0W40 vs 5W30 vs 0W30
10-07-2013, 08:54 PM
#1
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Apr 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 47 Likes
on
25 Posts
0W40 vs 5W30 vs 0W30
On the Corvette C6, Z06 Forum, perhaps the most popular oil the U.S. guys like to use is what they call, the 0W40 Euro blend Mobil 1. This oil is what GM calls for in the Owner’s Manual and also on the oil filler cap on C6 Z06's sold in Canada and Europe, whereas 5W30 Mobil 1 is called for in the U.S. The rationale the U.S. Corvette owners typically use for choosing this 0W40 Euro blend Mobil 1 instead of following GM’s recommendation, is the thinking that this oil may have more zinc than U.S. oil, and their mistaken belief that more zinc and a higher viscosity can provide better wear protection, as well as their mistaken belief that 5W30 Mobil 1 is not very good.
Also, on “Bob is the Oil Guy” Forum, 0W30 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SL, European Formula, made in Germany and sold in the U.S., is very popular. This is apparently because they favor the better cold flowing 0W cold viscosity rating (which is a good idea), and because of the thinking that this oil may have more zinc than U.S. oil, and their mistaken belief that more zinc can provide better wear protection.
The Z06 guys as well as the Bob Forum guys, obviously feel this way based on emotion and guessing/speculation, because they clearly never had any test data to evaluate………………until now. The details on that below.
I've performed accurate and repeatable motor oil "Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load", which more specifically is a rubbing friction test under load, on about 120 different oils so far. Below is how high and low zinc motor oils compared with regard to Wear Protection Capability (the oil providing the best protection ranks number 1):
* High zinc oils rank between number 5 and number 124, which VERY CLEARLY shows that simply having a high level of zinc is no guarantee of superior wear protection. If a high level of zinc was a guarantee of superior wear protection, then all high zinc oils would rank at the top of the list. But, that simply is NOT the case. And in traditional older style engines, many wiped flat tappet lobes COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED if people had not blindly believed that all high zinc oils provide all the wear protection they need. Because nothing could be further from the truth.
* Low zinc oils rank between number 1 and number 100.
* Since the low zinc oils and the high zinc oils completely overlap, you can see that zinc does not play the primary role in determining an oil’s wear protection capability. An oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, with the primary emphasis on the additive package, which contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components. Modern alternate extreme pressure anti-wear components are equal to, or better than zinc.
****************************
And consider the following:
1. Well known and respected Engineer and Tech Author David Vizard, whose own test data, largely based on real world engine dyno testing, has concluded that more zinc in motor oil can be damaging, more zinc does NOT provide today's best wear protection, and that using zinc as the primary anti-wear component, is outdated technology.
2. The GM Oil Report titled, "Oil Myths from GM Techlink", concluded that high levels of zinc are damaging and that more zinc does NOT provide more wear protection.
3. A motor oil research article written by Ed Hackett titled, "More than you ever wanted to know about Motor Oil", concluded that more zinc does NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer wear protection.
4. This from the Brad Penn Oil Company:
There is such a thing as too much ZDDP. ZDDP is surface aggressive, and too much can be a detriment. ZDDP fights for the surface, blocking other additive performance. Acids generated due to excessive ZDDP contact will “tie-up” detergents thus encouraging corrosive wear. ZDDP effectiveness plateaus, more does NOT translate into more protection. Only so much is utilized. We don’t need to saturate our oil with ZDDP.
My test results came up with the exact same results stated by all four of those independent sources. So, this is an example where motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” using oil testing equipment, engine dyno testing, Motor Oil Industry testing, and proper motor oil research using only the facts, from a total of five (including my own) independent sources, all converged to agree and come to the same exact conclusion. Back-up validation proof, doesn't get any better than this.
The ONLY way to tell how well an oil can protect against wear, is to perform dynamic wear testing under load, at a representative operational temperature, in order to determine its “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength”. And that is precisely what I’ve done over the past couple of years. And the test equipment has its calibration checked and adjusted if needed, each time the testing switches to a different oil. That way excellent accuracy is maintained at all times.
*******************************
Not only does my test data match the independent sources above, but my oil testing methodology and the resulting data have also been endorsed by the following well respected sources:
1. Dr. Lars Grimsrud, who is the most highly respected Engineer, Car builder and Tech Guru on the Corvette C3 Forum. He told me, “I'm 100% on board with backing you with my endorsement on your testing: I run a Propulsion Testing Laboratory for a major Aerospace Company, so I'm in the testing business. Your methods and approach are in accordance with sound engineering testing methods, and are not arguable by intelligent people”. He also told me this about my Oil Testing info, “This is excellent stuff, and I've already sent copies of this to my engineering colleagues”. In addition to that, he now includes my Oil Testing Info in a list of Tech Papers written by well respected Industry authors, that he makes available to enthusiasts.
2. A NASCAR engine supplier out of North Carolina (they did not want their name associated with any Internet motor oil arguments that may come up, so they asked that their name be left out, which I honored) was so impressed with the motor oil “Wear Protection Capability Testing” I perform, that they sent me 3 NASCAR Racing Oils they use, for testing. They valued my testing efforts enough to include me in what they do, which is quite an endorsement, considering the Professional level of Racing they are involved in. They had been seeing some wear issues with those oils, and wanted to see if I could shed any light on that by testing them. I did test those oils for them, and the test results showed that those oils did not provide acceptable wear protection capability, which accounted for the wear problems they were having. So, they have selected other oils to use, and their wear problems have gone away. If I had tested those oils before they started using them, I could have saved them time, money and grief.
3. The “Oil Extreme” Oil Company was so impressed with the detail and accuracy of my oil testing, that they wanted to hire me to perform product development research testing for them. That was clearly a major endorsement of the testing I perform. But, I declined taking any money from them, because I won’t be tied to any Oil Company by money. That way I can maintain my independent and unbiased status. I report the test results just how they come out, good or bad. And there is no way I’d allow any Oil Company to influence anything I report. I did however, agree to perform testing for them for free, along with other testing I perform. And those results will be posted along with other test results.
