74dkred454

Not looking to start a war, I have read all the previous threads and really just want a simple answer !

What oil and filter to use on a 1969 427/390 original motor with 95k miles ?

Again not looking to start a war, just want a reasonable recommendation

BlackC3vette

Does the original motor still have a flat tappet cam? Are you looking for a synthetic or dino oil?

flyeri

Multiple good answers. Valvoline VR1 10w30 racing oil. Wix or NAPA gold filter will do fine.

TX-Techman

Another option is Amsoil Z-Rod also made for flat tappets. This is what I run in my 69. It is around $7.50 a quart if you sign up for an account and Amsoil is very highly rated on this forum and the only products I run in all my vehicles.

http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-produc...?code=ZRTQT-EA

63mako

Napa gold, Wix or Amsoil filter

7T1vette

WIX or NAPA Gold filters (made by WIX). Most other brands are basically junk.

Oil: Any good grade of oil that meets the requirements specified in the Owner's Manual for your year C3. I use Valvoline full synthetic and change it out once each year (might use 2 filters over that year). I believe time will prove that full-synthetic oil will save wear and add life. However, if you change GOOD dino oil and filter every 3000 miles, there should be no problem.

lurch59

I recommend Amsoil filters because they trap 98.7 percent of all particles over 20 microns on the first pass. When evaluating filters, you must compare first pass efficiency at the same micron rating. Also, the filters go one year. I would also use Amsoil oil because they publish independent lab data for your perusal.

Mobil one is a good oil, and Wix are good filters. They would be my second choice.

I've got a chemistry background (4 years) and subscribed to an oil tribologist newsletter for years. I've also changed my own on all my engines for 40 years. Additionally I've sent my oil off for oil analysis on all my cars/trucks for the last 10 years. Few people on this forum have my level of expertise.

68post

The above mentioned filter are great filters , I use Purolator Pure One because of their efficiency.

Big2Bird

It's a Chevy designed in the 50's, not the space shuttle. VR1 has the ZDDP in sufficient quantities already.

74dkred454

Thanks everyone,
Dumb question but, what is a flat tappet cam ?
The motor has never been apart

jb78L-82

Mobil 1 filter and Mobil 1 15W-50 (made for flat tappet cams) or Mobil 1 0W-40 European Formula-Group IV synthetic- for roller cams ($25.50 for 5 QTs at Walmart...cannot beat the price for a true synthetic). Most US branded "synthetics" are NOT true synthetics with a few exceptions like Mobil 1 0W-40 Euro Formula (this grade ONLY), Amzoil, Royal Purple, Redline, and Castrol Edge. Almost all the other US "synthetics" are what are called Group III+ oils that are highly refined dino oil, not synthetic.

hard to determine the benefits of long term use of synthetics since any engine can run 150-200,000 miles with regular oil/filter changes but the question is whether that engine with 150-200K on conventional oil would run 250-300K miles with synthetic. The wear benefits of synthetics in the lab are indisputable (it really is not debatable) and sythetics do offer much better cold start flow/protection as well higher temp stability.

lurch59

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...C4gd0jnQrATpEA

Lots of Amsoil guys are getting excellent longevity out of their vehicles. I don't care how much oil costs per se, I care how long I can go without changing it. I currently change my oil every 25k-33k miles, so it's pretty cheap per thousand miles. This oil is confirmed to be good for further use by oil analysis of course.

BTW I totally agree with buying true synthetics. If you are going to pay the extra cost, get your moneys worth and get a PAO based oil.

pltmgr

A roller cam has a roller on the lifter that rides on the camshaft, a flat tappet has none. Newer cars have gone to rollers.

My collectibles, unfortunately are not driven that much therefore Mobil 15-50 ($23.88 for 5 quarts at my Walmart) and Purolator oil fiters for me.

