, even though they didn't need to, and it contributed to eating quite a few cams/lifters. To get decent levels of zddp you have to buy Castrols high end $$ synthetic oils, at least in the US. They still owe me two engines.

2) As to 540RAT I am still curious what his test setup is, as his findings on certain oils run very counter to some other very well done testing, but I suspect there is truly much more to it than ZDDP %. He seems to have done a thorough job.
I, for one, regularly embrace our new robot overlords, as I am the guy fixing the robots...

machineshopjohn
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:29 am

Re: 2016: oil thread new data

Post by machineshopjohn » Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:51 pm

this is a shorter version and more informative

[Editor’s Note: After the conversation following our introduction of the Hemmings Motor News Motor Oil last month, we turned to our tech guru, Jim O’Clair, for an explanation of the problems classic car owners have when choosing a modern motor oil.]

There has been a lot of confusion in the last few years about the lowering of zinc and phosphorus levels in modern oils and how these lower levels relate to classic and performance engines using standard flat tappet lifters – that is, just about every car built before the Eighties. The concern involves the use of the new lower zinc/phosphorus-content ILSAC (multi-viscosity) oils, readily available on shelves at auto parts stores everywhere, and how compatible they are with these older engines.

When anyone mentions zinc, they are actually referring to zinc dialkyldithiophosphate, a compound invented by Castrol for use in mineral-based oils or zinc di-thiophosphate (ZDTP), which is normally used in synthetic oils. Both have been used as an anti-wear ingredient in engine oil for many years. The zinc and phosphorus ingredients appear to be most effective when they are used together. ZDDP/ZDTP is one of many additives that are put into conventional motor oil to improve its lubrication qualities. Other ingredients such as boron and molybdenum are also added as lubricant enhancers.

What was discovered through oil testing by several engine component manufacturers is that many older engines experience a short period of time during engine start-up where critical lubrication is insufficient between metal-to-metal lubrication points when using modern oils with reduced amounts of ZDDP/ZDTP. These same enhancers unfortunately have their downside: The phosphorus in this compound creates carbon buildup in engine bores and valvetrains, and both compounds can also lead to the early demise of catalytic converters. For this reason, the industry has been phasing out zinc and phosphorus levels since 1994, when the American Petroleum Institute’s SH designation became the industry standard, and levels have been further reduced in each subsequent API rating for engine oils. Manufacturers have tried adding more boron to offset the effects of the reduced zinc and phosphorus levels; however, the dry start protection does not measure up to those using more ZDDP/ZDTP. This has opened up a whole new market for zinc/phosphorus additives for oil and many camshaft and engine manufacturers now recommend that an additive be used in initial break-in and for regular use.

All engine oils are rated for viscosity by the SAE as well as additive content by the API; passenger car ratings are two-letter designations that start with “S.” Heavy-duty or off-road equipment ratings start with “C.” The current API oil rating for passenger cars (gasoline engines) is SM and for trucks (diesel engines) CJ-4. Within these designations, you can determine how much zinc and how many other chemicals are present in the ILSAC (multi-viscosity) oils. These levels do not apply to straight-weight oils. If levels in the ILSAC oils are too high for the API specification, they cannot be rated for the current specification unless the container specifies “for racing or off-road use only” or “for use in classic cars.” This has caused oil companies to reduce levels of many additives, including zinc and phosphorus, to the required maximum in order to meet the current specification. Listed here are the current specifications for maximum amounts of additives to achieve the API ratings. P is phosphorus, Zn is zinc, and B is boron. Each figure is total parts per million of additives. These can also be roughly expressed in percentages by multiplying by .0001 (1301 PPM = .13 percent, 994 PPM = .099 percent)