***********************
Below is how the various viscosities compared with regard to Wear Protection Capability:
* 20 wt oils rank between number 17 and 116
* 30 wt oils rank between number 1 and 124
* 40 wt oils rank between number 54 and 115
* 50 wt oils rank between number 10 and 108
So, as you can see, oil viscosity plays no particular role in an oil’s wear protection capability. An oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, with the primary emphasis on the additive package, which contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components.
***********************
CONSIDER THE BENEFITS OF USING THINNER OIL:
• Thinner oil flows quicker at cold start-up to begin lubricating critical engine components much more quickly than thicker oil can. Most engine wear takes place during cold start-up before oil flow can reach all the components. So, quicker flowing thinner oil will help reduce start-up engine wear, which is actually reducing wear overall.
• The more free flowing thinner oil at cold start-up, is also much less likely to cause the oil filter bypass to open up, compared to thicker oil. Of course if the bypass opened up, that would allow unfiltered oil to be pumped through the engine. The colder the ambient temperature, and the more rpm used when the engine is cold, the more important this becomes.
• Thinner oil also flows more at normal operating temperatures. And oil FLOW is lubrication, but oil pressure is NOT lubrication. Oil pressure is only a measurement of resistance to flow. Running thicker oil just to up the oil pressure is the wrong thing to do, because that only reduces oil flow/lubrication. Oil pressure in and of itself, is NOT what we are after.
• The more free flowing thinner oil will also drain back to the oil pan quicker than thicker oil. So, thinner oil can help maintain a higher oil level in the oil pan during operation, which keeps the oil pump pickup from possibly sucking air during braking and cornering.
• The old rule of thumb that we should have at least 10 psi for every 1,000 rpm is perfectly fine. Running thicker oil to achieve more pressure than that, will simply reduce oil flow for no good reason. It is best to run the thinnest oil we can, that will still maintain at least the rule of thumb oil pressure. And one of the benefits of running a high volume oil pump, is that it will allow us to enjoy all the benefits of running thinner oil, while still maintaining sufficient oil pressure. A high volume oil pump/thinner oil combo is preferred over running a standard volume oil pump/thicker oil combo. Because oil “flow” is our goal for ideal oiling, NOT simply high oil pressure.
• Oil flow is what carries heat away from internal engine components. Those engine components are DIRECTLY oil cooled, but only INdirectly water cooled. And better flowing thinner oil will keep critical engine components cooler because it carries heat away faster. If you run thicker oil than needed, you will be driving up engine component temps.
• Thinner oil will typically increase HP because of less viscous drag and reduced pumping losses, compared to thicker oils. That is why very serious Race efforts will generally use watery thin oils in their engines. But, an exception to this increase in HP would be in high rpm hydraulic lifter engines, where thinner oil can allow the lifters to bleed-off at higher rpm. In everyday street vehicles, where fuel consumption is a consideration, thinner oils will also typically increase fuel economy. The majority of new cars sold in the U.S. now call for 5W20 specifically for increased fuel economy. And now Diesel trucks are increasingly calling for 5W30, also for fuel economy improvement.
• With the exception of high rpm hydraulic lifter engines, almost no engine should ever need to run oil thicker than a multi-viscosity 30 weight. The lower the first number cold viscosity rating, the better the cold flow. For example, 0W30 flows WAY better cold than 20W50. And 0W30 flows WAY better “cold” than straight 30wt, which is horrible for cold start-up flow and should be avoided at all cost. And the lower the second number hot viscosity rating, the better the hot flow. For example, 0W30 flows WAY better “hot” than 20W50.
• Thicker oil DOES NOT automatically provide better wear protection than thinner oils. Extensive “dynamic wear testing under load” of dozens and dozens of motor oils, has shown that the base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, is what determines an oil’s wear protection capability, NOT its viscosity. For example, some 5W20 oils have proven to provide OUTSTANDING wear protection, while some 15W50 oils have only been able to provide MODEST wear protection. So, do not run thicker oil under the false assumption that it can provide better wear protection for our engines.
• BOTTOM LINE: Thinner oils are better for most engine lubrication needs.
***********************
Now, on with the main purpose of this write-up. All this calls for testing those 0W40 and 5W30 Corvette Z06 oils, as well as testing 0W30 oils, to see how they all compare. Then Z06 owners and the Bob Forum guys can take a look at actual hard numbers that will show the facts. With that information in hand, they can make an informed decision when it comes to selecting an oil that will truly provide them with the best wear protection.
So, I tested the following motor oils:
0W40 and 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra
0W40, 5W30 and 0W30 Mobil 1
0W40, 5W30 and 0W30 Castrol Edge with Syntec (in the black bottle)
NOTE: Castrol’s top of the line 100% Edge motor oil, comes in the gold bottle.
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
Here is how these oils ranked just among themselves, according to their Wear Protection Capability. All wear protection capability testing was performed at 230* F, and the higher the psi value, the better the wear protection. I also included values for the onset of thermal breakdown for comparison (the thermal breakdown values were rounded to the nearest 5* increment):
1. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM synthetic = 115,612 psi, which puts it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 280* F
2. 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 105,875 psi, which puts it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 265* F
3. 5W30 Castrol Edge w/Syntec, API SN (black bottle, formerly Castrol Syntec) synthetic = 85,179 psi, which puts it in the GOOD wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = TBD (I did not test this particular oil for this when I had it on hand)
4. 0W40 Mobil 1, API SN, European Formula, made in the U.S., synthetic = 82,644 psi, which puts it in the GOOD wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 285* F
5. 0W40 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN, synthetic = 81,863 psi, which puts it in the GOOD wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 260* F
6. 0W30 Mobil 1, API SN, Advanced Fuel Economy, synthetic = 81,240 psi, which puts it in the GOOD wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 290* F
7. 0W40 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SN, European Formula, made in Belgium and sold in the U.S., synthetic = 69,307 psi, which puts it in the MODEST wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 290* F
8. 0W30 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SL, European Formula, made in Germany and sold in the U.S., synthetic = 69,302 psi, which puts it in the MODEST wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 290* F
As you can see from these actual test values, all the 5W30 oils provide better wear protection than any of the 0W oils. But even so, any of these oils would be acceptable for normal daily driver use. However, for highly loaded High Performance applications where the best possible wear protection is desired, the obvious choice would be 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra or 5W30 Mobil 1, which are the only oils in this test that provide INCREDIBLE wear protection.