74dkred454

Is that Mobil 15-50 synthetic ?

jb78L-82

Post #11

Most US oils labeled "synthetic" are NOT...Group III+ highly refined dino oil but the US Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that Group III+ highly refined dino oil can be called in the USA only, "synthetic." Only Mobil 1 0W-40 European Formula is a true Group IV PAO synthetic in the US ONLY. I used Mobil 1 15W-50 for years in my stock L-82 before my recent complete rebuild...excellent oil for flat tappet cams....the OEM L-82 cam looked great at the engine teardown.

gungatim

OP, a little more clarification for 'ya - tappet = lifter = cam follower. lifters can be mechanical or hydraulic. the part that rides directly on the cam lobe can be flat or have a wheel on it called a roller. you can have mechanical roller lifters, hydraulic roller lifters, hydraulic flat lifters, or mechanical flat lifters...there is tremendous pressure on a flat lifter, it not only rides directly on the cam with little surface area, but also has to spin. under heavy valve springs, improper oil will quickly wear out the cam lobes...that is why there is so much debate and arguing about oil for "flat tappet" cams...there are several sticky's and hundreds of posts about oil for older motors, best you can do is read up and make your own decision.

hotrodnick

540 RAT

I've performed dynamic Engineering Motor Oil Wear Protection Tests under load, at a representative operating temperature of 230*F, on the oils mentioned here (NOTE: Additional wear testing at temps as high as 325*F did not change the ranking position of the oils used in the high temp testing). The resulting test data provides each oil's "film strength/load carrying capability" values in psi. The higher the psi, the better the wear protection. This is the real deal, that shows what oils are truly capable of, no matter how much zinc is in them. This is NOT some theory or opinion. It is proven by the Physics and Chemistry involved, and exactly matches real world experience. See the link at the bottom for details. See below how these oils stacked up against each other, with a few others thrown in as well.

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

----------

* Ranked 4th out of 159 oils, 5W30 Motul 300V Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic = 112,464 psi

* Ranked 11th out of 159 oils, 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 105,875 psi

* Ranked 13 out of 159 oils, 0W30 Amsoil Signature Series 25,000 miles, API SN synthetic = 105,008 psi

* Ranked 14th out of 159 oils, 5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven LS30 Performance Motor Oil, synthetic = 104,487 psi

* Ranked 17th out of 159 oils, 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi

* Ranked 21st out of 159 oils, 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle) = 101,139 psi

* Ranked 30th out of 159 oils, 10W30 Amsoil Dominator Racing Oil synthetic = 97,118 psi

* Ranked 40th out of 159 oils, 10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil synthetic = 95,360 psi

* Ranked 79th out of 159 oils, 0W40 Mobil 1, API SN, European Formula, made in the U.S., synthetic = 82,644 psi

* Ranked 117th out of 159 oils, 15W50 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 70,235 psi

As you can see, no matter what the zinc level, all but the last two listed oils would be a good choice for any engine, including flat tappet engines, no matter what the zinc lovers incorrectly believe. As for the 15W50 Mobil 1, it does NOT provide the wear protection some people might "assume" it does. Plus, it is WAY TOO THICK for most engine applications. I'd suggest using any oil here that is listed above the bottom two.

NOTE: The additive package which contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components, is more important than the base oil, in terms of wear protection.

540 RAT

My "TECH FACTS, NOT MYTHS" Blog, now has over 120,000 views worldwide. You can see the Blog and my entire 150+ motor oil “Wear Protection Ranking List”, which is "proven" by the Physics and Chemistry involved, and EXACTLY matches real world severe over-heating experience, real world Track experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High Performance Street experience (test data validation doesn’t get any better than this), along with additional motor oil tech FACTS, by going to the Blog link below. Credentials, methodology, proof, facts, data, Industry endorsements, real world validation, etc, are all included in the Blog. See for yourself, the engine you save may be your own.

http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/

BlackC3vette

All three have the same API rating? The SAE viscosity rating is just that, a viscosity rating. As a co-worker would say, "there's a bowl full of wrong here".

