need more zinc in your oil? read this

For those of you that do not know what the (W) stands in 20w50 it is not for the weight of the oil it stands for winter grade.

 

That is an interesting article.

 

ZDDP vs. Molybdenum carbamate (not MOSO2) --was curious if anyone has used this particular product. It appears to have been around for at least 7 years but I myself have no experience with it. I probably should be asking the Mopar guys but some here may have used it. Info is available at www.hughesengines.com - just curious - oil change treatment is about the same money as ZDDPlus. Jay

 

Is this on the market yet? Is there a 'special' container it comes in or is it the standard continer?

 

www.masterlube.net

www.gulfcoastfilters.com

Prelube and add extra capacity of oil and never change it again

 

Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths (fig. 1). Here are some facts you may want to pass along to customers to help debunk the fiction behind these myths.



The Pennsylvania Crude Myth -- This myth is based on a misapplication of truth. In 1859, the first commercially successful oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania (fig. 2).
A myth got started before World War II claiming that the only good oils were those made from pure Pennsylvania crude oil. At the time, only minimal refining was used to make engine oil from crude oil. Under these refining conditions, Pennsylvania crude oil made better engine oil than Texas crude or California crude. Today, with modern refining methods, almost any crude can be made into good engine oil.

______________________________________________________

----not my article, but very good info I thought I would share.
____________________________________________________


Other engine oil myths are based on the notion that the new and the unfamiliar are somehow "bad."

The Detergent Oil Myth -- The next myth to appear is that modern detergent engine oils
are bad for older engines. This one got started after World War II, when the government no longer needed all of the available detergent oil for the war effort, and detergent oil hit the market as “heavy-duty” oil.

Many pre-war cars had been driven way past their normal life, their engines were full of sludge and deposits, and the piston rings were completely worn out. Massive piston deposits were the only thing standing between merely high oil consumption and horrendous oil consumption. After a thorough purge by the new detergent oil, increased oil consumption was a possible consequence.

If detergent oils had been available to the public during the war, preventing the massive deposit buildup from occurring in the first place, this myth never would have started. Amazingly, there are still a few people today, 60 years later, who believe that they need to use non-detergent oil in their older cars. Apparently, it takes many years for an oil myth to die.

The Synthetic Oil Myth -- Then there is the myth that new engine break-in will not occur with synthetic oils. This one was apparently started by an aircraft engine manufacturer who put out a bulletin that said so. The fact is that Mobil 1 synthetic oil has been the factory-fill for many thousands of engines. Clearly, they have broken in quite well, and that should put this one to rest.

The Starburst Oil Myth -- The latest myth promoted by the antique and collector car press says that new Starburst/ API SM engine oils (called Starburst for the shape of the symbol on the container) (fig. 3 and 4) are bad for older engines because the amount of anti-wear additive in them has been reduced. The anti-wear additive being discussed is zinc dithiophosphate (ZDP).






Before debunking this myth, we need to look at the history of ZDP usage. For over 60 years, ZDP has been used as an additive in engine oils to provide wear protection and oxidation stability.

ZDP was first added to engine oil to control copper/lead bearing corrosion. Oils with a phosphorus level in the 0.03% range passed a corrosion test introduced in 1942.

In the mid-1950s, when the use of high-lift camshafts increased the potential for scuffing and wear, the phosphorus level contributed by ZDP was increased to the 0.08% range.

In addition, the industry developed a battery of oil tests (called sequences), two of which were valve-train scuffing and wear tests.

A higher level of ZDP was good for flat-tappet valve-train scuffing and wear, but it turned out that more was not better. Although break-in scuffing was reduced by using more phosphorus, longer-term wear increased when phosphorus rose above 0.14%. And, at about 0.20% phosphorus, the ZDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.

By the 1970s, increased antioxidancy was needed to protect the oil in high-load engines, which otherwise could thicken to a point where the engine could no longer pump it. Because ZDP was an inexpensive and effective antioxidant, it was used to place the phosphorus level in the 0.10% range.

However, phosphorus is a poison for exhaust catalysts. So, ZDP levels have been reduced over the last 10-15 years. It's now down to a maximum of 0.08% for Starburst oils. This was supported by the introduction of modern ashless antioxidants that contain no phosphorus.

Enough history. Let's get back to the myth that Starburst oils are no good for older engines. The argument put forth is that while these oils work perfectly well in modern, gasoline engines equipped with roller camshafts, they will cause catastrophic wear in older engines equipped with flat-tappet camshafts.

The facts say otherwise.

Backward compatability was of great importance when the Starburst oil standards were developed by a group of experts from the OEMs, oil companies, and oil additive companies. In addition, multiple oil and additive companies ran no-harm tests on older engines with the new oils; and no problems were uncovered.

The new Starburst specification contains two valve-train wear tests. All Starburst oil formulations must pass these two tests.

- Sequence IVA tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a single overhead camshaft engine with slider finger (not roller) followers.