So, GM got it right about which oil to recommend in their U.S. Z06 Corvette’s. One can only speculate that perhaps they expect the U.S. cars to be run harder, so they call for the best protection in those engines. Although, general availability in Canada and Europe may also play a part in what oil they recommend. Whatever the case, both oil viscosities had to meet GM’s endurance testing requirements.
Folks can of course decide for themselves which oil they want to run in their own cars. But now, they have the accurate test data to make an informed decision.
If you’d like to see how these oils rank in my overall Wear Protection Ranking List, along with additional motor oil tech info, here’s a link:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
540 RAT
U.S. Patent Holder
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Also, on “Bob is the Oil Guy” Forum, 0W30 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SL, European Formula, made in Germany and sold in the U.S., is very popular. This is apparently because they favor the better cold flowing 0W cold viscosity rating (which is a good idea), and because of the thinking that this oil may have more zinc than U.S. oil, and their mistaken belief that more zinc can provide better wear protection.
The Z06 guys as well as the Bob Forum guys, obviously feel this way based on emotion and guessing/speculation, because they clearly never had any test data to evaluate………………until now. The details on that below.
I've performed accurate and repeatable motor oil "Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load", which more specifically is a rubbing friction test under load, on about 120 different oils so far. Below is how high and low zinc motor oils compared with regard to Wear Protection Capability (the oil providing the best protection ranks number 1):
* High zinc oils rank between number 5 and number 124, which VERY CLEARLY shows that simply having a high level of zinc is no guarantee of superior wear protection. If a high level of zinc was a guarantee of superior wear protection, then all high zinc oils would rank at the top of the list. But, that simply is NOT the case. And in traditional older style engines, many wiped flat tappet lobes COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED if people had not blindly believed that all high zinc oils provide all the wear protection they need. Because nothing could be further from the truth.
* Low zinc oils rank between number 1 and number 100.
* Since the low zinc oils and the high zinc oils completely overlap, you can see that zinc does not play the primary role in determining an oil’s wear protection capability. An oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, with the primary emphasis on the additive package, which contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components. Modern alternate extreme pressure anti-wear components are equal to, or better than zinc.
****************************
And consider the following:
1. Well known and respected Engineer and Tech Author David Vizard, whose own test data, largely based on real world engine dyno testing, has concluded that more zinc in motor oil can be damaging, more zinc does NOT provide today's best wear protection, and that using zinc as the primary anti-wear component, is outdated technology.
2. The GM Oil Report titled, "Oil Myths from GM Techlink", concluded that high levels of zinc are damaging and that more zinc does NOT provide more wear protection.
3. A motor oil research article written by Ed Hackett titled, "More than you ever wanted to know about Motor Oil", concluded that more zinc does NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer wear protection.
4. This from the Brad Penn Oil Company:
There is such a thing as too much ZDDP. ZDDP is surface aggressive, and too much can be a detriment. ZDDP fights for the surface, blocking other additive performance. Acids generated due to excessive ZDDP contact will “tie-up” detergents thus encouraging corrosive wear. ZDDP effectiveness plateaus, more does NOT translate into more protection. Only so much is utilized. We don’t need to saturate our oil with ZDDP.
My test results came up with the exact same results stated by all four of those independent sources. So, this is an example where motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” using oil testing equipment, engine dyno testing, Motor Oil Industry testing, and proper motor oil research using only the facts, from a total of five (including my own) independent sources, all converged to agree and come to the same exact conclusion. Back-up validation proof, doesn't get any better than this.
The ONLY way to tell how well an oil can protect against wear, is to perform dynamic wear testing under load, at a representative operational temperature, in order to determine its “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength”. And that is precisely what I’ve done over the past couple of years. And the test equipment has its calibration checked and adjusted if needed, each time the testing switches to a different oil. That way excellent accuracy is maintained at all times.
*******************************
Not only does my test data match the independent sources above, but my oil testing methodology and the resulting data have also been endorsed by the following well respected sources:
1. Dr. Lars Grimsrud, who is the most highly respected Engineer, Car builder and Tech Guru on the Corvette C3 Forum. He told me, “I'm 100% on board with backing you with my endorsement on your testing: I run a Propulsion Testing Laboratory for a major Aerospace Company, so I'm in the testing business. Your methods and approach are in accordance with sound engineering testing methods, and are not arguable by intelligent people”. He also told me this about my Oil Testing info, “This is excellent stuff, and I've already sent copies of this to my engineering colleagues”. In addition to that, he now includes my Oil Testing Info in a list of Tech Papers written by well respected Industry authors, that he makes available to enthusiasts.
2. A NASCAR engine supplier out of North Carolina (they did not want their name associated with any Internet motor oil arguments that may come up, so they asked that their name be left out, which I honored) was so impressed with the motor oil “Wear Protection Capability Testing” I perform, that they sent me 3 NASCAR Racing Oils they use, for testing. They valued my testing efforts enough to include me in what they do, which is quite an endorsement, considering the Professional level of Racing they are involved in. They had been seeing some wear issues with those oils, and wanted to see if I could shed any light on that by testing them. I did test those oils for them, and the test results showed that those oils did not provide acceptable wear protection capability, which accounted for the wear problems they were having. So, they have selected other oils to use, and their wear problems have gone away. If I had tested those oils before they started using them, I could have saved them time, money and grief.
3. The “Oil Extreme” Oil Company was so impressed with the detail and accuracy of my oil testing, that they wanted to hire me to perform product development research testing for them. That was clearly a major endorsement of the testing I perform. But, I declined taking any money from them, because I won’t be tied to any Oil Company by money. That way I can maintain my independent and unbiased status. I report the test results just how they come out, good or bad. And there is no way I’d allow any Oil Company to influence anything I report. I did however, agree to perform testing for them for free, along with other testing I perform. And those results will be posted along with other test results.
***********************
Below is how the various viscosities compared with regard to Wear Protection Capability:
* 20 wt oils rank between number 17 and 116
* 30 wt oils rank between number 1 and 124
* 40 wt oils rank between number 54 and 115
* 50 wt oils rank between number 10 and 108
So, as you can see, oil viscosity plays no particular role in an oil’s wear protection capability. An oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, with the primary emphasis on the additive package, which contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components.
