Motor Oil "Wear Test" and "Lab Test" Data
06-16-2014, 12:54 AM
#181
Burning Brakes
Absolutely 63Mako. And even with some oils that have good shear quality's have an etching problem that only shows up after miles of use that would never show up in what 540 is doing. oh ya I worked for Oronite Additives in the engine lab for over twenty years so I have seen a lot but maybe not all. Oh Oronite is Chevron Corp additive company that sell world wide to many other oil companies.
06-16-2014, 12:01 PM
#182
Racer
"I'm a working Professional Degreed Engineer" OF WHAT?
I am a certified NETWORK engineer but that does nothing for Oil testing. You could be a train engineer? Are you a chemical engineer. Civil, Mechanical? Guessing mechanical by your ASME membership but even then, in what area of industry do you work?
"a U.S. Patent holder." OK, SO this means exactly what for this? You could hold a patent on a new type of carpet fiber.
a member of SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers), I CAN DO THIS TO. All I have to do is pay and join. again does nothing for credibility here.
"as well as a member of ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers). Engineering is what I do for a living". AGAIN, JUST JOIN. DO they REQUIRE verification of your cert?
"So, that should be more than enough proof to satisfy anyone who was skeptical of how well my test data compares to the real world."
ACTUALLY NO! You have done nothing to show you are qualified to make the claims you are making. Your information, although interesting for the oil specs is not really useful. You DO NOT validate your authority on this topic by just telling all of us your smart. You have provided zero proof of your claims other than "I say so"
Not trying to be a pill here but tooting your own horn about how qualified you are (and not doing that very well mind you) is not the same as PROVING IT. Some uneducated unsuspecting reader could take what you have to say as gospel when in fact, it may well indeed be full of flawed processes and results. It's one thing to come on this forum and say "hey guys this is what I did and how, what do you think?" and quite another to come here and claim to be an expert without proving it (you have not....period) and then telling everyone how accurate your testing is.
Multiple members have repeatedly asked for testing type and proof, and you have either argued against it, or ignored them completely. I personally find that suspect and frankly it invalidates everything else you say, which is a shame as there is likely some truth in it, but no way to critique or validate it. So for the oil specs listings from the manufacturers in one place, THANKS, great job and very cool. For the ranking and testing......well, not much use for that....
I am a certified NETWORK engineer but that does nothing for Oil testing. You could be a train engineer? Are you a chemical engineer. Civil, Mechanical? Guessing mechanical by your ASME membership but even then, in what area of industry do you work?
"a U.S. Patent holder." OK, SO this means exactly what for this? You could hold a patent on a new type of carpet fiber.
a member of SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers), I CAN DO THIS TO. All I have to do is pay and join. again does nothing for credibility here.
"as well as a member of ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers). Engineering is what I do for a living". AGAIN, JUST JOIN. DO they REQUIRE verification of your cert?
"So, that should be more than enough proof to satisfy anyone who was skeptical of how well my test data compares to the real world."
ACTUALLY NO! You have done nothing to show you are qualified to make the claims you are making. Your information, although interesting for the oil specs is not really useful. You DO NOT validate your authority on this topic by just telling all of us your smart. You have provided zero proof of your claims other than "I say so"
Not trying to be a pill here but tooting your own horn about how qualified you are (and not doing that very well mind you) is not the same as PROVING IT. Some uneducated unsuspecting reader could take what you have to say as gospel when in fact, it may well indeed be full of flawed processes and results. It's one thing to come on this forum and say "hey guys this is what I did and how, what do you think?" and quite another to come here and claim to be an expert without proving it (you have not....period) and then telling everyone how accurate your testing is.
Multiple members have repeatedly asked for testing type and proof, and you have either argued against it, or ignored them completely. I personally find that suspect and frankly it invalidates everything else you say, which is a shame as there is likely some truth in it, but no way to critique or validate it. So for the oil specs listings from the manufacturers in one place, THANKS, great job and very cool. For the ranking and testing......well, not much use for that....
06-16-2014, 10:30 PM
#183
Race Director
Member Since: Apr 2007
Location: South Western Ontario
Posts: 11,061
Received 845 Likes
on
721 Posts
The testing done here is only one part of a product evaluation. This is really the problem here is that 540 thinks that a pass in the beginning testing format is the end to all, it is not at all. We have seen oils look great in a bench test and totally failed in the real world in a running engine. We have run the oils in cabs for years and some look really good. But some of these have failed in real world driving that most do which is not how a cab or police vehicle operates but it does need to be done and then move on to real world type driving, and it is amazing the difference you see. So bottom line 540 Rats testing is a long ways from complete to make any determination what or who's oil may be better in use.
Nice to hear from you. Taking your employment at face value means you know what you're talking about. It would be amazing to see your oil ranking or something like a top 5 oil list based on your in-engine testing data. Spending thousands of hours doing in-engine testing can never be duplicated or simulated by any 30 second "wear" test on new oil. I bet your company considers spending millions of dollars on oil testing the cost of doing business.
I'm thinking the problem with asking you to list oils is that you're testing the additive packages your company sells and not the oil. I suspect you would not want to name oil brands since the manufacturers could change the additive package at any time.
Better be careful. If your bosses find out about this "wonderful" 30 second oil test it could put you out of a job.
06-16-2014, 10:45 PM
#184
Race Director
Member Since: Apr 2007
Location: South Western Ontario
Posts: 11,061
Received 845 Likes
on
721 Posts
Your test methodology is some test jig that you designed (so it came from your brain) which you refuse to share the details about so that it can be properly peer reviewed. I suspect most of the reason you refuse to share the test jig details is so you can hide behind the above quoted ridiculous claims about your test method without anyone being able to prove it has flaws.
06-17-2014, 04:29 PM
#185
Burning Brakes
Nice to hear from you. Taking your employment at face value means you know what you're talking about. It would be amazing to see your oil ranking or something like a top 5 oil list based on your in-engine testing data. Spending thousands of hours doing in-engine testing can never be duplicated or simulated by any 30 second "wear" test on new oil. I bet your company considers spending millions of dollars on oil testing the cost of doing business.
I'm thinking the problem with asking you to list oils is that you're testing the additive packages your company sells and not the oil. I suspect you would not want to name oil brands since the manufacturers could change the additive package at any time.
Better be careful. If your bosses find out about this "wonderful" 30 second oil test it could put you out of a job.
I'm thinking the problem with asking you to list oils is that you're testing the additive packages your company sells and not the oil. I suspect you would not want to name oil brands since the manufacturers could change the additive package at any time.
Better be careful. If your bosses find out about this "wonderful" 30 second oil test it could put you out of a job.
Thanks for your response. No I would not do a oil rating in this format at all for some of the reasons you bring up.
