Motor Oil "Wear Test" and "Lab Test" Data
07-15-2014, 09:35 PM
#201
Race Director
Same recycled comments with absolutely no answers to the numerous questions regarding extrapolated conclusions from improper testing protocol. I have read the blog it is full of incorrect assumptions and misinformation.
"I'm a genius and anyone that doubts that is an imbecile and not worthy of an answer" is really not what any of us are looking for as an answer.
1. Test result's are for film strength on new oil at 230 degrees period. 2. Conclusion is wear protection effectiveness of extreme pressure antiwear additives. (these only come into play after the film strength is broken or "sheared' and the film strength test is concluded.) See link below
Two totally different properties of oil.
You take any of your "Incredible wear protection" oils and remove all the ZDDP from it and run it in a flat tappet cam engine I will bet you wipe lobes in short order.
After the base oil has sheared or squeezed out (film strength broken), The last line of defense is an additive that puts down a barrier film. (ZDDP) This additive usually has higher levels of strength against shearing so it helps keep the wear down.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/oilshear.htm
READ THE LINK!!!
"I'm a genius and anyone that doubts that is an imbecile and not worthy of an answer" is really not what any of us are looking for as an answer.
1. Test result's are for film strength on new oil at 230 degrees period. 2. Conclusion is wear protection effectiveness of extreme pressure antiwear additives. (these only come into play after the film strength is broken or "sheared' and the film strength test is concluded.) See link below
Two totally different properties of oil.
You take any of your "Incredible wear protection" oils and remove all the ZDDP from it and run it in a flat tappet cam engine I will bet you wipe lobes in short order.
After the base oil has sheared or squeezed out (film strength broken), The last line of defense is an additive that puts down a barrier film. (ZDDP) This additive usually has higher levels of strength against shearing so it helps keep the wear down.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/oilshear.htm
READ THE LINK!!!
07-16-2014, 01:37 AM
#202
Race Director
The Lone Ranger and Tonto were traveling, once again together, when night fell and they decided to make camp.
About 3 am Lone Ranger woke up Tonto and asked, “Tonto, look up at the sky and let me tell you what this very well educated White man sees.”
Lone Ranger began, “Millions of stars. The light we see began coming from each of those stars a very long time ago, some even billions of years ago. Light travels at 186,282 miles per second. Tonto, that means light goes 5, 878, 000, 000, 000 miles in one year. The closest star is named Alpha Centuri, and its light takes 4.3 light years just to get here, that’s 4.3 x 5, 878, 000, 000, 000. Some stars are so far away their light left their surface millions of light years ago! It’s almost too much even for this well educated white man to comprehend.
“Tonto,” said the Lone Ranger, “what does your primitive Indian mind see when you look at those stars?
Tonto answers: “Someone stole our tent!”
Moral: don’t think your education is better than my common sense
About 3 am Lone Ranger woke up Tonto and asked, “Tonto, look up at the sky and let me tell you what this very well educated White man sees.”
Lone Ranger began, “Millions of stars. The light we see began coming from each of those stars a very long time ago, some even billions of years ago. Light travels at 186,282 miles per second. Tonto, that means light goes 5, 878, 000, 000, 000 miles in one year. The closest star is named Alpha Centuri, and its light takes 4.3 light years just to get here, that’s 4.3 x 5, 878, 000, 000, 000. Some stars are so far away their light left their surface millions of light years ago! It’s almost too much even for this well educated white man to comprehend.
“Tonto,” said the Lone Ranger, “what does your primitive Indian mind see when you look at those stars?
Tonto answers: “Someone stole our tent!”
Moral: don’t think your education is better than my common sense
08-12-2014, 03:01 PM
#203
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: I tend to be leery of any guy who doesn't own a chainsaw or a handgun.
Posts: 18,350
Received 767 Likes
on
549 Posts
The Lone Ranger and Tonto were traveling, once again together, when night fell and they decided to make camp.
About 3 am Lone Ranger woke up Tonto and asked, “Tonto, look up at the sky and let me tell you what this very well educated White man sees.”
Lone Ranger began, “Millions of stars. The light we see began coming from each of those stars a very long time ago, some even billions of years ago. Light travels at 186,282 miles per second. Tonto, that means light goes 5, 878, 000, 000, 000 miles in one year. The closest star is named Alpha Centuri, and its light takes 4.3 light years just to get here, that’s 4.3 x 5, 878, 000, 000, 000. Some stars are so far away their light left their surface millions of light years ago! It’s almost too much even for this well educated white man to comprehend.
“Tonto,” said the Lone Ranger, “what does your primitive Indian mind see when you look at those stars?
Tonto answers: “Someone stole our tent!”
Moral: don’t think your education is better than my common sense
About 3 am Lone Ranger woke up Tonto and asked, “Tonto, look up at the sky and let me tell you what this very well educated White man sees.”
Lone Ranger began, “Millions of stars. The light we see began coming from each of those stars a very long time ago, some even billions of years ago. Light travels at 186,282 miles per second. Tonto, that means light goes 5, 878, 000, 000, 000 miles in one year. The closest star is named Alpha Centuri, and its light takes 4.3 light years just to get here, that’s 4.3 x 5, 878, 000, 000, 000. Some stars are so far away their light left their surface millions of light years ago! It’s almost too much even for this well educated white man to comprehend.
“Tonto,” said the Lone Ranger, “what does your primitive Indian mind see when you look at those stars?
Tonto answers: “Someone stole our tent!”