- Sequence IIIG evaluates cam and lifter wear using a V6 engine with a flat-tappet system, similar to those used in the 1980s (fig. 5).



Those who hold onto the myth are ignoring the fact that the new Starburst oils contain about the same percentage of ZDP as the oils that solved the camshaft scuffing and wear issues back in the 1950s. (True, they do contain less ZDP than the oils that solved the oil thickening issues in the 1960s, but that's because they now contain high levels of ashless antioxidants not commercially available in the 1960s.)

Despite the pains taken in developing special flat-tappet camshaft wear tests that these new oils must pass and the fact that the ZDP level of these new oils is comparable to the level found necessary to protect flat-tappet camshafts in the past, there will still be those who want to believe the myth that new oils will wear out older engines.

Like other myths before it, history teaches us that it will probably take 60 or 70 years for this one to die also.

 

Maybe so for a mild stock type cam but what about a .580 lift solid cam with 180/370 valve spring pressures? Good luck.......

 

Start a engine up get it to operating temp drain the oil it like water. Now imagine that 5w30 is already thin so imagine what viscosity is left you literally have nothing for the crank to hold on to. The oil will sling away much quicker. It has solved many problems with losing bearings for me. Is horsepower lost worth motor lost. I will also say this i run Straight 50w but I do not drive my cars when it is 40 or below!!

 

I ran 20/50 in my race cars for years never had a startup knock. Why should there be one the thicker the oil the thicker the oil film left on the bearings after shut down. It also takes longer for thicker oil to run down after shut down. IMHO
Bob H.

 

Corey, could you please post the link or source of the article you quoted in your earlier post? Thanks! Jay

 

I found this....http://www.steelsoldiers.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=167978

If this guy is right, I'd love to hear why we have increased cam failure in the last few years.

 

I'll read the SAE paper mentioned in the article ASAP all the while keeping in mind that there is a HUGE difference between controlled lab conditions and the REAL world which just happens to be where most of us live and play and it's here that there is a definite increase in failure rates. If not the reduction of ZDDP, there must be some reason for the problem. I guess there is an SAE paper out there also stating that there is no issue with Mobil 1 and leaded gasoline either! Sounds like I may be biased? Jay

 

I have worked for GM for 20 years now, and I kept that article for my own out of a dealer publication, which to be exact I forget-but very interesting reading in my opinion. I am always surprised on how much mechanical failure is believed to be from a lubricant as opposed to assembly error or improper use of critical specified values. Opinion only, but I think when we speak cam wear and things of the like, which are so few and far in between, at least in my small circle of Buick fans-it is usually due to human error or a failed part alltogether, not engine oil. Oil has come a long way since 1970, not backward (again, opinion). Good thread here.:3gears:

 

Cut it up and opinion this to death but I beleieve it is best to run a motor oil with the same amount of zddp as in oil when our cars were new. Most new oils do not measure up. If the cam companies are putting out warnings then there is something to this. I have lost several engines from cam and bearing failure over the past few years from different engine builders. Coincidence?

 

Corey, I've been away from GM for about 25 years now and was curious as to GMPD's recommended procedure for new flat-tappet cammed engine install/break-in. The procedure back then was to just add a bottle of EOS and run in. I installed dozens of "Target" engines and short blocks while there and never had a cam/lifter failure on any that I remember. GM never slathered the cams or lifters with moly or anything else that I recall. I noticed in the GM Performance Parts catalog that GM's flat tappet cam & lifter kits are being contracted through Crane cams. Do they recommend additional or different lube other than EOS (I am aware of the formulation change)? Is this still GM's recommended procedure and if so,are their cam failure rates still nil? Thanks! Jay

 

http://www.hughesengines.com/general/techArticleDetail.asp?articleID=1000039

 

EOS is no more. RIP

 

EOS still "lives" pt# 88862586 only with a drastic reduction of ZDDP (~.02%)

 

Concerning limited failures, here are a couple of reads: Engine Professional magazine-Jan 08 article "The Lost Lobe Chronicles" at www.aera.org/ep/downloads/EP012008_18-23.pdf and www.lnengineering.com/oil.html. Failures do not appear to be limited but very widespread. Also concerning the SAE article #2004-01-2986 "How Much ZDP is enough", I noticed that the authors are/were General Motors employees/contractors. I wonder if GM contracted this paper to provide documentation for protection against any possible litigation that may arise due to engine wear/failures issues that they knew would happen with the reduction of ZDP/ZDDP. On the other hand, if the paper represents true findings, then the authors may be hinting that GM may be one of the largest snake oil marketers in the USA for if ZDP/ZDDP is unnecessary, why market EOS? Yes, oils had improved dramatically over the years until forces outside the oil companies control imposed restrictions on additives that have no equaling performing replacement to date.

 

I did have major problems with 20-50 uzzled:....10-30 or SAE 30 is the only thing I will run now and have had zero problems for several years since I switched over....20-50 is like cold molasses on a cold morning and I will never put it in a BBB again....