Yes our company does spend that kind of money in testing as a cost of doing Top Tier business.
And of note almost all oil has an additive/s in it as there is almost no place for a base oil (no additive) to be used.
06-26-2014, 03:14 PM
#186
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Apr 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 47 Likes
on
25 Posts
Additional Test Data on Joe Gibbs LS 30 oil and Motul 300V Racing Oil
Component quantity data has now been added to these two oils. The tests for these quantities were performed by Test Lab “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada.
The Wear Protection reference categories are:
• Over 105,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection
• 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection
• 75,000 to 90,000 psi = GOOD wear protection
• 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODEST wear protection
• Below 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE wear protection
Both oils were tested at a representative operational temperature of 230*F.
The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.
5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven LS30 Performance Motor Oil, synthetic (lab tested 2014) = 104,487 psi
The bottle says it is formulated specifically for high output GM LS engines, and that no ZDDP or additives required. This is by far, the best performing Joe Gibbs oil I've ever tested. It is at the very top of the OUTSTANDING wear protection category, and fell just short of the INCREDIBLE wear protection category. The onset of thermal breakdown = 290*F
Silicon = 7 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 257 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 3515 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1610 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1496 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 12 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 8.8 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.1 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
This oil contains sufficient amounts of the components required (detergent, acid neutralizer, etc) for normal change intervals in street driven vehicles. But, it has way too much zinc/phos for use in cat equipped vehicles. However, it is well suited for Race Cars, Street Hotrods and Classic cars.
*****************
5W30 Motul 300V Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic (lab tested 2014) = 112,464 psi
This Motorcycle Road Racing oil is from France and comes in liter bottles (slightly more than a quart). At the time this oil was tested in spring 2014, it cost $24.25 per bottle. And with the shipping cost added to that, the final cost was about $33.00 per bottle (shipping was all inside the U.S.), making it THE most expensive motor oil I’ve ever tested. But, since this oil is in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category and is ranked number 1, for oils just as they come, right out of the bottle, with no aftermarket additives, you could say you at least get the best possible wear protection available, for that super high price. This is an extremely impressive motor oil just as it comes, right out of the bottle. So, no aftermarket additives should be used with this oil, because that would only reduce its capability overall. The onset of thermal breakdown = 285*F
Silicon = 6 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 17 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 3141 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1724 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1547 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 481 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 3 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.4 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.2 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
This oil contains sufficient amounts of the components required (detergent, acid neutralizer, etc) for normal change intervals in street driven vehicles. But, it has way too much zinc/phos for use in cat equipped vehicles. However, it is well suited for Race Cars, Street Hotrods and Classic cars.
***********
These high zinc oils are among the best performing oils I’ve tested. This proves that my test equipment and test procedure have no trouble at all showing how well high zinc oils can perform. But, not all high zinc oils are created equal. So, keep in mind that you cannot count on high zinc oils to always provide the best, or even good wear protection. For example, high zinc oils in my testing, rank from 4th to 131st. So, one high zinc oil could be about the best oil available, while another high zinc oil can be the worst oil available. Therefore, you cannot tell a good oil from a bad oil without looking at my motor oil wear test data. People who simply choose a high zinc oil may well be shooting themselves in the foot, in terms of the wear protection they actually end up with. Poor choices of high zinc oils are undoubtedly a factor in flat tappet wiped lobes, including during break-in.
If you choose a high ranking oil (high zinc or low zinc) from my wear protection ranking list, you cannot go wrong, even for High Performance flat tappet race engines. Also keep in mind that my motor oil wear test data has matched up exactly with real world Race Track experience, including NASCAR. It doesn’t get any better than that. For all the details on that, and to see the ranking of all 131 motor oils I've wear tested so far, as well as a wealth of motor oil FACTS, go to my Oil Testing Blog link below:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
540 RAT
Mechanical Engineer
U.S. Patent Holder (Mechanical device for Military Jet Aircraft)
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
The Wear Protection reference categories are:
• Over 105,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection
• 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection
• 75,000 to 90,000 psi = GOOD wear protection
• 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODEST wear protection
• Below 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE wear protection
Both oils were tested at a representative operational temperature of 230*F.
The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.
5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven LS30 Performance Motor Oil, synthetic (lab tested 2014) = 104,487 psi
The bottle says it is formulated specifically for high output GM LS engines, and that no ZDDP or additives required. This is by far, the best performing Joe Gibbs oil I've ever tested. It is at the very top of the OUTSTANDING wear protection category, and fell just short of the INCREDIBLE wear protection category. The onset of thermal breakdown = 290*F
Silicon = 7 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 257 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 3515 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1610 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1496 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 0 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 12 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 8.8 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.1 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
This oil contains sufficient amounts of the components required (detergent, acid neutralizer, etc) for normal change intervals in street driven vehicles. But, it has way too much zinc/phos for use in cat equipped vehicles. However, it is well suited for Race Cars, Street Hotrods and Classic cars.
*****************
5W30 Motul 300V Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic (lab tested 2014) = 112,464 psi
This Motorcycle Road Racing oil is from France and comes in liter bottles (slightly more than a quart). At the time this oil was tested in spring 2014, it cost $24.25 per bottle. And with the shipping cost added to that, the final cost was about $33.00 per bottle (shipping was all inside the U.S.), making it THE most expensive motor oil I’ve ever tested. But, since this oil is in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category and is ranked number 1, for oils just as they come, right out of the bottle, with no aftermarket additives, you could say you at least get the best possible wear protection available, for that super high price. This is an extremely impressive motor oil just as it comes, right out of the bottle. So, no aftermarket additives should be used with this oil, because that would only reduce its capability overall. The onset of thermal breakdown = 285*F
Silicon = 6 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 4 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, anti-wear)
Magnesium = 17 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 3141 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 1724 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 1547 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 481 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 3 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 7.4 (Total Base Number is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9)
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 11.2 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness.
This oil contains sufficient amounts of the components required (detergent, acid neutralizer, etc) for normal change intervals in street driven vehicles. But, it has way too much zinc/phos for use in cat equipped vehicles. However, it is well suited for Race Cars, Street Hotrods and Classic cars.
***********
These high zinc oils are among the best performing oils I’ve tested. This proves that my test equipment and test procedure have no trouble at all showing how well high zinc oils can perform. But, not all high zinc oils are created equal. So, keep in mind that you cannot count on high zinc oils to always provide the best, or even good wear protection. For example, high zinc oils in my testing, rank from 4th to 131st. So, one high zinc oil could be about the best oil available, while another high zinc oil can be the worst oil available. Therefore, you cannot tell a good oil from a bad oil without looking at my motor oil wear test data. People who simply choose a high zinc oil may well be shooting themselves in the foot, in terms of the wear protection they actually end up with. Poor choices of high zinc oils are undoubtedly a factor in flat tappet wiped lobes, including during break-in.