Moral: don’t think your education is better than my common sense
The following users liked this post:
Blackship (11-22-2022)
08-17-2014, 03:14 PM
#204
Instructor
Member Since: Sep 2010
Location: Rockwood TN
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just a while to read thru all the information on 540RAT before I found this thread.It has about all the information a man could ask for to get the best protection for a flat tappet engine.And as we all who have flat tappet cams know,we have been in a guessing game as to weather to trust what are on the bottles of our favorite oils.It is in my opinion a good site to keep from a possible wiped lobe or two. “WEAR PROTECTION” RANKING LIST | 540RAT - Tech ... Jun 20, 2013 ... THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT thing a motor oil does for your engine, ... showed that this oil contains 1557 ppm zinc, 1651 ppm phosphorus, and 3 ppm moly.... Read More »
Source:540ratblog.wordpress.co
Source:540ratblog.wordpress.co
08-18-2014, 07:10 AM
#205
Full web address
I just a while to read thru all the information on 540RAT before I found this thread.It has about all the information a man could ask for to get the best protection for a flat tappet engine.And as we all who have flat tappet cams know,we have been in a guessing game as to weather to trust what are on the bottles of our favorite oils.It is in my opinion a good site to keep from a possible wiped lobe or two. “WEAR PROTECTION” RANKING LIST | 540RAT - Tech ... Jun 20, 2013 ... THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT thing a motor oil does for your engine, ... showed that this oil contains 1557 ppm zinc, 1651 ppm phosphorus, and 3 ppm moly.... Read More »
Source:540ratblog.wordpress.co
Source:540ratblog.wordpress.co
Full web address
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
08-22-2014, 09:22 PM
#206
Burning Brakes
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/518/motor-oils
Here is a good read concerning ; "wear", "warranty", "ZDDP" - why it has been reduced and what the results may very well be !
Noria lends information to corporations that stand to lose millions to problems stemming from lubrication related failures.
Do a little thinking about who is leading a change, why it has happened, and what their motive is ! Hint - there isn't any regard for "antique" style engines, or any engine's longevity. ( I forgot to add to pay attention - " Anitwear property changes" )
Here is a good read concerning ; "wear", "warranty", "ZDDP" - why it has been reduced and what the results may very well be !
Noria lends information to corporations that stand to lose millions to problems stemming from lubrication related failures.
Do a little thinking about who is leading a change, why it has happened, and what their motive is ! Hint - there isn't any regard for "antique" style engines, or any engine's longevity. ( I forgot to add to pay attention - " Anitwear property changes" )
Last edited by 68post; 08-22-2014 at 09:40 PM. Reason: yessir
08-22-2014, 09:53 PM
#207
Race Director
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/518/motor-oils
Here is a good read concerning ; "wear", "warranty", "ZDDP" - why it has been reduced and what the results may very well be !
Noria lends information to corporations that stand to lose millions to problems stemming from lubrication related failures.
Do a little thinking about who is leading a change, why it has happened, and what their motive is ! Hint - there isn't any regard for "antique" style engines, or any engine's longevity.
Here is a good read concerning ; "wear", "warranty", "ZDDP" - why it has been reduced and what the results may very well be !
Noria lends information to corporations that stand to lose millions to problems stemming from lubrication related failures.
Do a little thinking about who is leading a change, why it has happened, and what their motive is ! Hint - there isn't any regard for "antique" style engines, or any engine's longevity.
"Antiwear additives are important in the absence of a hydrodynamic film, such as in the valve train. The antiwear additives are activated by frictional heat, which causes them to react with the hot surface and form a chemical barrier to wear."
The test 540Rat is doing ends when the Hydrodynamic film breaks. Period, End of test, Done. This happens at a PSI load way below the extreme pressures seen in even a mild flat tappet valvetrain. AT THAT POINT, AFTER THE TEST IS DONE. is when the ZDDP is activated and the protective phosphorous coating is deposited on the highly loaded parts. It is actually chemically bonded to the loaded points of contact, the higher the loading, friction and heat generated the faster it is deposited and subsequently worn off and the faster the ZDDP breaks down reducing available levels. It is the last barrier preventing metal to metal contact after the film strength breaks and the ONLY protection these highly loaded parts have after the film strength is broken. This is why elevated ZDDP levels are required if you run a flat tappet cam, especially a fast ramp, high spring pressure cam that sees high RPM. 540Rat stating that ZDDP is a non factor in wear protection and that film strength alone is the only test that matters is ludicrous and really shows a basic and total lack of understanding of the actual function and purpose of this essential additive and in no way tests its effectiveness. In his hundreds of posts and responses he has never acknowledged this fact or addressed this even though it has been brought to his attention dozens of times by dozens of posters on multiple forums many of whom are lubrication engineers and tribologists.
Last edited by 63mako; 08-22-2014 at 10:02 PM.
09-14-2014, 07:16 AM
#208
Drifting
here is somthing interesting for those who really want to see how oil does.....
http://www.speedtalk.com/forum/viewt...hp?f=1&t=31363
http://www.speedtalk.com/forum/viewt...hp?f=1&t=31363
11-25-2014, 12:45 PM
#209
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Apr 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 47 Likes
on
25 Posts
Motor Oil Thermal Breakdown Test Data
My Oil Test Data Blog has received such widespread acceptance, that it has now reached over 60,000 views worldwide. And it grows by about 5,000 views per month. People have from all over the world have embraced it because they finally have usable factual information available to make an informed choice for selecting the best oil for their needs. Until now, all they had was the myth that any high zinc oil was all they needed.
But my test data has busted the myth that all high zinc oils provide the needed wear protection. The fact is that some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc oils only provide poor wear protection. The number one ranked oil right out of the bottle is a high zinc oil, but an oil with the highest amount of zinc I've ever seen, is ranked dead last. The oil you need, all depends on your engine's wear protection requirements vs the amount of wear protection your motor oil provides. You may be OK, or you may not. So, people who choose an oil simply because of the amount of zinc present, are playing Russian Roulette with their engine.
The amount of zinc (and using zinc as the primary wear protection component is outdated technology) does NOT determine how well an oil can prevent wear. Zinc is sacrificed and used up, a little at a time, as mileage accumulates. So, the amount of zinc present in the oil is reduced. But, testing of various oils with 5,000 miles on them, showed no reduction in wear protection capability even though the zinc level had been reduced by about 25% on average, which is another example of how the zinc level does NOT determine wear protection. The zinc level went way down, but the wear protection held steady. More zinc simply takes longer to be depleted because there is more of it to begin with. It is much like more gas in your tank takes longer to run out, but more gas in your tank does NOT give you more power.
My oil test data is "proven" by Physics and Chemistry, and exactly matches real world race track experience. My test data also has numerous endorsements by other Engineers as well as Automotive Industry experts. See my blog for all the details.
Of course there are some outspoken individuals who cannot come to grips with the actual shortcomings of zinc in their oils. So, they pull out all the stops in an attempt to discredit my test data. But, what they believe, because of what they have been told and read for many years, is only folklore that cannot be proven with hard data, because it simply isn't true. However, I prove what I post with hard data to back up everything I say.