***********************
CONSIDER THE BENEFITS OF USING THINNER OIL:
• Thinner oil flows quicker at cold start-up to begin lubricating critical engine components much more quickly than thicker oil can. Most engine wear takes place during cold start-up before oil flow can reach all the components. So, quicker flowing thinner oil will help reduce start-up engine wear, which is actually reducing wear overall.
• The more free flowing thinner oil at cold start-up, is also much less likely to cause the oil filter bypass to open up, compared to thicker oil. Of course if the bypass opened up, that would allow unfiltered oil to be pumped through the engine. The colder the ambient temperature, and the more rpm used when the engine is cold, the more important this becomes.
• Thinner oil also flows more at normal operating temperatures. And oil FLOW is lubrication, but oil pressure is NOT lubrication. Oil pressure is only a measurement of resistance to flow. Running thicker oil just to up the oil pressure is the wrong thing to do, because that only reduces oil flow/lubrication. Oil pressure in and of itself, is NOT what we are after.
• The more free flowing thinner oil will also drain back to the oil pan quicker than thicker oil. So, thinner oil can help maintain a higher oil level in the oil pan during operation, which keeps the oil pump pickup from possibly sucking air during braking and cornering.
• The old rule of thumb that we should have at least 10 psi for every 1,000 rpm is perfectly fine. Running thicker oil to achieve more pressure than that, will simply reduce oil flow for no good reason. It is best to run the thinnest oil we can, that will still maintain at least the rule of thumb oil pressure. And one of the benefits of running a high volume oil pump, is that it will allow us to enjoy all the benefits of running thinner oil, while still maintaining sufficient oil pressure. A high volume oil pump/thinner oil combo is preferred over running a standard volume oil pump/thicker oil combo. Because oil “flow” is our goal for ideal oiling, NOT simply high oil pressure.
• Oil flow is what carries heat away from internal engine components. Those engine components are DIRECTLY oil cooled, but only INdirectly water cooled. And better flowing thinner oil will keep critical engine components cooler because it carries heat away faster. If you run thicker oil than needed, you will be driving up engine component temps.
• Thinner oil will typically increase HP because of less viscous drag and reduced pumping losses, compared to thicker oils. That is why very serious Race efforts will generally use watery thin oils in their engines. But, an exception to this increase in HP would be in high rpm hydraulic lifter engines, where thinner oil can allow the lifters to bleed-off at higher rpm. In everyday street vehicles, where fuel consumption is a consideration, thinner oils will also typically increase fuel economy. The majority of new cars sold in the U.S. now call for 5W20 specifically for increased fuel economy. And now Diesel trucks are increasingly calling for 5W30, also for fuel economy improvement.
• With the exception of high rpm hydraulic lifter engines, almost no engine should ever need to run oil thicker than a multi-viscosity 30 weight. The lower the first number cold viscosity rating, the better the cold flow. For example, 0W30 flows WAY better cold than 20W50. And 0W30 flows WAY better “cold” than straight 30wt, which is horrible for cold start-up flow and should be avoided at all cost. And the lower the second number hot viscosity rating, the better the hot flow. For example, 0W30 flows WAY better “hot” than 20W50.
• Thicker oil DOES NOT automatically provide better wear protection than thinner oils. Extensive “dynamic wear testing under load” of dozens and dozens of motor oils, has shown that the base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, is what determines an oil’s wear protection capability, NOT its viscosity. For example, some 5W20 oils have proven to provide OUTSTANDING wear protection, while some 15W50 oils have only been able to provide MODEST wear protection. So, do not run thicker oil under the false assumption that it can provide better wear protection for our engines.
• BOTTOM LINE: Thinner oils are better for most engine lubrication needs.
***********************
Now, on with the main purpose of this write-up. All this calls for testing those 0W40 and 5W30 Corvette Z06 oils, as well as testing 0W30 oils, to see how they all compare. Then Z06 owners and the Bob Forum guys can take a look at actual hard numbers that will show the facts. With that information in hand, they can make an informed decision when it comes to selecting an oil that will truly provide them with the best wear protection.
So, I tested the following motor oils:
0W40 and 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra
0W40, 5W30 and 0W30 Mobil 1
0W40, 5W30 and 0W30 Castrol Edge with Syntec (in the black bottle)
NOTE: Castrol’s top of the line 100% Edge motor oil, comes in the gold bottle.
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
Here is how these oils ranked just among themselves, according to their Wear Protection Capability. All wear protection capability testing was performed at 230* F, and the higher the psi value, the better the wear protection. I also included values for the onset of thermal breakdown for comparison (the thermal breakdown values were rounded to the nearest 5* increment):
1. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM synthetic = 115,612 psi, which puts it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 280* F
2. 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 105,875 psi, which puts it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 265* F
3. 5W30 Castrol Edge w/Syntec, API SN (black bottle, formerly Castrol Syntec) synthetic = 85,179 psi, which puts it in the GOOD wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = TBD (I did not test this particular oil for this when I had it on hand)
4. 0W40 Mobil 1, API SN, European Formula, made in the U.S., synthetic = 82,644 psi, which puts it in the GOOD wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 285* F
5. 0W40 Pennzoil Ultra, API SN, synthetic = 81,863 psi, which puts it in the GOOD wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 260* F
6. 0W30 Mobil 1, API SN, Advanced Fuel Economy, synthetic = 81,240 psi, which puts it in the GOOD wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 290* F
7. 0W40 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SN, European Formula, made in Belgium and sold in the U.S., synthetic = 69,307 psi, which puts it in the MODEST wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 290* F
8. 0W30 Castrol Edge with Syntec (black bottle), API SL, European Formula, made in Germany and sold in the U.S., synthetic = 69,302 psi, which puts it in the MODEST wear protection category.
The onset of thermal breakdown = 290* F
As you can see from these actual test values, all the 5W30 oils provide better wear protection than any of the 0W oils. But even so, any of these oils would be acceptable for normal daily driver use. However, for highly loaded High Performance applications where the best possible wear protection is desired, the obvious choice would be 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra or 5W30 Mobil 1, which are the only oils in this test that provide INCREDIBLE wear protection.