If you choose a high ranking oil (high zinc or low zinc) from my wear protection ranking list, you cannot go wrong, even for High Performance flat tappet race engines. Also keep in mind that my motor oil wear test data has matched up exactly with real world Race Track experience, including NASCAR. It doesn’t get any better than that. For all the details on that, and to see the ranking of all 131 motor oils I've wear tested so far, as well as a wealth of motor oil FACTS, go to my Oil Testing Blog link below:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
540 RAT
Mechanical Engineer
U.S. Patent Holder (Mechanical device for Military Jet Aircraft)
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
Last edited by 540 RAT; 06-26-2014 at 03:20 PM.
06-26-2014, 06:20 PM
#187
Race Director
Everyone posting on here asks the same questions and has the same concerns on methodology and incorrect extrapolations yet not one time has any of this been addressed or answered. All we get is "I am a genius and anyone that questions my methods, results or my interpretation and extrapolation of these result is an idiot and not worthy of the time it would take to respond." I am not buying it and neither are 90% of the posters on here. Address the issues that have been raised dozens of times by dozens of forum members.
Your statements directly contradict the opinions of cam manufacturers and designers, oil manufacturers, tribologists, oil additive engineers and the real world experiences of hundreds of thousands of drag, circle track and endurance racers and teams world wide. As a matter of fact it directly contradicts results from any expert in the field I have read or talked to except you. Your test is strictly a film strength test on new oil @ 230 degrees. Nothing more or less can be extrapolated from these results. Your 30 second test ends at or below 115,000 PSI. A mild factory low spring pressure, low lift cam exerts over 200,000 psi and will easily and consistently break the film strength of the very best oil. A fast ramp, high lift, high spring pressure, high RPM solid flat tappet cam can easily see twice that or 400,000 psi. Once this happens, and the film strength is broken, the extreme pressure additives are the last course of protection against wear. The performance of these extreme pressure additives is what prevents wear. Your test does not test this performance in any way and does not factor in oil additive degradation, sheer and breakdown that accumulates over the life of the oil. Assuming wear protection of these additives from your test that ends @ or below 115,000 psi is ludicrous.
Your statements directly contradict the opinions of cam manufacturers and designers, oil manufacturers, tribologists, oil additive engineers and the real world experiences of hundreds of thousands of drag, circle track and endurance racers and teams world wide. As a matter of fact it directly contradicts results from any expert in the field I have read or talked to except you. Your test is strictly a film strength test on new oil @ 230 degrees. Nothing more or less can be extrapolated from these results. Your 30 second test ends at or below 115,000 PSI. A mild factory low spring pressure, low lift cam exerts over 200,000 psi and will easily and consistently break the film strength of the very best oil. A fast ramp, high lift, high spring pressure, high RPM solid flat tappet cam can easily see twice that or 400,000 psi. Once this happens, and the film strength is broken, the extreme pressure additives are the last course of protection against wear. The performance of these extreme pressure additives is what prevents wear. Your test does not test this performance in any way and does not factor in oil additive degradation, sheer and breakdown that accumulates over the life of the oil. Assuming wear protection of these additives from your test that ends @ or below 115,000 psi is ludicrous.
Last edited by 63mako; 06-26-2014 at 06:43 PM.
06-27-2014, 07:53 PM
#188
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Apr 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 47 Likes
on
25 Posts
For those who'd like to see additional proof that you don't need high zinc oil in flat tappet motors, read the following discussion:
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=630985
540 RAT
U.S. Patent Holder
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
To see my entire 130+ motor oil “Wear Protection Ranking List”, along with additional motor oil tech FACTS (with over 35,000 “views” worldwide), here’s a link:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=630985
540 RAT
U.S. Patent Holder
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
To see my entire 130+ motor oil “Wear Protection Ranking List”, along with additional motor oil tech FACTS (with over 35,000 “views” worldwide), here’s a link:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
06-27-2014, 08:49 PM
#189
Race Director
For those who'd like to see additional proof that you don't need high zinc oil in flat tappet motors, read the following discussion:
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=630985
540 RAT
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=630985
540 RAT
I see one guy saying this is proof you don't need higher ZDDP than typical modern oils to run Flat tappet cams, You.
READ THE THREAD!!!
My take is this thread is a huge motivation to use slower ramp, low spring pressure cams, proper assembly, break in and High ZDDP oil if you would still even still consider buying a flat tappet after you read it.
Any answers to the questions that multiple posters have asked dozens of times?
Last edited by 63mako; 06-27-2014 at 09:09 PM.
06-28-2014, 09:36 AM
#190
Race Director
Common sense
The whole matter is pretty simple for me since they reduced the ZDDP in engine oils for many reasons including roller assemblies and emissions in newer cars.
If I were to break in a flat tappet engine I first look for a good quality break in oil, this generally is not as slippery (can I use that term ?
)
This oil is designed to mate the moving parts of the engine also known as the the rotating assembly consisting of all bearings, rings, cam and lifters as well as push-rods and rocker arms, etc.
This oil is for the 20-30 minute first engine start-up ( don't forget to change engine RPM from about 2500RPM to 3500RPM every few minutes ). You then change the oil and filter and I would use the same oil that was used for break in but now it is 10W30 or whatever you use with high ZDDP, run for 500 miles and change it all again and you should be good to go.
My buddy that owns a "Race" only Engine shop almost lost his million dollar business with engine failures starting to show up when they reduced the ZDDP in his favorite flavor oil without putting out some type of bulletin or warning. I personally feel this was very irresponsible for all the oil companies not to warn against flat tappet engine failures if using there reformulated oil.
He now uses Brad Penn break-in oil and then their Semi-synthetic engine oil exclusively. He also rebuilds high dollar off shore racing boat engines and uses the same oil and has told me he hasn't had a oil related failure in years now. I don't know Brad, but I am a fan
If I were to break in a flat tappet engine I first look for a good quality break in oil, this generally is not as slippery (can I use that term ?
)This oil is designed to mate the moving parts of the engine also known as the the rotating assembly consisting of all bearings, rings, cam and lifters as well as push-rods and rocker arms, etc.
This oil is for the 20-30 minute first engine start-up ( don't forget to change engine RPM from about 2500RPM to 3500RPM every few minutes ). You then change the oil and filter and I would use the same oil that was used for break in but now it is 10W30 or whatever you use with high ZDDP, run for 500 miles and change it all again and you should be good to go.
My buddy that owns a "Race" only Engine shop almost lost his million dollar business with engine failures starting to show up when they reduced the ZDDP in his favorite flavor oil without putting out some type of bulletin or warning. I personally feel this was very irresponsible for all the oil companies not to warn against flat tappet engine failures if using there reformulated oil.