Wiped flat tappet lobes still happens with too much frequency, even though people used high zinc oils or low zinc oils with zinc additives. And this proves my point about not being able to rely on zinc levels alone. Of course high zinc believers try to make excuses by saying the cam/lifter material was bad or that the break-in procedure was wrong. But, most failures occurred with name brand parts that now provide good quality material, and you don't need any special break-in procedure if you use the correct motor oil. So, those folks have overlooked the root cause of the failures, which was that not all high zinc oils provide enough wear protection.
The fact is, if you select a high ranking oil from my wear protection ranking list, no matter how much zinc is in it, you will be good to go and can quit worrying about the oil in your engine, no matter what type of cam you run or how wicked the engine is.
My test data ranks motor oil based on load carrying capacity, NOT how much zinc is in it. And the only thing that matters, is an oil's load carrying capacity. In fact, as mentioned above, and it is worth repeating, you don't even have to use some elaborate break-in procedure if you select one of the high ranked oils from my list, even if you run a wicked flat tappet engine. Just break it in like you would a brand new vehicle. In other words, you don't have to lose sleep over break-in anymore if you select a proper oil.
Here is just one example of that. A buddy built a 500 HP, flat tappet, solid lifter, 383ci small block Chevy for his '69 Corvette several years ago. He asked me what oil he should use to break it in and to use later on as well. He wanted to use a conventional oil at that time, that was affordable, and readily available. So, I suggested he use conventional low zinc 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN, that provided 95,392 psi in my testing, which put it in the OUTSTANDING wear protection category.
He used that oil from day one with no elaborate break-in procedure at all. He just drove the car. It is his only car, so it is his daily driver, which he always drives like he stole it. And he has never had any issue with his cam or lifters. Then maybe a year ago he decided he wanted to switch to a synthetic oil that was affordable and readily available, so I suggested he go with low zinc synthetic 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN, that provided 105,875 psi in my testing, which put it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category. He has used that oil ever since and still has not had any issue at all with his cam or lifters. He has tens of thousands of hard Hotrod miles on that cam and lifter combo, which is far more miles than most weekend only Hotrods will ever see, and he has never suffered one bit from not using a high zinc oil. So, that is yet another example of the fact that high zinc oils are NOT needed for sufficient wear protection, even in flat tappet engines, and not even for break-in. The only thing that matters, as mentioned above, is an oil's load carrying capacity. And that is precisely the data my Oil Testing Blog ranks.
For the naysayers who just can't wrap their minds around that, I invite them to actually sit down and read my entire Blog from start to finish, with an open mind. And they will very likely be convinced that their old beliefs about high zinc oil has been wrong all along. That will allow them to use 21st Century motor oil test data to finally choose the oils that truly are the best for their needs.
I've received countless PM's and Blog comments from people all over the world, thanking me for providing factual motor oil data that they've never been able to find before. They make use of it, and you can too. Keep in mind, that I do not sell or work for a motor oil, nor motor oil additive Company. I do not sell or work for a cam/lifter Company. I only share the test data that came out of my Engineering tests, as a courtesy to other gear heads. You can embrace my data, or ignore it, that is your call. All I ask is that you read my entire Blog from start to finish with an open mind, then decide for yourself. The engine you save, may be your own.
Now, on with the Thermal Breakdown Test Data.
Motor oil thermal breakdown is the point at which the composition of the oil begins to change due to the temperature it’s exposed to.
The official test for this is called the NOACK Volatility Test. In this test, the oil is heated to 302* F for one hour. The lighter oil fractions will vaporize, leaving thicker and heavier oil, contributing to poor circulation, reduced fuel economy, increased oil consumption, increased wear and increased emissions. This of course means that any motor oil that has been heated above its onset of thermal breakdown point, should be changed as soon as possible.
The test reports results in the percentage, by weight, lost due to "volatilization." Before July 1, 2001, 5W-30 motor oil in the United States could lose up to 22 percent of its weight and still be regarded as "passable." Now, with GF-4, the maximum NOACK volatility for API licensing is 15 percent. European standards limit high quality oils to a maximum of 13 percent loss.
To find out how an assortment of oils actually perform in the real world, I heated the following oils, and below are the approximate temperatures (rounded to the nearest 5* increment) at which each oil started to vaporize/smoke, which indicated the onset of thermal breakdown:
SYNTHETIC GASOLINE ENGINE OILS:
10W30 Amsoil Dominator Racing Oil, synthetic = 300* F
10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil, synthetic = 300* F
5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven LS30 Performance Motor Oil, synthetic = 290* F
0W30 Mobil 1, API SN, Advanced Fuel Economy, synthetic = 290* F
0W30 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SL, European Formula, synthetic, made in Germany and sold in the U.S. = 290* F
0W40 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SN, European Formula, synthetic, made in Belgium and sold in the U.S. = 290* F
10W30 Lucas Racing Only, synthetic = 290* F
5W30 Motul 300V, Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic = 285* F
0W40 Mobil 1, API SN, European Formula, synthetic, made in the U.S. = 285* F
5W30 Royal Purple XPR, synthetic = 285* F
10W30 Joe Gibbs XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil, synthetic = 280* F
5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM, synthetic = 280* F
5W20 Castrol Edge w/Titanium, API SN, synthetic = 280* F
0W30 Mobil 1 Racing Oil, synthetic = 280* F
5W50 Motorcraft, API SN, synthetic = 275* F
0W50 Mobil 1 Racing Oil, synthetic = 270* F
5W30 Mobil 1, API SN, synthetic = 265* F
0W40 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN, synthetic = 260* F
5W30 Oil Extreme Motor Oil, API SM, synthetic = 255* F
0W Mobil 1 Racing Oil, synthetic = 210* F, and this is NOT a typo
SEMI-SYNTHETIC GASOLINE ENGINE OILS:
0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, semi-synthetic = 280* F
10W30 Renegade Pro Series Racing Oil, synthetic blend = 250* F
CONVENTIONAL GASOLINE ENGINE OILS:
5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional= 280* F
20W50 Castrol GTX, API SN, conventional = 275* F
10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil, silver bottle = 260* F
Here are the “averages” for the onset of thermal breakdown of these GASOLINE ENGINE oils:
The 20 Full synthetic oils = 278* F
The 2 Semi-synthetic oils = 265* F
The 3 Conventional dino oils = 272* F
The average value for the onset of thermal breakdown for all 25 gasoline engine oils combined = 276* F
These observations are perfectly consistent with the NOACK Volatility Test that is performed at 302* F. Oils have to be vaporizing/smoking by 302* in order to perform this official test.