So, GM got it right about which oil to recommend in their U.S. Z06 Corvette’s. One can only speculate that perhaps they expect the U.S. cars to be run harder, so they call for the best protection in those engines. Although, general availability in Canada and Europe may also play a part in what oil they recommend. Whatever the case, both oil viscosities had to meet GM’s endurance testing requirements.
Folks can of course decide for themselves which oil they want to run in their own cars. But now, they have the accurate test data to make an informed decision.
If you’d like to see how these oils rank in my overall Wear Protection Ranking List, along with additional motor oil tech info, here’s a link:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
540 RAT
U.S. Patent Holder
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
10-08-2013, 07:48 PM
#2
Race Director
540 RAT,
Regardless of what other's may think. I ...personally appreciate you posting your test results.
I "eat up" technical data when it is done in accordance to many of the tests that I have been involved in where preforming a test the exact same way is the ONLY WAY to get data complied to where you then can gauge what is going on from one product to another...for example.
I get what you are doing and again I can see that "right off the bat" what the oil is doing in your test. I really do not care what happens down the road when serious miles have been put on an oil...because I can...YEAH...I will write it...ASSUME that the oil will only get worse. There are not too many "things" that get better when age and use are implemented from the initial inception of this "thing". Such as brake pads and clutch discs require a "break-in" period....and these do perform better after this period has been observed.
I honestly can not wrap my head around the by-products of combustion, moisture contamination and any other reaction within an internal combustion engine that will add any "by product" to a new oil that has miles on it...and make it better than straight out of the bottle. I am tying to find something ..but I can not as of yet. And knowing that your tests have the oil at a specific test temperature...that takes that part of the equation out in regards to it at a basic operating temperature while testing the oil...versus cold oil.
Keep up the good work. And post whatever you find. I enjoy it....but that is just me.
DUB
Regardless of what other's may think. I ...personally appreciate you posting your test results.
I "eat up" technical data when it is done in accordance to many of the tests that I have been involved in where preforming a test the exact same way is the ONLY WAY to get data complied to where you then can gauge what is going on from one product to another...for example.
I get what you are doing and again I can see that "right off the bat" what the oil is doing in your test. I really do not care what happens down the road when serious miles have been put on an oil...because I can...YEAH...I will write it...ASSUME that the oil will only get worse. There are not too many "things" that get better when age and use are implemented from the initial inception of this "thing". Such as brake pads and clutch discs require a "break-in" period....and these do perform better after this period has been observed.
I honestly can not wrap my head around the by-products of combustion, moisture contamination and any other reaction within an internal combustion engine that will add any "by product" to a new oil that has miles on it...and make it better than straight out of the bottle. I am tying to find something ..but I can not as of yet. And knowing that your tests have the oil at a specific test temperature...that takes that part of the equation out in regards to it at a basic operating temperature while testing the oil...versus cold oil.
Keep up the good work. And post whatever you find. I enjoy it....but that is just me.
DUB
10-08-2013, 08:53 PM
#3
Race Director
I agree with the statements regarding viscosity. The testing procedure you use is testing film strength only which is useful information if taken as a film strength test. That said your film strength test proves the highest pressures to break the film strength of any oil is about 115,000 PSI. A low lift stock flat tappet cam generates over 200,000 PSI at the lifter/ lobe interface. This is where extreme pressure additives are needed, it is the last line of defense after the film strength breaks. ZDDP is the best extreme pressure additive there is by the way it functions. Once it is sheared and subjected to heat at an extreme pressure point of contact it deposits a sacrificial layer of phosphorous on the loaded point to protect those extreme pressure points from metal to metal contact. The byproducts after it breaks down is zinc and phosphorous so testing shows it is still there. Telling people to run modern, low viscosity, low ZDDP, energy saving oils in a high performance flat tappet cam engine because higher levels of ZDDP provide no better protection proves you are totally failing to understand the function of ZDDP.
10-09-2013, 10:33 AM
#5
Le Mans Master
Rat540, great information. I have a couple questions if you have time to answer them or feel that you can voice your opinion based on your testing.
I notice that on 0W30 Mobil one the wear protection falls in the GOOD category but has a high thermal breakdown temp of 290* F. where as the 5W30 Mobil one meets the INCREDIBLE wear protection criteria but has a lower thermal breakdown threshold of 265*F.
From this could one conclude that in higher friction applications generating higher surface temperatures that the 0W30 would be better suited to that application?
Or does the better wear characteristics of the 5W30 override the higher thermal limit of the 0W30 by reducing the friction and keeping the surface temps under control so as to not exceed the thermal limit of the oil?
Also, do you have an opinion on which is of greater importance in a street non-racing application, the weight of the oil at start-up or the wear characteristics and wear classification of the oil according to your testing over the long term?
I notice that on 0W30 Mobil one the wear protection falls in the GOOD category but has a high thermal breakdown temp of 290* F. where as the 5W30 Mobil one meets the INCREDIBLE wear protection criteria but has a lower thermal breakdown threshold of 265*F.
From this could one conclude that in higher friction applications generating higher surface temperatures that the 0W30 would be better suited to that application?
Or does the better wear characteristics of the 5W30 override the higher thermal limit of the 0W30 by reducing the friction and keeping the surface temps under control so as to not exceed the thermal limit of the oil?
Also, do you have an opinion on which is of greater importance in a street non-racing application, the weight of the oil at start-up or the wear characteristics and wear classification of the oil according to your testing over the long term?
10-09-2013, 11:17 AM
#6
Safety Car
Canadian Z06's are labeled the same as the US ones. Mobil 5W30
Only Euro Z06's are labeled for Mobil 0W40.
I use it because of the higher ZDDP content which is probably why it isn't installed in North American Corvettes. The U.S. Government seems to prefer cat life over engine life....
I use Mobil 15W50 in my 69 427 for the same reason.
I also noticed a slight oil pressure increase in my LS7 using the 0W40 over the 5W30. About 5 psi across the board. Idle fully warmed up is between 30 and 35 psi depending on the outside temp.
Works for me.
Only Euro Z06's are labeled for Mobil 0W40.
I use it because of the higher ZDDP content which is probably why it isn't installed in North American Corvettes. The U.S. Government seems to prefer cat life over engine life....