He now uses Brad Penn break-in oil and then their Semi-synthetic engine oil exclusively. He also rebuilds high dollar off shore racing boat engines and uses the same oil and has told me he hasn't had a oil related failure in years now. I don't know Brad, but I am a fan
06-28-2014, 12:13 PM
#191
Race Director
Member Since: Apr 2007
Location: South Western Ontario
Posts: 11,061
Received 845 Likes
on
721 Posts
My test equipment is NOT intended to duplicate an engine’s internal components. On the contrary, the test equipment is specifically designed to cause an oil to reach its failure point, in order to determine what its capability limit it is.
This completely confirms that my test results WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in running engines (including flat tappet race engines) on the track or on the street, EVEN if those oils are high zinc oils.
This completely confirms that my test results WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in running engines (including flat tappet race engines) on the track or on the street, EVEN if those oils are high zinc oils.
These two parts of your claims seem to directly contradict each other. Can you explain how this 30 second test that does not duplicate any part of an engine can accurately predict how the oil will work in an engine throughout the complete oil change cycle? Can you explain how your short 30 second test is superior to the oil/additive companies testing when they spend millions of dollars to test their oils and additive packages?
Claiming one or 2 examples of how your tests have corresponded to the real world as proof is like me claiming my tires are puncture proof because I found a nail in my driveway that I was driving over without it puncturing my tires.
Last edited by lionelhutz; 06-28-2014 at 12:16 PM.
06-28-2014, 02:16 PM
#192
Burning Brakes
Sorry/ no not sorry at all 540, but your testing has nothing to do with an engine!!!!! An engine produces all kinds of different acids and particulate matter and how an oil/additive package holds up and reacts to these contaminates is going to be different in a lot of cases than your so called holy grail of oil testing. You are only doing the first stages of an oil test. What you are doing is what is done to qualify an oil to move on to more real world testing but you seem to think a bench test is all there is in any kind of test, just shows you haven't a clew how any of your tested oils will work in an engine for the duration of an oil change interval. Oh well for as long as you have been trying to show you know more than anyone else in the business that anything said here is beyond your ability to understand what is going on. I mean you say you only are testing the oil and that your findings will be different than a running engine! Than if so who cares 3what you find out the oil is not used to lube anything you are testing!!!!
06-30-2014, 12:30 AM
#193
Administrator
Member Since: Jul 2000
Location: About 1100 miles from where I call home. Blue lives matter.
Posts: 51,473
Received 5,358 Likes
on
2,786 Posts
It seems its time for the annual warning in the oil argument thread.
Im going to delete a few of the posts that make personal remarks and issue warning to remind those who choose to continue this argument that hostility and personal insults will not be tolerated.
It does seem like the same arguments and complaints go 'round and round, but if everyone can simply just disagree with points made, or point out that an argument has not been supported, without the insults, we can leave this thread open. Or, we can close it and not allow arguments about oil to go on ad nauseam.
However, unlike in the past, I will not spend endless hours editing posts that seem to have a lot of info people spent a lot of time on, just to cut out the personal remarks. When the post contains them (or is quoted) I will delete the entire post.
Attack ideas, civilly. Not people.
Im going to delete a few of the posts that make personal remarks and issue warning to remind those who choose to continue this argument that hostility and personal insults will not be tolerated.
It does seem like the same arguments and complaints go 'round and round, but if everyone can simply just disagree with points made, or point out that an argument has not been supported, without the insults, we can leave this thread open. Or, we can close it and not allow arguments about oil to go on ad nauseam.
However, unlike in the past, I will not spend endless hours editing posts that seem to have a lot of info people spent a lot of time on, just to cut out the personal remarks. When the post contains them (or is quoted) I will delete the entire post.
Attack ideas, civilly. Not people.
Last edited by vettebuyer6369; 06-30-2014 at 12:48 AM.
06-30-2014, 02:53 PM
#194
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Apr 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 47 Likes
on
25 Posts
Test Data on the newest Pennzoil's made from Natural Gas
Pennzoil has recently introduced a new line of motor oil made from natural gas. I thought it would be interesting to see how they perform in terms of wear protection capability, which is by far the most important job a motor oil performs, as well as how they compare to previous Pennzoil's. I purchased the new 5W30 Pennzoil "Ultra" Platinum and the new 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum for testing.
Wear protection reference categories are:
• Over 105,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection
• 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection
• 75,000 to 90,000 psi = GOOD wear protection
• 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODEST wear protection
• Below 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE wear protection
KEY POINTS TO KEEP IN MIND ABOUT THIS TESTING:
The psi reference values above, ONLY APPLY TO MY TEST DATA, not to actual engine component loading. Here's why:
The motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” I perform is WORST CASE torture testing. My test equipment is NOT intended to duplicate an engine’s internal components. On the contrary, the test equipment is specifically designed to generate severe loading, that will quickly cause an oil to reach its failure point, in order to determine what its capability limit it is. The test loading is severe enough, that the wear scar size that forms, based on an oil's load carrying capability (the wear scar is what is measured), has stabilized at its final size by the conclusion of a 30 second load test. Procedure development testing showed that more time than that did not change the wear scar size. Every oil I test is brought to its failure point, that’s how it works. The difference in the failure points, is what we compare. My testing subjects the oil to far more severe loading than even the most wicked flat tappet race engine could ever generate.
But, a running engine is designed to last indefinitely, and of course, they do not generally cause an oil to reach its failure point. So, due to the COMPLETE DIFFERENCE in design, the pressures in my test are completely different, and therefore CANNOT be compared directly to an engine’s lobe/lifter interface pressure. That would be comparing apples to oranges, which makes absolutely no sense at all. My testing is so severe, that the oil fails at a much earlier point than it would in an engine. And that is why my test data psi values appear lower than you might expect to see in some running engines.
In addition to that, my equipment’s calibration is checked and adjusted if required, each time the testing switches to a different oil. That keeps the final results accurate at all times. And keep in mind, I’m comparing OIL AGAINST OIL, and the procedure used is exactly the same for each oil tested. For better or worse, each oil stands on its own merit, and produces the best wear protection capability that its chemical composition allows. If oil A produces twice the psi value of oil B in my testing, then oil A will also provide twice the wear protection capability of oil B, in a running engine.
All the oils were tested at a representative operational temperature of 230*F. A colder test temperature of less than 212*F would have been too cold, and would have been below actual normal operating temperature, as well as being too low to even boil off natural condensation. A hotter test temperature of above 250*F, would have been hotter than normal operating temperature, and would have been so high, that many motor oils would already have reached the threshold of thermal breakdown. Therefore, 230*F is an ideal test temperature to arrive at the most meaningful values for comparison. I've also tested oils at 275*F, as well as 325*F, and found that there is was no significant change in the ranking order, which further confirms that the test temperature of 230*F is absolutely valid, even though operating temperatures vary in certain locations of an engine.
