Originally Posted by 540 RAT

Many of you know that I've performed extensive motor oil "Wear Testing" over that past year. And among the most profound results that came out of my testing, was the fact that the zinc levels made no difference on how well a motor oil can provide wear protection.

Of course many people could not accept that, even though they had no hard data to prove otherwise. So, I got pounded a lot for my real world test results, even though real world testing is the Gold Standard for determining how well various oils can protect engines from wear.

Below is a link to a GM report that includes info on zinc in motor oil. And their report says the exact same thing that I found in my testing. So, with my testing and the GM report saying the same thing, maybe now naysayers will believe that my oil test data was in fact valid all along.

Between the two, this proves you cannot put any value in a motor oil list of zinc levels. And you cannot believe cam and lifter Companies who tell you that you need a certain zinc level.

Here's the link:

http://www.nonlintec.com/sprite/oil_myths.pdf

540 RAT
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

Originally Posted by Learning_Curve

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

Anytime a new oil is developed, it is designed to work in older engines, but STOCK older engines. Doesn't take into account older engines with aftermarket aggresive lift profile cams.

Originally Posted by 63mako

I have read this numerous times. These are the requirements for backward compatability. It is a joke.

The new Starburst specification contains two valve-train wear tests. All Starburst oil
formulations must pass these two tests.
1 Sequence IVA tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a single overhead camshaft
engine with slider finger (not roller) followers.

Link is Here:

http://www.swri.org/4org/d08/gastests/ivatest/

The first test is done with a 1994 Nissan KA24E, 2.4-liter, water-cooled, fuel-injected engine, 4-cylinder in-line, overhead camshaft with 2 intake valves, and 1 exhaust valve per cylinder.
It is a 100 hour test. each hour is broken down to 50 Min @ 800 RPM and 10 min @ 1500 RPM. The test sequence never exceeds 1500 RPM.

It has no correlation to a flat tappet cam and lifter set in an american V8 especially a high lift, high RPM, aftermarket or solid lifter flat tappet cam.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Sequence IIIG evaluates cam and lifter wear using a V6 engine with a flat-tappet system,
similar to those used in the 1980s.

This test is done with an RPM limit of 3500 and an open spring pressure of #205. I am linking the original testing protocol below. Of signifigant interest should be the chart on page 6. I shows average wear with #180 springs and .03, and .05 phosphorous (The protective element in ZDDP) and again with #205 springs with .03, .05 and .095 Phosphorous. The increase in spring pressure required a higher percentage of ZDDP to protect the cam according to the chart. The difference in average wear with a #205 spring and .05 Phosphorous is 153. with .095 phoshorous average wear is 16. That is a wear reduction of 89%. Your typical BBC solid flat tappet spring might be in the neighborhood of #160 seat pressure and 450 open, over twice the spring pressure in the test. It might also see shift points of 7000 RPM, again twice the top RPM in the test. The difference in pressure measured in PSI seen at the lifter foot/cam lobe interface between a #205 spring @ 3500 RPM and a #450 spring @ 7000 RPM is astronomical. Again this backward compatability test has no real relevence in the real world other that the proof in the chart on page 6 that as spring pressures increase HIGHER LEVELS OF ZDDP ARE NEEDED TO REDUCE WEAR!

You are also breaking down ZDDP as you run the engine. An oil that starts with 800 PPM might have 400 PPM at 3000 miles. If it has heavy springs and run hard it might have 200 PPM. The v6 3800 engine with #205 springs might have 600 PPM left.


Here is the test Evolution and requirements.
ftp://ftp.astmtmc.cmu.edu/docs/gas/s...2002-24-04.pdf


The biggest positive to be taken from reading this paper is that the optional Phosphate coatings being done today by some of the cam manufacturers is the very best protection against premature wear if your using a flat tappet cam.

You are an engineer. Do some real in depth research before you post.

Originally Posted by lionelhutz

Hmm, Quickly looking through those reports I'm reading that having ZDP in the 0.08% to 0.1% range is good for getting decent wear protection but knowing if the engine needs it is another issue.

The arguement in the original posted report says that the new Starburst oils have similar ZDP as the older oils because they have 0.08% maximum ZDP in them. Well, what is the minimum levels they might have???? Bet it's way below 0.08%.

I've written many reports like the first one. Often, I'm just pulling info out of my *** to satify a customer. Well, maybe not quite but it can often be educated guesses more than real facts. Just saying.

Originally Posted by lionelhutz

Yes, the test parameters don't apply well to many real-world engines.

Do you have any data that validates how much more could be better? That initial document linked lists in the history description that 0.14% is somewhat of the limit where more wear can occur long term. However, there is no testing data confirming that number.