I use Mobil 15W50 in my 69 427 for the same reason.
I also noticed a slight oil pressure increase in my LS7 using the 0W40 over the 5W30. About 5 psi across the board. Idle fully warmed up is between 30 and 35 psi depending on the outside temp.
Works for me.
Last edited by CanadaGrant; 10-09-2013 at 11:26 AM.
10-09-2013, 11:29 AM
#7
Le Mans Master
Canadian Z06's are labeled the same as the US ones. Mobil 5W30
Only Euro Z06's are labeled for Mobil 0W40.
I use it because of the higher ZDDP content which is probably why it isn't installed in North American Corvettes. The U.S. Government seems to prefer cat life over engine life....
I use Mobil 15W50 in my 69 427 for the same reason.
I also noticed a slight oil pressure increase in my LS7 using the 0W40 over the 5W30. About 5 psi across the board. Idle fully warmed up is between 30 and 35 psi depending on the outside temp.
Works for me.
Only Euro Z06's are labeled for Mobil 0W40.
I use it because of the higher ZDDP content which is probably why it isn't installed in North American Corvettes. The U.S. Government seems to prefer cat life over engine life....
I use Mobil 15W50 in my 69 427 for the same reason.
I also noticed a slight oil pressure increase in my LS7 using the 0W40 over the 5W30. About 5 psi across the board. Idle fully warmed up is between 30 and 35 psi depending on the outside temp.
Works for me.
10-09-2013, 11:45 AM
#8
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Mar 2008
Location: Oxford MA-----You just lost the game!!!!
Posts: 5,948
Likes: 0
Received 62 Likes
on
52 Posts
What's up with all the quotation marks? Are you quoting someone? Or maybe imparting a sense of irony? Examples:
0W30 flows WAY better “cold” than straight 30wt
the base oil and its additive package “as a whole”,
oil “flow” is our goal
Scott
0W30 flows WAY better “cold” than straight 30wt
the base oil and its additive package “as a whole”,
oil “flow” is our goal
Scott
10-09-2013, 02:59 PM
#10
Safety Car
I use 0W40 in my C6 and my wifes C5Z. There might be better but it isn't available here.
Geeze... another ... oil thread.....
10-09-2013, 03:37 PM
#12
Safety Car
10-10-2013, 09:16 AM
#13
Le Mans Master
Just an FYI
Mobil 1 0W-40 Euro Formula and Mobil 1 5W-50 (Porsche Specification, if you can find it in the US) are the ONLY Group IV PAO Ester true synthetics, in the USA only. All other Mobil 1 grades including 5W-30 which I did run in my 2010 Z06 are highly refined conventional dino oils in the USA only. In the US, Group III highly refined dino oils are allowed to be marketed as "Full Synthetic" oils. Not true elsewhere and also true for most mass marketed "full synthetics" oils (not all, Castrol Edge is a group IV) in the USA only. I use Mobil 1 0W-40 Euro in all my dally drivers and other roller cammed cars as well just about any combustion engine other than my 78 L-82 flat tappet cammed engine.
Mobil 1 0W-40 Euro Formula and Mobil 1 5W-50 (Porsche Specification, if you can find it in the US) are the ONLY Group IV PAO Ester true synthetics, in the USA only. All other Mobil 1 grades including 5W-30 which I did run in my 2010 Z06 are highly refined conventional dino oils in the USA only. In the US, Group III highly refined dino oils are allowed to be marketed as "Full Synthetic" oils. Not true elsewhere and also true for most mass marketed "full synthetics" oils (not all, Castrol Edge is a group IV) in the USA only. I use Mobil 1 0W-40 Euro in all my dally drivers and other roller cammed cars as well just about any combustion engine other than my 78 L-82 flat tappet cammed engine.
Last edited by jb78L-82; 10-10-2013 at 09:19 AM.
10-10-2013, 11:51 AM
#14
Safety Car
Just an FYI
Mobil 1 0W-40 Euro Formula and Mobil 1 5W-50 (Porsche Specification, if you can find it in the US) are the ONLY Group IV PAO Ester true synthetics, in the USA only. All other Mobil 1 grades including 5W-30 which I did run in my 2010 Z06 are highly refined conventional dino oils in the USA only. In the US, Group III highly refined dino oils are allowed to be marketed as "Full Synthetic" oils. Not true elsewhere and also true for most mass marketed "full synthetics" oils (not all, Castrol Edge is a group IV) in the USA only. I use Mobil 1 0W-40 Euro in all my dally drivers and other roller cammed cars as well just about any combustion engine other than my 78 L-82 flat tappet cammed engine.
Mobil 1 0W-40 Euro Formula and Mobil 1 5W-50 (Porsche Specification, if you can find it in the US) are the ONLY Group IV PAO Ester true synthetics, in the USA only. All other Mobil 1 grades including 5W-30 which I did run in my 2010 Z06 are highly refined conventional dino oils in the USA only. In the US, Group III highly refined dino oils are allowed to be marketed as "Full Synthetic" oils. Not true elsewhere and also true for most mass marketed "full synthetics" oils (not all, Castrol Edge is a group IV) in the USA only. I use Mobil 1 0W-40 Euro in all my dally drivers and other roller cammed cars as well just about any combustion engine other than my 78 L-82 flat tappet cammed engine.
10-10-2013, 12:24 PM
#15
Race Director
I've been using Mobile 0w40 for the last year or so too.
Apparently according to Mobil, it is not 100% Group4 any longer. You have to go to other Mobil sites like Japan and Europe for more detailed info.
I still plan to use it for the cold viscosity anyway and the protection is still probably just as good, at least I'm hoping.
Apparently according to Mobil, it is not 100% Group4 any longer. You have to go to other Mobil sites like Japan and Europe for more detailed info.
I still plan to use it for the cold viscosity anyway and the protection is still probably just as good, at least I'm hoping.
10-10-2013, 12:58 PM
#16
Le Mans Master
I've been using Mobile 0w40 for the last year or so too.
Apparently according to Mobil, it is not 100% Group4 any longer. You have to go to other Mobil sites like Japan and Europe for more detailed info.
I still plan to use it for the cold viscosity anyway and the protection is still probably just as good, at least I'm hoping.