All the oils tested here were brand new oils. But, I’ve also tested a number of used oils, both synthetic and conventional, that had 5,000 miles on them. And in every case, there was NO REDUCTION what so ever, in wear protection capability, even though the zinc levels had dropped by around 25% on average. So, not only is this further proof that the zinc level is not tied to a motor oil’s wear protection capability, but it also proves that testing brand new oil is representative of what we can expect from an oil as time and mileage accumulate.
I'm a Mechanical Engineer. Mechanical Design Engineering is what I do for a living. And a Mechanical Engineer is clearly the most qualified Engineer to test motor oil that was formulated by Chemical Engineers, for wear protection capability between mechanical components under load.
And most important of all, is at the end of the day, my test data EXACTLY MATCHES REAL WORLD RACE TRACK EXPERIENCE, which PROVES once and for all, that my test data is the spot on REAL DEAL. This completely confirms that my test results WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in running engines on the track or on the street, EVEN if those oils are high zinc oils. All the data here was determined by the Physics and Chemistry involved. It is NOT my opinion, and it is NOT my theory. So, that should be more than enough proof to satisfy anyone who was skeptical of how well my test data compares to the real world.
The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.
• 5W30 Pennzoil "Ultra" Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from pure natural gas, API SN = 99,039 psi
This oil was introduced in 2014, and comes in a dark gray bottle with a blue vertical stripe on the label. This oil now combines the names Ultra and Platinum, where these names previously identified different oil's. As you can see, this oil is well into the OUTSTANDING wear protection category.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
• 5W3 Pennzoil Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from pure natural gas, API SN = 87,241 psi
This oil was introduced in 2014, and comes in a silver bottle with a blue vertical stripe on the label. As you can see, this oil is near the top of the GOOD wear protection category.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
============
Here's how they compare to the previous version of these API SN oil's that were NOT made from natural gas.
• 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN synthetic = 92,569 psi
This was the original API SN version, that was NOT made from natural gas. This older oil's psi value is about 6.5% lower than the new natural gas version.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The older API “SM” version of this oil, produced a wear protection capability value of 115,612 psi.
• 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum, API SN synthetic = 99,949 psi
This was the original API SN version, that was NOT made from natural gas. This older oil's psi value is about 14.5% higher than the new natural gas version.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
540 RAT
Mechanical Engineer
U.S. Patent Holder (Mechanical Device for Military Jet Aircraft)
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
To see how the two new oil's above, rank overall in my entire 130+ motor oil "Wear Protection Ranking List", along with additional motor oil tech FACTS (with over 35,000 "views" worldwide), here's a link:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
Wear protection reference categories are:
• Over 105,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection
• 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection
• 75,000 to 90,000 psi = GOOD wear protection
• 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODEST wear protection
• Below 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE wear protection
KEY POINTS TO KEEP IN MIND ABOUT THIS TESTING:
The psi reference values above, ONLY APPLY TO MY TEST DATA, not to actual engine component loading. Here's why:
The motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” I perform is WORST CASE torture testing. My test equipment is NOT intended to duplicate an engine’s internal components. On the contrary, the test equipment is specifically designed to generate severe loading, that will quickly cause an oil to reach its failure point, in order to determine what its capability limit it is. The test loading is severe enough, that the wear scar size that forms, based on an oil's load carrying capability (the wear scar is what is measured), has stabilized at its final size by the conclusion of a 30 second load test. Procedure development testing showed that more time than that did not change the wear scar size. Every oil I test is brought to its failure point, that’s how it works. The difference in the failure points, is what we compare. My testing subjects the oil to far more severe loading than even the most wicked flat tappet race engine could ever generate.
But, a running engine is designed to last indefinitely, and of course, they do not generally cause an oil to reach its failure point. So, due to the COMPLETE DIFFERENCE in design, the pressures in my test are completely different, and therefore CANNOT be compared directly to an engine’s lobe/lifter interface pressure. That would be comparing apples to oranges, which makes absolutely no sense at all. My testing is so severe, that the oil fails at a much earlier point than it would in an engine. And that is why my test data psi values appear lower than you might expect to see in some running engines.
In addition to that, my equipment’s calibration is checked and adjusted if required, each time the testing switches to a different oil. That keeps the final results accurate at all times. And keep in mind, I’m comparing OIL AGAINST OIL, and the procedure used is exactly the same for each oil tested. For better or worse, each oil stands on its own merit, and produces the best wear protection capability that its chemical composition allows. If oil A produces twice the psi value of oil B in my testing, then oil A will also provide twice the wear protection capability of oil B, in a running engine.
All the oils were tested at a representative operational temperature of 230*F. A colder test temperature of less than 212*F would have been too cold, and would have been below actual normal operating temperature, as well as being too low to even boil off natural condensation. A hotter test temperature of above 250*F, would have been hotter than normal operating temperature, and would have been so high, that many motor oils would already have reached the threshold of thermal breakdown. Therefore, 230*F is an ideal test temperature to arrive at the most meaningful values for comparison. I've also tested oils at 275*F, as well as 325*F, and found that there is was no significant change in the ranking order, which further confirms that the test temperature of 230*F is absolutely valid, even though operating temperatures vary in certain locations of an engine.
All the oils tested here were brand new oils. But, I’ve also tested a number of used oils, both synthetic and conventional, that had 5,000 miles on them. And in every case, there was NO REDUCTION what so ever, in wear protection capability, even though the zinc levels had dropped by around 25% on average. So, not only is this further proof that the zinc level is not tied to a motor oil’s wear protection capability, but it also proves that testing brand new oil is representative of what we can expect from an oil as time and mileage accumulate.
I'm a Mechanical Engineer. Mechanical Design Engineering is what I do for a living. And a Mechanical Engineer is clearly the most qualified Engineer to test motor oil that was formulated by Chemical Engineers, for wear protection capability between mechanical components under load.
And most important of all, is at the end of the day, my test data EXACTLY MATCHES REAL WORLD RACE TRACK EXPERIENCE, which PROVES once and for all, that my test data is the spot on REAL DEAL. This completely confirms that my test results WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in running engines on the track or on the street, EVEN if those oils are high zinc oils. All the data here was determined by the Physics and Chemistry involved. It is NOT my opinion, and it is NOT my theory. So, that should be more than enough proof to satisfy anyone who was skeptical of how well my test data compares to the real world.
The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.