68post

Here's another view, copied off of the premier Oil Forum - "Bob Is The Oil Guy". It helps explain the high contact load at the lifter foot/camshaft lobe interface , and what level of ZDP is recommended for protection.
Quoted :

" I found this reply posted by RCX to the same GM TechLink article over on TurboBuicks.com. This thread was started when Pacos87GN posted Bob Olree’s Article from the Dec. 2007 GM Techlink publication for GM dealers and technicians titled: “Engine Oil Myths”.:



"We at AMI may not be lubrication engineers or tribologists, but we are engineers, and know how to read and interpret test reports. We have nothing but respect for Mr. Olree, indeed he is one of the most experienced engine lubrication engineers we have read, but we feel that his opinions leave some issues important to older classic and high-performance vehicle owners unanswered. To address them point by point:



”Engine Oil Myths -
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."”

It is human nature to be unsure about new technology. We agree that the situations vis-à-vis Pennsylvania Crude oil and detergent oil is adequately explained by this aspect of human nature. The working fundamentals of many modern technologies such as engine oils are far beyond the grasp of an average person. When reading Bob Olree’s comments, we also acknowledge that they are applicable to an average vehicle and engine. There are few people who have as much direct experience with the issue of ZDDP and API test Sequences as he has.

However, to describe the current situation where oils are being marketed with lower ZDDP than a vehicle’s original specified requirement as merely another “new or unknown = bad” myth does not do the facts of the situation justice.

There are no test reports we know of which conclude that any low ZDDP oil is compatible with older, high spring pressure flat-tappet high-performance engines.

There is on the other hand, research that concludes that the minimum ZDDP requirement is directly related to the lifter foot pressure. In one SAE paper it is reported that: “at a ZDP level corresponding to 0.02% phosphorus, scuffing occurred at 200 pounds lifter load, while it required 240 and 480 pounds lifter load for oils containing 0.04 and 0.06% phosphorus, respectively, to initiate scuffing. At 0.08% phosphorus concentration, no scuffing occurred up to 600 pounds lifter load, the test hardware limit. Scuffing occurred at 350 pounds lifter load with no ZDP (0% phosphorus).”

The older engines and high-performance engines we are concerned about may have lifter foot pressures several times that of a low-performance engine such as those used in the Sequence III tests, and their wear characteristics are not predicted by common Sequence III testing methodology. An additional factor is the dynamic load at the lifter foot. Sequence III engines run at 3600 RPM maximum during the test. Most high-performance TR engines are regularly run to 6000 RPM. The inertial contribution to the lifter foot pressure increases as the square of the increase in RPM. This means that the inertial load at 6000 RPM is 2.67 times it’s value at 3600 RPM.


“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.“

One of our engineers drives 1996 Chevrolet Impala SS with an LT1 engine which was filled at the factory with Mobil 1, and has never had any other oil in it. One might wonder if the Mobil 1 factory fill is actually the same spec as off the shelf product or if it is initially dosed with a break-in additive. It has indeed broken in well, and at over 200,000 miles it still has very little blow-by, so I would agree with Mr. Olree’s conclusion, for his Impala SS at least. Engine break-in problems are usually caused by improper break-in driving habits, not by the difference between synthetic or fossil based oil.



”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.

We have never been able to find the results of these tests on older engines. We would need to study those reports to see exactly which engine types and cam/follower types were involved. The fact is that all API test sequences we have studied use non-performance engines with low spring pressures, indeed in the Sequence IIIG test, the static lifter load is 350 pounds . Many high-performance engines have as much as 500 pounds or more of lifter foot pressure. Referring to the Bennet data, this would indicate that in order to keep from scuffing, a ZDP level giving a .065 % minimum phosphorus level would need to be ensured. If one considers that fact that the ZDDP level constantly drops from the initial level as a vehicle is driven, a safety margin above that is advisable. This means that if one wishes to maintain .065% minimum phosphorus, more than that must be present in the initial fill. Our calculations estimate that if you start with a ZDDP level which gives .14% phosphorus, after 2000-3000 miles, the actual ZDDP remaining active has dropped to the point where there is just enough protection.


"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.)"

We wish that it were true that all modern oils contained 0.08% ZDP. Our recent tests of two major name brand oils bearing the SM API grade showed that they contain