Apparently according to Mobil, it is not 100% Group4 any longer. You have to go to other Mobil sites like Japan and Europe for more detailed info.
I still plan to use it for the cold viscosity anyway and the protection is still probably just as good, at least I'm hoping.
"Mobil 1 0w40 has always been one of the premier products from Mobil 1. Mobil 1 0w40 is not "just," a another viscosity. Mobil 1 0w40 European Car Formula is actually different from other viscosities of Mobil 1 in more ways than just its weight.
I often will run oil analysis on oil that comes from my cars, or even on a new bottle of oil, just to see its composition.
Mobil 1 0w40 has more additives in it than say one of the more common viscosities like 5w30.
The reason being is that this 0w40 product is recommended or approved by many European manufacturers who have stringent standards. Indeed, some of these manufacturers do not only require specific performance requirements for this oil, but will actually specify where the additives packages must be purchased from. Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, and BMW are just some of the manufacturers who have approvals on this oil.
Furthermore, all AMG vehicles and Porsches come from the factory with this very 0w40 Mobil 1. It is even used in some racing vehicles around the world.
Mobil 1 0W-40 does not just meet specifications, but tends to exceed those specs.
Some might argue that Mobil 1 has changed its formula a lot over the years. However, one thing is clear. Mobil 1 0w40 is a quality product, approved by some of the most stringent manufacturer specifications, and it is the same formula found around the world."
BTW-This discussion about Mobil 1 0W-40 Euro Formula relates to newer roller cammed engines, NOT flat tappet cammed engines. Mobil 1 15W-50 is the only Mobil 1 oil specifically recommended for flat tappet engines-ZDDP-1,200/1,300 PPM which is what I use in my 78 L-82. I use the Mobil 1 0W-40 Euro Formula in my 10 Z06 and other roller cammed cars.
Hope that helps!
Last edited by jb78L-82; 10-10-2013 at 01:53 PM.
10-10-2013, 04:56 PM
#18
Race Director
Ya, I've read a lot of that stuff, but will still keep using the 0w40 and I do use it with flat tappet lifters, but not real radical ones. And remember some of the exotics do use slider followers too.
Don't know if you have seen this, but it seems to have some credence, at least the author has made a career of it.
Don't know if you have seen this, but it seems to have some credence, at least the author has made a career of it.
"Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths. Here are some facts you may want to pass along to customers to help debunk the fiction behind these myths.
The Pennsylvania Crude Myth -- This myth is based on a misapplication of truth. In 1859, the first commercially successful oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania.
A myth got started before World War II claiming that the only good oils were those made from pure Pennsylvania crude oil. At the time, only minimal refining was used to make engine oil from crude oil. Under these refining conditions, Pennsylvania crude oil made better engine oil than Texas crude or California crude. Today, with modern refining methods, almost any crude can be made into good engine oil.
Other engine oil myths are based on the notion that the new and the unfamiliar are somehow "bad."
The Detergent Oil Myth -- The next myth to appear is that modern detergent engine oils are bad for older engines. This one got started after World War II, when the government no longer needed all of the available detergent oil for the war effort, and detergent oil hit the market as “heavy-duty” oil.
Many pre-war cars had been driven way past their normal life, their engines were full of sludge and deposits, and the piston rings were completely worn out. Massive piston deposits were the only thing standing between merely high oil consumption and horrendous oil consumption. After a thorough purge by the new detergent oil, increased oil consumption was a possible consequence.
If detergent oils had been available to the public during the war, preventing the massive deposit buildup from occurring in the first place, this myth never would have started. Amazingly, there are still a few people today, 60 years later, who believe that they need to use non-detergent oil in their older cars. Apparently, it takes many years for an oil myth to die.
The Synthetic Oil Myth -- Then there is the myth that new engine break-in will not occur with synthetic oils. This one was apparently started by an aircraft engine manufacturer who put out a bulletin that said so. The fact is that Mobil 1 synthetic oil has been the factory-fill for many thousands of engines. Clearly, they have broken in quite well, and that should put this one to rest.
The Starburst Oil Myth -- The latest myth promoted by the antique and collector car press says that new Starburst/ API SM engine oils (called Starburst for the shape of the symbol on the container) are bad for older engines because the amount of anti-wear additive in them has been reduced. The anti-wear additive being discussed is zinc dithiophosphate (ZDP).
Before debunking this myth, we need to look at the history of ZDP usage. For over 60 years, ZDP has been used as an additive in engine oils to provide wear protection and oxidation stability.
ZDP was first added to engine oil to control copper/lead bearing corrosion. Oils with a phosphorus level in the 0.03% range passed a corrosion test introduced in 1942.
In the mid-1950s, when the use of high-lift camshafts increased the potential for scuffing and wear, the phosphorus level contributed by ZDP was increased to the 0.08% range.
In addition, the industry developed a battery of oil tests (called sequences), two of which were valve-train scuffing and wear tests.
A higher level of ZDP was good for flat-tappet valve-train scuffing and wear, but it turned out that more was not better. Although break-in scuffing was reduced by using more phosphorus, longer-term wear increased when phosphorus rose above 0.14%. And, at about 0.20% phosphorus, the ZDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.
By the 1970s, increased antioxidancy was needed to protect the oil in high-load engines, which otherwise could thicken to a point where the engine could no longer pump it. Because ZDP was an inexpensive and effective antioxidant, it was used to place the phosphorus level in the 0.10% range.
However, phosphorus is a poison for exhaust catalysts. So, ZDP levels have been reduced over the last 10-15 years. It's now down to a maximum of 0.08% for Starburst oils. This was supported by the introduction of modern ashless antioxidants that contain no phosphorus.
Enough history. Let's get back to the myth that Starburst oils are no good for older engines. The argument put forth is that while these oils work perfectly well in modern, gasoline engines equipped with roller camshafts, they will cause catastrophic wear in older engines equipped with flat-tappet camshafts.
The facts say otherwise.
Backward compatability was of great importance when the Starburst oil standards were developed by a group of experts from the OEMs, oil companies, and oil additive companies. In addition, multiple oil and additive companies ran no-harm tests on older engines with the new oils; and no problems were uncovered.