As you can see by looking at the average value for each oil type above, there was only a 13* difference between the average of the lowest semi-synthetic oils and the average of the highest full synthetic oils. So, the real world observation here does NOT support common internet motor oil info claims about synthetic oils in general, having an unbelievable outrageously high temperature capability compared to other less expensive non-synthetic oils. The fact is, the test data here shows that, while there are some significant individual differences, synthetic and conventional oils overall, are rather close in thermal capability. This means that conventional oils are still far better than most people think.
**************************************** **********************
SYNTHETIC DIESEL OILS:
RED LINE, 15W40 Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CJ-4/CI-4 PLUS/CI-4/CF/CH-4/CF-4/SM/SL/SH/EO-O = 285* F
5W30 Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil synthetic = 280* F
MOBIL 1 TURBO DIESEL TRUCK, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4 and ACEA E7 = 270* F
5W40 Amsoil Premium Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 PLUS, CF, SN, SM, ACEA E7, E9 = 265* F
ROYAL PURPLE, 15W40 Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CJ-4 /SM, CI-4 PLUS, CH-4, CI-4
= 265* F
SHELL ROTELLA T6, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4/SM = 260* F
CHEVRON DELO 400LE, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, SL, SM = 255* F
CONVENTIONAL DIESEL OILS:
CASTROL GTX DIESEL, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4/SN = 265* F
CHEVRON DELO 400LE, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, SM, SL = 265* F
FARM RATED 15W40 Heavy Duty Performance Diesel, conventional, API CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF/SL, SJ = 255* F
VALVOLINE PREMIUM BLUE HEAVY DUTY DIESEL, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SM = 255* F
MOBIL DELVAC 1300 SUPER, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4/SM, SL = 250* F
LUCAS 15W40 MAGNUM Diesel Oil, conventional, API CI-4,CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SL = 250* F
“NEW” SHELL ROTELLA T, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4,CF/SM = 250* F
“OLD” SHELL ROTELLA T, 15W40 conventional, API CI-4 PLUS, CI-4, CH-4,CG-4,CF-4,CF,SL, SJ, SH = 250* F
Here are the “averages” for the onset of thermal breakdown of these 15 DIESEL oils:
The 7 full synthetic oils = 269* F
The 8 conventional oils = 255* F
The average value for the onset of thermal breakdown for all 15 Diesel oils combined = 261* F, which is 15* "LOWER" than the average of all 25 gasoline engine oils combined. That makes Diesel oils a poor choice for high performance gasoline engines, in terms of thermal breakdown capability.
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” Blog (with over 60,000 “views” worldwide), along with additional motor oil tech FACTS, which are "proven" by Physics and Chemistry, and exactly matches real world track experience, here’s a link:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
But my test data has busted the myth that all high zinc oils provide the needed wear protection. The fact is that some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc oils only provide poor wear protection. The number one ranked oil right out of the bottle is a high zinc oil, but an oil with the highest amount of zinc I've ever seen, is ranked dead last. The oil you need, all depends on your engine's wear protection requirements vs the amount of wear protection your motor oil provides. You may be OK, or you may not. So, people who choose an oil simply because of the amount of zinc present, are playing Russian Roulette with their engine.
The amount of zinc (and using zinc as the primary wear protection component is outdated technology) does NOT determine how well an oil can prevent wear. Zinc is sacrificed and used up, a little at a time, as mileage accumulates. So, the amount of zinc present in the oil is reduced. But, testing of various oils with 5,000 miles on them, showed no reduction in wear protection capability even though the zinc level had been reduced by about 25% on average, which is another example of how the zinc level does NOT determine wear protection. The zinc level went way down, but the wear protection held steady. More zinc simply takes longer to be depleted because there is more of it to begin with. It is much like more gas in your tank takes longer to run out, but more gas in your tank does NOT give you more power.
My oil test data is "proven" by Physics and Chemistry, and exactly matches real world race track experience. My test data also has numerous endorsements by other Engineers as well as Automotive Industry experts. See my blog for all the details.
Of course there are some outspoken individuals who cannot come to grips with the actual shortcomings of zinc in their oils. So, they pull out all the stops in an attempt to discredit my test data. But, what they believe, because of what they have been told and read for many years, is only folklore that cannot be proven with hard data, because it simply isn't true. However, I prove what I post with hard data to back up everything I say.
Wiped flat tappet lobes still happens with too much frequency, even though people used high zinc oils or low zinc oils with zinc additives. And this proves my point about not being able to rely on zinc levels alone. Of course high zinc believers try to make excuses by saying the cam/lifter material was bad or that the break-in procedure was wrong. But, most failures occurred with name brand parts that now provide good quality material, and you don't need any special break-in procedure if you use the correct motor oil. So, those folks have overlooked the root cause of the failures, which was that not all high zinc oils provide enough wear protection.
The fact is, if you select a high ranking oil from my wear protection ranking list, no matter how much zinc is in it, you will be good to go and can quit worrying about the oil in your engine, no matter what type of cam you run or how wicked the engine is.
My test data ranks motor oil based on load carrying capacity, NOT how much zinc is in it. And the only thing that matters, is an oil's load carrying capacity. In fact, as mentioned above, and it is worth repeating, you don't even have to use some elaborate break-in procedure if you select one of the high ranked oils from my list, even if you run a wicked flat tappet engine. Just break it in like you would a brand new vehicle. In other words, you don't have to lose sleep over break-in anymore if you select a proper oil.
Here is just one example of that. A buddy built a 500 HP, flat tappet, solid lifter, 383ci small block Chevy for his '69 Corvette several years ago. He asked me what oil he should use to break it in and to use later on as well. He wanted to use a conventional oil at that time, that was affordable, and readily available. So, I suggested he use conventional low zinc 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN, that provided 95,392 psi in my testing, which put it in the OUTSTANDING wear protection category.