API P Zn B
SJ 1301 1280 151
CI-4 1150 1374 83
SL 994 1182 133
CJ-4 819 1014 26
SM 770 939 127
Most engine and engine component manufacturers recommend zinc and phosphorus content of more than 1,200 PPM for break-in; in fact, many will void warranties on camshafts or crate engines if this minimum is not found in the oil sample you supply when returning broken parts for warranty. For this reason, many manufacturers produce their own zinc additives or oils with supplementary zinc included; GM even offers its own break-in oil with additional ZDDP. With respect to readily available oil, you can see from the chart that, if you can find oil still on the shelf rated SJ or SL, you can use them, but you are right on the cusp of voiding a warranty. New SM oils are just not going to cut it unless they have a zinc additive to boost the rating and one of the zinc supplements should be used with these oils or oils containing additional ZDDP additives are recommended. Some enthusiasts have recommended using commercially rated CI-4 15W40 diesel oil to meet the zinc and phosphorus additive requirement; however, CI-4 is an old specification and hard to locate. You can see that the CJ-4 specification that now supersedes it is well below acceptable levels. Our best recommendation is that you contact your oil supplier for exact additive contents. Many straight-weight oils do not have to meet the ILSAC API specifications to be sold as SM or CJ-4, so this may be an alternative. Classic car oils with elevated levels of ZDDP/ZDTP are also being offered by many suppliers. Regardless, if you are purchasing off-the-shelf oil for your classic car, ILSAC multi-viscosity oils rated SM or CJ-4 should have stated zinc and phosphorus additive supplements for use in older engines or an additional separate additive should be purchased and used with the new oil. As the new API rating SN becomes available in the next year, even more caution should be taken as the levels will be reduced even further.


181 Comments | Leave a Reply

machineshopjohn
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:29 am

Re: 2016: oil thread new data

Post by machineshopjohn » Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:54 pm

deleted
Last edited by machineshopjohn on Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

machineshopjohn
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:29 am

Re: 2016: oil thread new data

Post by machineshopjohn » Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:11 am

I read though about 20 pages or so and nowhere found that 40 plus weigh oil has the extra zink in it...
it does say in the second paragraph that straight weigh oil can contain more zink in them and cannot be rated with an api sticker.. which means that it is not really legal to use in computer controlled cars..

Plus I'll bet its pretty hard to find in stores for sale

VW's are not the only cars with flat tappet or sliding follower cams 22r toyota engine have them and even chevy has flat tappet cam in some of their engines up though the middle 90's..

most oils you can find the msds sheet on them and it will sometimes tell the ppm of zink .phos in the oil but the best I can say is that after repairing a bunch of engines that had camshaft lobe problems is that using a good brand of oil and adding the additive is the best way to go..

User avatar
Piledriver
Moderator
Posts: 21716
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 3:01 am
Location: Van Alstyne, Texas

Re: 2016: oil thread new data

Post by Piledriver » Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:52 am

If you still want to believe ZDDP is the cure for everything, you can find oils with sufficient zinc at any Walmart, if you read ~any of the zddp related posts on these or many other forums.
My favorite has been Rotella T6 5W-40, generally tests out at ~1250 ppm zinc. Mobil1 turbo-diesel-truck about the same as Rotella T6. Valvoline VR1 runs a little higher (~1400 ppm) and can be had in dino or fully synthetic flavors, and can be had in any auto parts chain store, just not Walmart.
Note these oils are all "heavy duty" and are all API SM or SN rated.

The 40+ weight oil CAN have extra zinc and still be SM/SN, it doesn't have to. See GTX,
None of those oils did particularly well in the extreme wear testing done by 540RAT.

For better or worse, if you actually read the article posted in the original post in this thread, that ZDDP is NOT the end of the story... and has been replaced with far more effective additive packages. Note than no oils have completely removed ZDDP and friends, just reduced their content. It is consumed gradually, a huge % up front doesn't help much.

Also note that several common zddp additives essentially destroyed several tested oils anti-wear performance.
I, for one, regularly embrace our new robot overlords, as I am the guy fixing the robots...

Post Reply