The new Starburst specification contains two valve-train wear tests. All Starburst oil formulations must pass these two tests.
- Sequence IVA tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a single overhead camshaft engine with slider finger (not roller) followers.
- Sequence IIIG evaluates cam and lifter wear using a V6 engine with a flat-tappet system, similar to those used in the 1980s.
Those who hold onto the myth are ignoring the fact that the new Starburst oils contain about the same percentage of ZDP as the oils that solved the camshaft scuffing and wear issues back in the 1950s. (True, they do contain less ZDP than the oils that solved the oil thickening issues in the 1960s, but that's because they now contain high levels of ashless antioxidants not commercially available in the 1960s.)
Despite the pains taken in developing special flat-tappet camshaft wear tests that these new oils must pass and the fact that the ZDP level of these new oils is comparable to the level found necessary to protect flat-tappet camshafts in the past, there will still be those who want to believe the myth that new oils will wear out older engines.
Like other myths before it, history teaches us that it will probably take 60 or 70 years for this one to die also."
Bob Olree – GM Powertrain Fuels and Lubricants Group
The Pennsylvania Crude Myth -- This myth is based on a misapplication of truth. In 1859, the first commercially successful oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania.
A myth got started before World War II claiming that the only good oils were those made from pure Pennsylvania crude oil. At the time, only minimal refining was used to make engine oil from crude oil. Under these refining conditions, Pennsylvania crude oil made better engine oil than Texas crude or California crude. Today, with modern refining methods, almost any crude can be made into good engine oil.
Other engine oil myths are based on the notion that the new and the unfamiliar are somehow "bad."
The Detergent Oil Myth -- The next myth to appear is that modern detergent engine oils are bad for older engines. This one got started after World War II, when the government no longer needed all of the available detergent oil for the war effort, and detergent oil hit the market as “heavy-duty” oil.
Many pre-war cars had been driven way past their normal life, their engines were full of sludge and deposits, and the piston rings were completely worn out. Massive piston deposits were the only thing standing between merely high oil consumption and horrendous oil consumption. After a thorough purge by the new detergent oil, increased oil consumption was a possible consequence.
If detergent oils had been available to the public during the war, preventing the massive deposit buildup from occurring in the first place, this myth never would have started. Amazingly, there are still a few people today, 60 years later, who believe that they need to use non-detergent oil in their older cars. Apparently, it takes many years for an oil myth to die.
The Synthetic Oil Myth -- Then there is the myth that new engine break-in will not occur with synthetic oils. This one was apparently started by an aircraft engine manufacturer who put out a bulletin that said so. The fact is that Mobil 1 synthetic oil has been the factory-fill for many thousands of engines. Clearly, they have broken in quite well, and that should put this one to rest.
The Starburst Oil Myth -- The latest myth promoted by the antique and collector car press says that new Starburst/ API SM engine oils (called Starburst for the shape of the symbol on the container) are bad for older engines because the amount of anti-wear additive in them has been reduced. The anti-wear additive being discussed is zinc dithiophosphate (ZDP).
Before debunking this myth, we need to look at the history of ZDP usage. For over 60 years, ZDP has been used as an additive in engine oils to provide wear protection and oxidation stability.
ZDP was first added to engine oil to control copper/lead bearing corrosion. Oils with a phosphorus level in the 0.03% range passed a corrosion test introduced in 1942.
In the mid-1950s, when the use of high-lift camshafts increased the potential for scuffing and wear, the phosphorus level contributed by ZDP was increased to the 0.08% range.
In addition, the industry developed a battery of oil tests (called sequences), two of which were valve-train scuffing and wear tests.
A higher level of ZDP was good for flat-tappet valve-train scuffing and wear, but it turned out that more was not better. Although break-in scuffing was reduced by using more phosphorus, longer-term wear increased when phosphorus rose above 0.14%. And, at about 0.20% phosphorus, the ZDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.
By the 1970s, increased antioxidancy was needed to protect the oil in high-load engines, which otherwise could thicken to a point where the engine could no longer pump it. Because ZDP was an inexpensive and effective antioxidant, it was used to place the phosphorus level in the 0.10% range.
However, phosphorus is a poison for exhaust catalysts. So, ZDP levels have been reduced over the last 10-15 years. It's now down to a maximum of 0.08% for Starburst oils. This was supported by the introduction of modern ashless antioxidants that contain no phosphorus.
Enough history. Let's get back to the myth that Starburst oils are no good for older engines. The argument put forth is that while these oils work perfectly well in modern, gasoline engines equipped with roller camshafts, they will cause catastrophic wear in older engines equipped with flat-tappet camshafts.
The facts say otherwise.
Backward compatability was of great importance when the Starburst oil standards were developed by a group of experts from the OEMs, oil companies, and oil additive companies. In addition, multiple oil and additive companies ran no-harm tests on older engines with the new oils; and no problems were uncovered.
The new Starburst specification contains two valve-train wear tests. All Starburst oil formulations must pass these two tests.
- Sequence IVA tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a single overhead camshaft engine with slider finger (not roller) followers.
- Sequence IIIG evaluates cam and lifter wear using a V6 engine with a flat-tappet system, similar to those used in the 1980s.
Those who hold onto the myth are ignoring the fact that the new Starburst oils contain about the same percentage of ZDP as the oils that solved the camshaft scuffing and wear issues back in the 1950s. (True, they do contain less ZDP than the oils that solved the oil thickening issues in the 1960s, but that's because they now contain high levels of ashless antioxidants not commercially available in the 1960s.)
Despite the pains taken in developing special flat-tappet camshaft wear tests that these new oils must pass and the fact that the ZDP level of these new oils is comparable to the level found necessary to protect flat-tappet camshafts in the past, there will still be those who want to believe the myth that new oils will wear out older engines.
Like other myths before it, history teaches us that it will probably take 60 or 70 years for this one to die also."
Bob Olree – GM Powertrain Fuels and Lubricants Group
10-10-2013, 05:05 PM
#19
Le Mans Master
Hey noonie good info. You got a link to where you found that information?
10-10-2013, 05:49 PM
#20
Race Director
It was here, but you can find it on dozens of sites.
http://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topi...-use-em/page-2
http://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topi...-use-em/page-2