He used that oil from day one with no elaborate break-in procedure at all. He just drove the car. It is his only car, so it is his daily driver, which he always drives like he stole it. And he has never had any issue with his cam or lifters. Then maybe a year ago he decided he wanted to switch to a synthetic oil that was affordable and readily available, so I suggested he go with low zinc synthetic 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN, that provided 105,875 psi in my testing, which put it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category. He has used that oil ever since and still has not had any issue at all with his cam or lifters. He has tens of thousands of hard Hotrod miles on that cam and lifter combo, which is far more miles than most weekend only Hotrods will ever see, and he has never suffered one bit from not using a high zinc oil. So, that is yet another example of the fact that high zinc oils are NOT needed for sufficient wear protection, even in flat tappet engines, and not even for break-in. The only thing that matters, as mentioned above, is an oil's load carrying capacity. And that is precisely the data my Oil Testing Blog ranks.
For the naysayers who just can't wrap their minds around that, I invite them to actually sit down and read my entire Blog from start to finish, with an open mind. And they will very likely be convinced that their old beliefs about high zinc oil has been wrong all along. That will allow them to use 21st Century motor oil test data to finally choose the oils that truly are the best for their needs.
I've received countless PM's and Blog comments from people all over the world, thanking me for providing factual motor oil data that they've never been able to find before. They make use of it, and you can too. Keep in mind, that I do not sell or work for a motor oil, nor motor oil additive Company. I do not sell or work for a cam/lifter Company. I only share the test data that came out of my Engineering tests, as a courtesy to other gear heads. You can embrace my data, or ignore it, that is your call. All I ask is that you read my entire Blog from start to finish with an open mind, then decide for yourself. The engine you save, may be your own.
Now, on with the Thermal Breakdown Test Data.
Motor oil thermal breakdown is the point at which the composition of the oil begins to change due to the temperature it’s exposed to.
The official test for this is called the NOACK Volatility Test. In this test, the oil is heated to 302* F for one hour. The lighter oil fractions will vaporize, leaving thicker and heavier oil, contributing to poor circulation, reduced fuel economy, increased oil consumption, increased wear and increased emissions. This of course means that any motor oil that has been heated above its onset of thermal breakdown point, should be changed as soon as possible.
The test reports results in the percentage, by weight, lost due to "volatilization." Before July 1, 2001, 5W-30 motor oil in the United States could lose up to 22 percent of its weight and still be regarded as "passable." Now, with GF-4, the maximum NOACK volatility for API licensing is 15 percent. European standards limit high quality oils to a maximum of 13 percent loss.
To find out how an assortment of oils actually perform in the real world, I heated the following oils, and below are the approximate temperatures (rounded to the nearest 5* increment) at which each oil started to vaporize/smoke, which indicated the onset of thermal breakdown:
SYNTHETIC GASOLINE ENGINE OILS:
10W30 Amsoil Dominator Racing Oil, synthetic = 300* F
10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil, synthetic = 300* F
5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven LS30 Performance Motor Oil, synthetic = 290* F
0W30 Mobil 1, API SN, Advanced Fuel Economy, synthetic = 290* F
0W30 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SL, European Formula, synthetic, made in Germany and sold in the U.S. = 290* F
0W40 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SN, European Formula, synthetic, made in Belgium and sold in the U.S. = 290* F
10W30 Lucas Racing Only, synthetic = 290* F
5W30 Motul 300V, Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic = 285* F
0W40 Mobil 1, API SN, European Formula, synthetic, made in the U.S. = 285* F
5W30 Royal Purple XPR, synthetic = 285* F
10W30 Joe Gibbs XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil, synthetic = 280* F
5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM, synthetic = 280* F
5W20 Castrol Edge w/Titanium, API SN, synthetic = 280* F
0W30 Mobil 1 Racing Oil, synthetic = 280* F
5W50 Motorcraft, API SN, synthetic = 275* F
0W50 Mobil 1 Racing Oil, synthetic = 270* F
5W30 Mobil 1, API SN, synthetic = 265* F
0W40 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN, synthetic = 260* F
5W30 Oil Extreme Motor Oil, API SM, synthetic = 255* F
0W Mobil 1 Racing Oil, synthetic = 210* F, and this is NOT a typo
SEMI-SYNTHETIC GASOLINE ENGINE OILS:
0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, semi-synthetic = 280* F
10W30 Renegade Pro Series Racing Oil, synthetic blend = 250* F
CONVENTIONAL GASOLINE ENGINE OILS:
5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional= 280* F
20W50 Castrol GTX, API SN, conventional = 275* F
10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil, silver bottle = 260* F
Here are the “averages” for the onset of thermal breakdown of these GASOLINE ENGINE oils:
The 20 Full synthetic oils = 278* F
The 2 Semi-synthetic oils = 265* F
The 3 Conventional dino oils = 272* F
The average value for the onset of thermal breakdown for all 25 gasoline engine oils combined = 276* F
These observations are perfectly consistent with the NOACK Volatility Test that is performed at 302* F. Oils have to be vaporizing/smoking by 302* in order to perform this official test.
As you can see by looking at the average value for each oil type above, there was only a 13* difference between the average of the lowest semi-synthetic oils and the average of the highest full synthetic oils. So, the real world observation here does NOT support common internet motor oil info claims about synthetic oils in general, having an unbelievable outrageously high temperature capability compared to other less expensive non-synthetic oils. The fact is, the test data here shows that, while there are some significant individual differences, synthetic and conventional oils overall, are rather close in thermal capability. This means that conventional oils are still far better than most people think.