• 5W30 Pennzoil "Ultra" Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from pure natural gas, API SN = 99,039 psi
This oil was introduced in 2014, and comes in a dark gray bottle with a blue vertical stripe on the label. This oil now combines the names Ultra and Platinum, where these names previously identified different oil's. As you can see, this oil is well into the OUTSTANDING wear protection category.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
• 5W3 Pennzoil Platinum, Pure Plus Technology, made from pure natural gas, API SN = 87,241 psi
This oil was introduced in 2014, and comes in a silver bottle with a blue vertical stripe on the label. As you can see, this oil is near the top of the GOOD wear protection category.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
============
Here's how they compare to the previous version of these API SN oil's that were NOT made from natural gas.
• 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN synthetic = 92,569 psi
This was the original API SN version, that was NOT made from natural gas. This older oil's psi value is about 6.5% lower than the new natural gas version.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The older API “SM” version of this oil, produced a wear protection capability value of 115,612 psi.
• 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum, API SN synthetic = 99,949 psi
This was the original API SN version, that was NOT made from natural gas. This older oil's psi value is about 14.5% higher than the new natural gas version.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
540 RAT
Mechanical Engineer
U.S. Patent Holder (Mechanical Device for Military Jet Aircraft)
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
To see how the two new oil's above, rank overall in my entire 130+ motor oil "Wear Protection Ranking List", along with additional motor oil tech FACTS (with over 35,000 "views" worldwide), here's a link:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
Last edited by 540 RAT; 06-30-2014 at 03:09 PM.
06-30-2014, 08:38 PM
#195
Burning Brakes
So by your words "But, a running engine is designed to last indefinitely, and of course, they do not generally cause an oil to reach its failure point. So, due to the COMPLETE DIFFERENCE in design, the pressures in my test are completely different, and therefore CANNOT be compared directly to an engine’s lobe/lifter interface pressure. That would be comparing apples to oranges, which makes absolutely no sense at all. My testing is so severe, that the oil fails at a much earlier point than it would in an engine. And that is why my test data psi values appear lower than you might expect to see in some running engines." Your testing means nothing to an engine and an engine is what the oil is designed for, so what exactly good is this testing for an engine oil if your testing has nothing to do with an engine?
06-30-2014, 09:14 PM
#196
Would you guys give up already, this isn't a manhood contest that everyone is determined to win LOL
Just let him ramble on and nod your head that you heard him okay LOL
I, regardless of what Mr $10,000 motor thinks, will continue to use (up) my Case IH tractor oil and then switch over to the current formulation of Delvac 10W30 with a slight top-up of EOS to bring the zinc up to 1200.
Motor is still running pretty decent after my Arkansas "rebuild" in 1978 (ring and valve job plus crank and bearings etc etc)
Woo Hoo !
Just let him ramble on and nod your head that you heard him okay LOL
I, regardless of what Mr $10,000 motor thinks, will continue to use (up) my Case IH tractor oil and then switch over to the current formulation of Delvac 10W30 with a slight top-up of EOS to bring the zinc up to 1200.
Motor is still running pretty decent after my Arkansas "rebuild" in 1978 (ring and valve job plus crank and bearings etc etc)
Woo Hoo !
06-30-2014, 09:59 PM
#197
Race Director
The test determines how many PSI it takes to break the film strength on new oil @ 230 degrees. Nothing more. The numbers are 25% or less than the actual pressures that can be seen at the cam lobe / lifter interface on a high RPM, high spring pressure, solid flat tappet valvetrain. Why do these engines not destroy the lifters and cams on the first blast down the track? Extreme pressure anti wear additives (ZDDP being the main one). How does ZDDP protect these extreme pressure contact points after the film strength of the oil fails? It is sheared. It is squeezed to the point the molecule breaks down into zink and phosphorous. The phosphorous is smashed into the contact point so hard it bonds to the metal creating a sacrificial layer only at the points that the shearing effect happens. This takes extreme pressure and the accompanying heat generated to happen. This layer is a microscopic coating at the highly loaded point. This coating fills the microscopic pores in the metal creating a much smoother super slick surface that does wear slightly if it wears to the point the surface starts generating more friction it causes more shear and new film is redeposited. This is the only thing protecting these points once the film strength is broken. In these tests being done by 540 Rat when the film strength is broken this test ends. A highly loaded contact point uses up the ZDDP faster than a low load. A 1000 HP race engine that sees 8000 RPM will eat ZDDP where a low rpm, moderate hp roller cammed daily driver might use very little comparably. Race oils have high ZDDP levels and short change intervals for this reason. If you take the best oil on this "test" and removed all the ZDDP from it and ran your flat tappet cammed engine with it, the cam would fail, period. Some formulations of ZDDP break down at lower thresholds than others. There are also friction modifiers. These may make an oil test great but they shear and break down very quickly and will do nothing to protect against extreme pressures. Same with viscosity index improvers. these additives are in higher amounts in conventional oils when compared to synthetic oils for the most part. Each oil company has a proprietary blend of additives and the amount and type of additive package in a specific oil is not always maintained. It might be the same for a month, a year or 5 years. You don't know when they change and they don't tell you. These are all facts. They are indisputable. They are physics and chemistry. None of these facts have been addressed by these tests or the OP even though they have been brought up dozens of times.
07-14-2014, 03:20 PM
#198
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Apr 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 47 Likes
on
25 Posts
The truth, backed up by factual test data
For those who are still having trouble understanding the real world facts about motor oil and the value of my motor oil test data, here again is further clarification that hopefully will help.
I’m a working Professional Degreed Mechanical Design Engineer. I’ve made my living as an Engineer for almost 20 years. I’ve solved many Engineering problems over the years. And I was awarded a U.S. Patent for one of those solutions. And a Mechanical Engineer is clearly the most qualified Engineer to test motor oil that was formulated by Chemical Engineers, for wear protection capability between mechanical components under load. I’ve also been a Mechanic since I was a teenager. I build my own engines and cars. I get my hands dirty just like many of you do.
As for my oil testing, I began that to get to the truth about motor oil, since there was so much bad information floating around about it. I’ve gone to great lengths, to develop a testing procedure that will predict what we can expect from the oil we buy. It is NOT my theory, and it is NOT my opinion. I’m only the messenger. The results themselves are determined by the Physics and Chemistry involved. If you want to argue with something, you are trying to argue against Physics and Chemistry. And who do you think will win that battle?
I do not sell oil. I do not sell oil additives. I do not sell cams. I do not sell lifters. I don’t care what oil or parts people choose to buy. I simply share the results of my testing as a courtesy to other gearheads, nothing more. I still don’t understand why some people feel the need to attack me and my test data, when my oil test procedure and oil test data are backed by many Engineering colleagues who know what they are talking about. The only ones who want to argue about it, are a few people who apparently are still brainwashed to think that high zinc levels are the answer to everything, in spite of overwhelming Engineering proof otherwise.