**************************************** **********************
SYNTHETIC DIESEL OILS:
RED LINE, 15W40 Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CJ-4/CI-4 PLUS/CI-4/CF/CH-4/CF-4/SM/SL/SH/EO-O = 285* F
5W30 Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil synthetic = 280* F
MOBIL 1 TURBO DIESEL TRUCK, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4 and ACEA E7 = 270* F
5W40 Amsoil Premium Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 PLUS, CF, SN, SM, ACEA E7, E9 = 265* F
ROYAL PURPLE, 15W40 Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CJ-4 /SM, CI-4 PLUS, CH-4, CI-4
= 265* F
SHELL ROTELLA T6, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4/SM = 260* F
CHEVRON DELO 400LE, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, SL, SM = 255* F
CONVENTIONAL DIESEL OILS:
CASTROL GTX DIESEL, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4/SN = 265* F
CHEVRON DELO 400LE, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, SM, SL = 265* F
FARM RATED 15W40 Heavy Duty Performance Diesel, conventional, API CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF/SL, SJ = 255* F
VALVOLINE PREMIUM BLUE HEAVY DUTY DIESEL, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SM = 255* F
MOBIL DELVAC 1300 SUPER, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4/SM, SL = 250* F
LUCAS 15W40 MAGNUM Diesel Oil, conventional, API CI-4,CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SL = 250* F
“NEW” SHELL ROTELLA T, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4,CF/SM = 250* F
“OLD” SHELL ROTELLA T, 15W40 conventional, API CI-4 PLUS, CI-4, CH-4,CG-4,CF-4,CF,SL, SJ, SH = 250* F
Here are the “averages” for the onset of thermal breakdown of these 15 DIESEL oils:
The 7 full synthetic oils = 269* F
The 8 conventional oils = 255* F
The average value for the onset of thermal breakdown for all 15 Diesel oils combined = 261* F, which is 15* "LOWER" than the average of all 25 gasoline engine oils combined. That makes Diesel oils a poor choice for high performance gasoline engines, in terms of thermal breakdown capability.
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” Blog (with over 60,000 “views” worldwide), along with additional motor oil tech FACTS, which are "proven" by Physics and Chemistry, and exactly matches real world track experience, here’s a link:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
11-25-2014, 02:30 PM
#210
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Apr 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 47 Likes
on
25 Posts
Same recycled comments with absolutely no answers to the numerous questions regarding extrapolated conclusions from improper testing protocol. I have read the blog it is full of incorrect assumptions and misinformation.
"I'm a genius and anyone that doubts that is an imbecile and not worthy of an answer" is really not what any of us are looking for as an answer.
1. Test result's are for film strength on new oil at 230 degrees period. 2. Conclusion is wear protection effectiveness of extreme pressure antiwear additives. (these only come into play after the film strength is broken or "sheared' and the film strength test is concluded.) See link below
Two totally different properties of oil.
You take any of your "Incredible wear protection" oils and remove all the ZDDP from it and run it in a flat tappet cam engine I will bet you wipe lobes in short order.
After the base oil has sheared or squeezed out (film strength broken), The last line of defense is an additive that puts down a barrier film. (ZDDP) This additive usually has higher levels of strength against shearing so it helps keep the wear down.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/oilshear.htm
READ THE LINK!!!
"I'm a genius and anyone that doubts that is an imbecile and not worthy of an answer" is really not what any of us are looking for as an answer.
1. Test result's are for film strength on new oil at 230 degrees period. 2. Conclusion is wear protection effectiveness of extreme pressure antiwear additives. (these only come into play after the film strength is broken or "sheared' and the film strength test is concluded.) See link below
Two totally different properties of oil.
You take any of your "Incredible wear protection" oils and remove all the ZDDP from it and run it in a flat tappet cam engine I will bet you wipe lobes in short order.
After the base oil has sheared or squeezed out (film strength broken), The last line of defense is an additive that puts down a barrier film. (ZDDP) This additive usually has higher levels of strength against shearing so it helps keep the wear down.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/oilshear.htm
READ THE LINK!!!
I do not follow along and answer questions that come up in this discussion, because too many people have their minds made up before they even start reading, so they just want to fight and argue, rather than learn something. No one is ever convinced of anything, and we all end up right where we started. I simply don't have time for that all that nonsense. It is a waste of my time to even respond to your reply, but I'll take another stab at it.
I don't sell anything, so I have no vested interest in what oil people choose to use. I only share the results that came out of my test data, as a courtesy to other gear heads. So, folks can embrace my data or ignore, and it won't affect me one way or the other. But, of course I do not appreciate being attacked by others who have a personal agenda and cannot back up anything they say with any actual hard data. They just provide links to other unreliable info.
My test data does follow correct Engineering Test Protocol. And it has been endorsed by many other Degreed Engineers, as well as other well known figures in the Automotive Industry. My data has also proven to EXACTLY match real world race track experience (if my information is so bad, how do you explain that?). See my Blog for all the details. The information I provide is the real deal whether you can understand it or not.
As for the testing temperature used, if you had read my Blog you would see a complete explanation of why the 230* temperature was chosen as the standard, and that I have also tested oils as high as 325*, which did not change the ranking order.
As for the wear scars formed in my testing, the oils "as a whole", INCLUDING their extreme pressure components like zinc, automatically determine the size of the wear scar at the point of the oil film being breached, which is determined by the capability of the oil's overall chemical composition. That's why my testing is correct Engineering Test protocol. Then using the load applied to calculate the psi value, we arrive at what is referred to as the oil's load carrying capacity. The whole point of my testing is to find out what this value is for each oil, so that we can directly compare them. Obviously we want to choose an oil that provides a psi value "above" what our engine's requirements are. Once you have reached the point of creating a wear scar, you are already at the point of metal to metal contact. If one oil can support 115,000 psi in my testing, and another can only support 50,000 psi in my testing, it's not hard to see which one will provide your engine with the best wear protection. This is not Rocket Science and is not a hard concept to understand. Most people don't have a problem with this.
I do not post any extrapolated conclusions, nor do I post any incorrect assumptions or misinformation. You are the one who always does that, which is unfortunate for anyone who buys into what you say. My data is NOT my theory or opinion. Everything I post is factual and comes out of the direct data from my testing, which was determined by the Physics and Chemistry involved. Do you really think you can prove Physics and Chemistry wrong???? I am only the messenger of what Physics and Chemistry tell us. And it is the best information you will ever find about how motor oil actually works.
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” Blog (with over 60,000 “views” worldwide), along with additional motor oil tech FACTS, which are "proven" by Physics and Chemistry, and exactly matches real world track experience, here’s a link:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
11-25-2014, 02:48 PM
#211
Race Director
You are testing the film strength of the oil at 230 degrees. Nothing more, nothing less. Antiwear additives are activated after the film strength is broken, when your test ends. Your test in no way tests the effectiveness of antiwear additives after the conclusion of your test. You keep repeating that Zinc has no effect on Extreme pressure antiwear properties of oil. Your right Phosphorous does. The protective film deposited when the ZDDP molecule is sheared is a phosphorous coating. Zinc is bound to phosphorous in the ZDDP molecule. Shear from extreme pressure and heat cause the phosphorous to deposit in a film on the highly loaded part providing the last line of defense against steel to steel contact. This happens after the film strength is broken and your test ends. You are extrapolating results of antiwear effectiveness from results of a film strength test two totally different properties of oil and an improper testing protocol. As an engineer you of all people should know better.
READ THE LINK!!!
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/oilshear.htm
READ THE LINK!!!
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/oilshear.htm
Last edited by 63mako; 11-25-2014 at 02:51 PM.
11-25-2014, 03:02 PM
#212
I see in your listing that you still use "Synthetic" engine oil heading. Aren't all oils now a blend since Mobil lost the suit with Castrol? Is there still a true Group 5, full synthetic out there?
Just curious. Ralph
Just curious. Ralph
11-25-2014, 07:32 PM
#213
Burning Brakes
The best resource for oil information is ; www.bobistheoilguy.com
Last edited by 68post; 11-25-2014 at 07:33 PM. Reason: no..never..
11-25-2014, 07:41 PM
#214
Race Director
540 RAT,
Keep up the good work.
I can see and understand what you are doing even though 'some people' choose to NOT have an open mind and able to piece together what these tests are all about. And I do not need anyone to tell me that I can not compile data and make my own conclusion...even if it is not their conclusion.
INCLUDING the recent test of thermal breakdown...VERY INTERESTING...and this test has nothing to do with film strength....which is OBVIOUSLY am entirely different test all together.
Keep up the good work...because it is obvious...there is no one else doing these tests who are members of this Forum.
DUB
Keep up the good work.
I can see and understand what you are doing even though 'some people' choose to NOT have an open mind and able to piece together what these tests are all about. And I do not need anyone to tell me that I can not compile data and make my own conclusion...even if it is not their conclusion.
INCLUDING the recent test of thermal breakdown...VERY INTERESTING...and this test has nothing to do with film strength....which is OBVIOUSLY am entirely different test all together.
Keep up the good work...because it is obvious...there is no one else doing these tests who are members of this Forum.
DUB
11-25-2014, 09:05 PM
#215
Race Director
Just to be clear, I am not discounting this testing as useless. Film strength is an important aspect of a quality oil. The stronger the film strength the more pressure it takes to "shear" the oil. That said any oils film strength (115,000 LB per SQ/IN max) will be "sheared" in even a low RPM, low spring pressure, stock flat tappet engine at the lobe lifter interface (over 200,000 LB per SQ IN)
Easily double that in a High HP, RPM, Spring Pressure application.. This is where ZDDP is Required. As oil breaks down the viscocity improvers, friction modifiers and ZDDP break down as well. As a result film strength drops and the need for additional ZDDP reserves becomes more critical. I am using the Pensoil Ultra in my wife's Aveo now as well as my Colorado as a result of reading this thread and my Amsoil supplier passing away. Both are low horsepower and RPM engines and have roller cams. If you use this testing as a film strength guide and also consider the ZDDP levels needed for your specific application and base stock desired it is a useful reference.
Easily double that in a High HP, RPM, Spring Pressure application.. This is where ZDDP is Required. As oil breaks down the viscocity improvers, friction modifiers and ZDDP break down as well. As a result film strength drops and the need for additional ZDDP reserves becomes more critical. I am using the Pensoil Ultra in my wife's Aveo now as well as my Colorado as a result of reading this thread and my Amsoil supplier passing away. Both are low horsepower and RPM engines and have roller cams. If you use this testing as a film strength guide and also consider the ZDDP levels needed for your specific application and base stock desired it is a useful reference.
Last edited by 63mako; 11-25-2014 at 09:13 PM.
11-26-2014, 10:53 AM
#216
Le Mans Master
I use Valvoline High Mileage 5W-30 in the wife's 2005 Explorer (V6, she is over 100,000) and Mobil 1 in my 2004 Chevy Silverado pickup (325 inch engine, 55,000). Never had a problem with either oil.
As a side note, but related, AC Delco has CHANGED the way they make their oil filters. This happened a while back. I used PF46 filters in my truck since I bought it. The new PF46E filters is different from what they used to make. There is LESS filter media inside. Just turn the filter over and look at it. You will see an outside plate, but inside you will see ANOTHER plate and then the filter media down below it. So in effect, you have HALF the filter media you used to have. So I have switched to Purolater filters for both vehicles. They have the full amount of filter media in them.
As a side note, but related, AC Delco has CHANGED the way they make their oil filters. This happened a while back. I used PF46 filters in my truck since I bought it. The new PF46E filters is different from what they used to make. There is LESS filter media inside. Just turn the filter over and look at it. You will see an outside plate, but inside you will see ANOTHER plate and then the filter media down below it. So in effect, you have HALF the filter media you used to have. So I have switched to Purolater filters for both vehicles. They have the full amount of filter media in them.
12-08-2014, 12:17 AM
#217
Instructor
I use Valvoline High Mileage 5W-30 in the wife's 2005 Explorer (V6, she is over 100,000) and Mobil 1 in my 2004 Chevy Silverado pickup (325 inch engine, 55,000). Never had a problem with either oil.
As a side note, but related, AC Delco has CHANGED the way they make their oil filters. This happened a while back. I used PF46 filters in my truck since I bought it. The new PF46E filters is different from what they used to make. There is LESS filter media inside. Just turn the filter over and look at it. You will see an outside plate, but inside you will see ANOTHER plate and then the filter media down below it. So in effect, you have HALF the filter media you used to have. So I have switched to Purolater filters for both vehicles. They have the full amount of filter media in them.
As a side note, but related, AC Delco has CHANGED the way they make their oil filters. This happened a while back. I used PF46 filters in my truck since I bought it. The new PF46E filters is different from what they used to make. There is LESS filter media inside. Just turn the filter over and look at it. You will see an outside plate, but inside you will see ANOTHER plate and then the filter media down below it. So in effect, you have HALF the filter media you used to have. So I have switched to Purolater filters for both vehicles. They have the full amount of filter media in them.
1996 Corvette LT1 gets Mobil 1 always and oil change when the light comes on. 125,000 miles. Usually a Purolator or Wix filter.