******
MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL:
My oil test data matches up EXACTLY with real world race track data at the Sportsman level as well as the NASCAR level, proving it is the real deal. If that is not good enough for some folks, then they are more than welcome to ignore my data and continue guessing what oil is best, like they always have. It makes no difference to me.
******
The reason I don’t follow along with these Forum discussions and argue back and forth about my test data, is because it is a total waste of my time. This is not my first rodeo. I know from past experience that the people who only want to argue and fight about it, have their minds already made up before they start in, and that there is no convincing them of anything different, no matter how much proof is provided. So, why should I bother spending my time trying? I don’t have to prove anything to them, because I know my test data is the best motor oil comparison data you will ever find. If some people can’t accept it, that is their loss. And just about any question people have come up with, I’ve addressed in my Oil Testing Blog. If people would bother to actually read my whole Blog from start to finish, most if not all, of their questions would be answered. And they would be far more knowledgeable about motor oil than they are now.
The quality of today’s cams may or may not be what it once was, though I have no hard data on hand to prove it one way or the other. But, I can tell you that many of today’s high zinc oils and zinc additives very often can only provide poor wear protection (just the opposite of what many people believe), and are adding to, or outright causing wiped lobes in general, and wiped lobes during Break-In in particular.
Break-In oils in particular are among the worst oils available in terms of wear protection. Engineering Testing has shown that nearly all of them are formulated to allow wear for parts to seat in, not to prevent wear. Just the opposite of what most people think. In fact, the very worst oil I’ve ever tested is a Break-In oil with the highest level of zinc I’ve ever seen.
Here are the Wear Protection reference categories for my test data:
• Over 105,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection
• 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection
• 75,000 to 90,000 psi = GOOD wear protection
• 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODEST wear protection
• Below 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE wear protection
As you can see, the HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection
NOTE: The psi reference values above, ONLY APPLY TO MY TEST DATA, not to actual engine component loading. Here's why:
The motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” I perform is WORST CASE torture testing. My test equipment is NOT intended to duplicate an engine’s internal components. On the contrary, the test equipment is specifically designed to generate severe loading, that will quickly cause an oil to reach its failure point, in order to determine what its capability limit it is. The test loading is severe enough, that the wear scar size that forms, based on an oil's load carrying capability (the wear scar is what is measured), has stabilized at its final size by the conclusion of a 30 second load test. Procedure development testing showed that more time than that did not change the wear scar size. Every oil I test is brought to its failure point, that’s how it works. The difference in the failure points, is what we compare. My testing subjects the oil to far more severe loading than even the most wicked flat tappet race engine could ever generate.
But, a running engine is designed to last indefinitely, and of course, they do not generally cause an oil to reach its failure point. So, due to the COMPLETE DIFFERENCE in design, the pressures in my test are completely different, and therefore CANNOT be compared directly to an engine’s lobe/lifter interface pressure. That would be comparing apples to oranges, which makes absolutely no sense at all. My testing is so severe, that the oil fails at a much earlier point than it would in an engine. And that is why my test data psi values appear lower than you might expect to see in some running engines.
In addition to that, my equipment’s calibration is checked and adjusted if required, each time the testing switches to a different oil. That keeps the final results accurate at all times. And keep in mind, I’m comparing OIL AGAINST OIL, and the procedure used is exactly the same for each oil tested. For better or worse, each oil stands on its own merit, and produces the best wear protection capability that its chemical composition allows. If oil A produces twice the psi value of oil B in my testing, then oil A will also provide twice the wear protection capability of oil B, in a running engine.
All the oils were tested at a representative operational temperature of 230*F. A colder test temperature of less than 212*F would have been too cold, and would have been below desirable normal operating temperature, as well as being too low to even quickly boil off natural condensation, which if not quickly eliminated can dilute the oil. A hotter test temperature of above 250*F, would have been hotter than desirable normal operating temperature, and would have been so high, that many motor oils would already have reached the threshold of thermal breakdown. Remember that critical internal engine components are directly “OIL COOLED”, and only indirectly water cooled. So, the oil needs to stay cool enough to actually help cool those components. Therefore, 230*F is an ideal test temperature to arrive at the most meaningful values for comparison. I’ve also tested oils at 275*F, as well as 325*F, and found that there is was no significant change in the ranking order, which further confirms that the test temperature of 230*F is absolutely valid, even though operating temperatures vary in certain locations of an engine.
All the oils tested here were brand new oils. But, I’ve also tested a number of used oils, both synthetic and conventional, that had 5,000 miles on them. And in every case, there was NO REDUCTION what so ever, in wear protection capability, even though the zinc levels had dropped by around 25% on average. So, not only is this further proof that the zinc level is not tied to a motor oil’s wear protection capability, but it also proves that testing brand new oil is representative of what we can expect from an oil as time and mileage accumulate.
The fact is, high zinc oils may well be your undoing, no matter what Cam Companies say, and no matter what Oil Company Marketing hype says. Because not all high zinc oils are capable of providing acceptable wear protection. And the fact that my test data EXACTLY MATCHES real world track experience, proves it. No one and no Company can prove that all high zinc oils will always provide excellent wear protection, because that is simply NOT true.
Choosing an oil based only on how much zinc is present, is like playing Russian Roulette with your engine. Running certain high zinc oils and/or aftermarket zinc additives can cause engine failure, NOT prevent it. A lot of people run ordinary modern low zinc oils in flat tappet engines with no problem at all. They don’t perform special for break-in procedures, and they wonder what all the fuss is about. If you selected an oil from my Wear Protection Ranking list, which is based on load carrying capability, instead of picking an oil just because of how much zinc it has, your oil related problems, as well as complicated Break-In procedures, could be a thing of the past. For all the details, see my link below:
540 RAT
Mechanical Engineer
U.S. Patent Holder
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
To see my entire 130+ motor oil “Wear Protection Ranking List”, along with additional motor oil tech FACTS (with over 40,000 “views” worldwide), here’s a link:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
I’m a working Professional Degreed Mechanical Design Engineer. I’ve made my living as an Engineer for almost 20 years. I’ve solved many Engineering problems over the years. And I was awarded a U.S. Patent for one of those solutions. And a Mechanical Engineer is clearly the most qualified Engineer to test motor oil that was formulated by Chemical Engineers, for wear protection capability between mechanical components under load. I’ve also been a Mechanic since I was a teenager. I build my own engines and cars. I get my hands dirty just like many of you do.