Recent cam change in my 86 Monte SS. Comp XE268 FLAT tappet. 30 minute break in with conventional 30W oil plus 2 bottles of extra zinc additive. Then 20/50 Valvoline race oil with a dose of Rislone zinc additive. 1500 miles and so far so good. No wiped lobes yet...
Different applications require different oils and its still a crap shoot.
12-17-2014, 06:31 PM
#218
Le Mans Master
Just to be clear, I am not discounting this testing as useless. Film strength is an important aspect of a quality oil. The stronger the film strength the more pressure it takes to "shear" the oil. That said any oils film strength (115,000 LB per SQ/IN max) will be "sheared" in even a low RPM, low spring pressure, stock flat tappet engine at the lobe lifter interface (over 200,000 LB per SQ IN)
Easily double that in a High HP, RPM, Spring Pressure application.. This is where ZDDP is Required. As oil breaks down the viscocity improvers, friction modifiers and ZDDP break down as well. As a result film strength drops and the need for additional ZDDP reserves becomes more critical. I am using the Pensoil Ultra in my wife's Aveo now as well as my Colorado as a result of reading this thread and my Amsoil supplier passing away. Both are low horsepower and RPM engines and have roller cams. If you use this testing as a film strength guide and also consider the ZDDP levels needed for your specific application and base stock desired it is a useful reference.
Easily double that in a High HP, RPM, Spring Pressure application.. This is where ZDDP is Required. As oil breaks down the viscocity improvers, friction modifiers and ZDDP break down as well. As a result film strength drops and the need for additional ZDDP reserves becomes more critical. I am using the Pensoil Ultra in my wife's Aveo now as well as my Colorado as a result of reading this thread and my Amsoil supplier passing away. Both are low horsepower and RPM engines and have roller cams. If you use this testing as a film strength guide and also consider the ZDDP levels needed for your specific application and base stock desired it is a useful reference.
12-17-2014, 07:54 PM
#219
Race Director
Read it in a ASTM/API compatability test paper. Will see if I can find it.
Can't find the paper but here is a quote from Mark Ferner, team leader for Quaker State Motor Oil Research and Development. I am sure his information came from the same research paper I am talking about.
According to Mark Ferner, team leader for Quaker State Motor Oil Research and Development, "Even stock passenger cars can see pressure in excess of 200,000 psi at the point of flat-tappet/cam lobe contact." To prevent excess wear, traditional motor oil included a generous dose of antiwear additives, primarily zinc dialkyldithiophosphate (ZDDP). "The chemistry is such that the additive is a combination of zinc and phosphorous," says Rockett Racing Fuel's Tim Wusz. "Typically the phosphate amounts are about 75 percent of the zinc amounts. For example, if there was 0.100 percent zinc by weight in the motor oil, then the phosphate is about 0.075."
Ferner adds, "The zinc reacts with the cam lobe's iron surface. That creates a sacrificial chemical coating strong enough to keep parts separated to reduce the wear." Although great for keeping a flat tappet alive, as an engine ages and develops blow-by, some of the additives flow out the exhaust where they can degrade oxygen sensor and catalytic converter performance. Faced with ever more stringent emissions standards and the governmental mandate for extended emissions-control- system warranties, the OEMs got together with the motor oil makers and decided to reduce the amount of ZDDP in street-legal, gasoline-engine motor oils. After all, they weren't needed with modern roller lifters and overhead-cam followers. The reduction first started in the mid-'80s, and it has been a gradual process, but the latest API SM and GF-4 specs have reduced ZDDP content to such an extent that the new oils may not provide adequate protection for older, flat-tappet-equipped vehicles running non stock, performance cams and valvetrains. And it will only get worse; projected future oil spec revisions will likely reduce ZDDP content even more.
Read more: http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...#ixzz3MCr4mRWf
Follow us: @HotRodMagazine on Twitter | HotRodMag on Facebook
Here is another good read that explains why Diesel oil is not the answer and why the levels are higher. I explained this earlier. http://www.drivenracingoil.com/news/...-in-motor-oil/
Can't find the paper but here is a quote from Mark Ferner, team leader for Quaker State Motor Oil Research and Development. I am sure his information came from the same research paper I am talking about.
According to Mark Ferner, team leader for Quaker State Motor Oil Research and Development, "Even stock passenger cars can see pressure in excess of 200,000 psi at the point of flat-tappet/cam lobe contact." To prevent excess wear, traditional motor oil included a generous dose of antiwear additives, primarily zinc dialkyldithiophosphate (ZDDP). "The chemistry is such that the additive is a combination of zinc and phosphorous," says Rockett Racing Fuel's Tim Wusz. "Typically the phosphate amounts are about 75 percent of the zinc amounts. For example, if there was 0.100 percent zinc by weight in the motor oil, then the phosphate is about 0.075."
Ferner adds, "The zinc reacts with the cam lobe's iron surface. That creates a sacrificial chemical coating strong enough to keep parts separated to reduce the wear." Although great for keeping a flat tappet alive, as an engine ages and develops blow-by, some of the additives flow out the exhaust where they can degrade oxygen sensor and catalytic converter performance. Faced with ever more stringent emissions standards and the governmental mandate for extended emissions-control- system warranties, the OEMs got together with the motor oil makers and decided to reduce the amount of ZDDP in street-legal, gasoline-engine motor oils. After all, they weren't needed with modern roller lifters and overhead-cam followers. The reduction first started in the mid-'80s, and it has been a gradual process, but the latest API SM and GF-4 specs have reduced ZDDP content to such an extent that the new oils may not provide adequate protection for older, flat-tappet-equipped vehicles running non stock, performance cams and valvetrains. And it will only get worse; projected future oil spec revisions will likely reduce ZDDP content even more.
Read more: http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...#ixzz3MCr4mRWf
Follow us: @HotRodMagazine on Twitter | HotRodMag on Facebook
Here is another good read that explains why Diesel oil is not the answer and why the levels are higher. I explained this earlier. http://www.drivenracingoil.com/news/...-in-motor-oil/
Last edited by 63mako; 12-17-2014 at 08:12 PM.
12-17-2014, 11:40 PM
#220
Le Mans Master
^Thanks. 200,000lbs is what a fully loaded Airbus 321 weighs..I'm trying to calculate how' for example, a 400 lb valve spring multiplies into that kind of pressure.