As for my oil testing, I began that to get to the truth about motor oil, since there was so much bad information floating around about it. I’ve gone to great lengths, to develop a testing procedure that will predict what we can expect from the oil we buy. It is NOT my theory, and it is NOT my opinion. I’m only the messenger. The results themselves are determined by the Physics and Chemistry involved. If you want to argue with something, you are trying to argue against Physics and Chemistry. And who do you think will win that battle?
I do not sell oil. I do not sell oil additives. I do not sell cams. I do not sell lifters. I don’t care what oil or parts people choose to buy. I simply share the results of my testing as a courtesy to other gearheads, nothing more. I still don’t understand why some people feel the need to attack me and my test data, when my oil test procedure and oil test data are backed by many Engineering colleagues who know what they are talking about. The only ones who want to argue about it, are a few people who apparently are still brainwashed to think that high zinc levels are the answer to everything, in spite of overwhelming Engineering proof otherwise.
******
MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL:
My oil test data matches up EXACTLY with real world race track data at the Sportsman level as well as the NASCAR level, proving it is the real deal. If that is not good enough for some folks, then they are more than welcome to ignore my data and continue guessing what oil is best, like they always have. It makes no difference to me.
******
The reason I don’t follow along with these Forum discussions and argue back and forth about my test data, is because it is a total waste of my time. This is not my first rodeo. I know from past experience that the people who only want to argue and fight about it, have their minds already made up before they start in, and that there is no convincing them of anything different, no matter how much proof is provided. So, why should I bother spending my time trying? I don’t have to prove anything to them, because I know my test data is the best motor oil comparison data you will ever find. If some people can’t accept it, that is their loss. And just about any question people have come up with, I’ve addressed in my Oil Testing Blog. If people would bother to actually read my whole Blog from start to finish, most if not all, of their questions would be answered. And they would be far more knowledgeable about motor oil than they are now.
The quality of today’s cams may or may not be what it once was, though I have no hard data on hand to prove it one way or the other. But, I can tell you that many of today’s high zinc oils and zinc additives very often can only provide poor wear protection (just the opposite of what many people believe), and are adding to, or outright causing wiped lobes in general, and wiped lobes during Break-In in particular.
Break-In oils in particular are among the worst oils available in terms of wear protection. Engineering Testing has shown that nearly all of them are formulated to allow wear for parts to seat in, not to prevent wear. Just the opposite of what most people think. In fact, the very worst oil I’ve ever tested is a Break-In oil with the highest level of zinc I’ve ever seen.
Here are the Wear Protection reference categories for my test data:
• Over 105,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection
• 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection
• 75,000 to 90,000 psi = GOOD wear protection
• 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODEST wear protection
• Below 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE wear protection
As you can see, the HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection
NOTE: The psi reference values above, ONLY APPLY TO MY TEST DATA, not to actual engine component loading. Here's why:
The motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” I perform is WORST CASE torture testing. My test equipment is NOT intended to duplicate an engine’s internal components. On the contrary, the test equipment is specifically designed to generate severe loading, that will quickly cause an oil to reach its failure point, in order to determine what its capability limit it is. The test loading is severe enough, that the wear scar size that forms, based on an oil's load carrying capability (the wear scar is what is measured), has stabilized at its final size by the conclusion of a 30 second load test. Procedure development testing showed that more time than that did not change the wear scar size. Every oil I test is brought to its failure point, that’s how it works. The difference in the failure points, is what we compare. My testing subjects the oil to far more severe loading than even the most wicked flat tappet race engine could ever generate.
But, a running engine is designed to last indefinitely, and of course, they do not generally cause an oil to reach its failure point. So, due to the COMPLETE DIFFERENCE in design, the pressures in my test are completely different, and therefore CANNOT be compared directly to an engine’s lobe/lifter interface pressure. That would be comparing apples to oranges, which makes absolutely no sense at all. My testing is so severe, that the oil fails at a much earlier point than it would in an engine. And that is why my test data psi values appear lower than you might expect to see in some running engines.
In addition to that, my equipment’s calibration is checked and adjusted if required, each time the testing switches to a different oil. That keeps the final results accurate at all times. And keep in mind, I’m comparing OIL AGAINST OIL, and the procedure used is exactly the same for each oil tested. For better or worse, each oil stands on its own merit, and produces the best wear protection capability that its chemical composition allows. If oil A produces twice the psi value of oil B in my testing, then oil A will also provide twice the wear protection capability of oil B, in a running engine.
All the oils were tested at a representative operational temperature of 230*F. A colder test temperature of less than 212*F would have been too cold, and would have been below desirable normal operating temperature, as well as being too low to even quickly boil off natural condensation, which if not quickly eliminated can dilute the oil. A hotter test temperature of above 250*F, would have been hotter than desirable normal operating temperature, and would have been so high, that many motor oils would already have reached the threshold of thermal breakdown. Remember that critical internal engine components are directly “OIL COOLED”, and only indirectly water cooled. So, the oil needs to stay cool enough to actually help cool those components. Therefore, 230*F is an ideal test temperature to arrive at the most meaningful values for comparison. I’ve also tested oils at 275*F, as well as 325*F, and found that there is was no significant change in the ranking order, which further confirms that the test temperature of 230*F is absolutely valid, even though operating temperatures vary in certain locations of an engine.
All the oils tested here were brand new oils. But, I’ve also tested a number of used oils, both synthetic and conventional, that had 5,000 miles on them. And in every case, there was NO REDUCTION what so ever, in wear protection capability, even though the zinc levels had dropped by around 25% on average. So, not only is this further proof that the zinc level is not tied to a motor oil’s wear protection capability, but it also proves that testing brand new oil is representative of what we can expect from an oil as time and mileage accumulate.
The fact is, high zinc oils may well be your undoing, no matter what Cam Companies say, and no matter what Oil Company Marketing hype says. Because not all high zinc oils are capable of providing acceptable wear protection. And the fact that my test data EXACTLY MATCHES real world track experience, proves it. No one and no Company can prove that all high zinc oils will always provide excellent wear protection, because that is simply NOT true.
Choosing an oil based only on how much zinc is present, is like playing Russian Roulette with your engine. Running certain high zinc oils and/or aftermarket zinc additives can cause engine failure, NOT prevent it. A lot of people run ordinary modern low zinc oils in flat tappet engines with no problem at all. They don’t perform special for break-in procedures, and they wonder what all the fuss is about. If you selected an oil from my Wear Protection Ranking list, which is based on load carrying capability, instead of picking an oil just because of how much zinc it has, your oil related problems, as well as complicated Break-In procedures, could be a thing of the past. For all the details, see my link below:
540 RAT
Mechanical Engineer
U.S. Patent Holder
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
To see my entire 130+ motor oil “Wear Protection Ranking List”, along with additional motor oil tech FACTS (with over 40,000 “views” worldwide), here’s a link:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
