Motor oils?

Ive been doing some research on the subject of good oil, bad oil. I thought id post this here. Maybe its good info, maybe is bs. This was a email I recieved from a engine builder. Everyone has there own opinion.
Anyone have any input?

What the flat tappet, older FORD engine design require a good Zinc and Phosphorus (ZDDP) anti wear mixtue which will coat the engine and help it from wearing.
The flat tappet engine need an engine oil with at least 1200 ppm of Zinc and 1200 ppm Phosphorus or more".

Here a list of engine oil to chose from.
http://www.lnengineering.com/Oilresults.pdf

The reason I started looking into it was because of the excessive wear on my Harland Sharp rockers. The roller was wearing into the body on all but 2 of the rocker and the 2 that looked ok had the starts of the same issue. Also the REP for HS addressed the problems with the newer blend of oils in the older engines.

Doug

The problem with the lowering of ZDDP in GF-4 oils in stock engines is grossly overstated. The new-spec oil is perfectly acceptable in newer, STOCK engines. Roller-cam engines have no concerns.
But if you have a modified valvetrain or an older stock engine(pre 1980 or so), then the lack of ZDDP becomes an issue.
All the info presented is great stuff...everyone should read it.

You,r On The Right Track!!!!!!!!!

HOT ROD MAGS HAVE BEEN WARNING Motor Heads About All The Downsides The EPA Is The One That Want,s It Removed

Well, not exactly but pretty close: The EPA has mandated that catlytic converters on 2005 and newer gas powered cars sold in America must be designed to operate within acceptable specs for at least 150,000 miles with normal maintainance. This is considerably longer than the previous 50,000 mile regulation. (70,000 miles in Cali and High Alt areas).
This was done as a direct effort to reduce the amount of 'gross polluters' that are on the roads today: High-mileage cars that may still run perfectly fine, but whose emissions system's performance has degraded to the point where they no longer function within specs.

Zinc, phosphorous and other metallic EP anti-wear additives tend to contaminate converters after many thousands of miles of driving, so while they work great for the engine...they aren't too great for converters.

So, while the lowering of the zinc compounds (ZDDP) was not a direct requirement of the government, it was the only way for the manufacturers to comply with the new catalytic converter longevity standard.

You Summed It Up

Kit Sullivan said:

Well, not exactly but pretty close: The EPA has mandated that catlytic converters on 2005 and newer gas powered cars sold in America must be designed to operate within acceptable specs for at least 150,000 miles with normal maintainance. This is considerably longer than the previous 50,000 mile regulation. (70,000 miles in Cali and High Alt areas).
This was done as a direct effort to reduce the amount of 'gross polluters' that are on the roads today: High-mileage cars that may still run perfectly fine, but whose emissions system's performance has degraded to the point where they no longer function within specs.

Zinc, phosphorous and other metallic EP anti-wear additives tend to contaminate converters after many thousands of miles of driving, so while they work great for the engine...they aren't too great for converters.

So, while the lowering of the zinc compounds (ZDDP) was not a direct requirement of the government, it was the only way for the manufacturers to comply with the new catalytic converter longevity standard.

Click to expand...

THIS IS GREAT FOR NEWER CARS BUT US IN THE 90,S OR OLDER WILL PAY THE PRICE IN FACT I GOT CLASSIC TAG SO I WILL BE FREE FROM EMMISSIONS I DO BELIEVE THAT THE WORLD IS UNDER ATTACK FROM THE GREENHOUSE GASES BUT THOSE WHO ARE NOT DAILY DRIVERS ARE,NT THE MAIN CAUSE BIG BUSINESS IS THE MAIN ONES

Actually, our cars ( I assume yours is a Super Coupe) are not really one of the models years that are really in any danger. Engines from about 1985 and above are OK for the most part due to all the low-tension parts the manufactuerers started installing for better economy. The SCs are especially low-tension and low compression, so there should be no problem. Of course the effcts of the blown motor may put a little more stress on the valve train, but I don't see that it would have much direct effect on the valve train.

If your is heavily modified, I say definately use a different oil.

Quaker State has a new line of 'Q Full Synthetic Racing' oils made just for this issue. DO NOT confuse this with thier line of "Q Synthetic'...it's not the same stuff.
The 'Q Racing' was made with the older ZDDP-heavy formulation intact,and therefore is NOT a GF-4 rated oil. Can't be used in new vehicles.
The oil comes in standard viscosities (5W-30, 10W-30 and 20W-50), but it also has a new viscosity: 17.5W-35. That puts it squarely in the middle of waht a lot of older cars may need. A little more viscous than the factory rec'd 10W-30, but no need to get the syrupy 20W-50, which is really BAD for newer engines...ours especially.

Only problem so far is it is kinda hard to find. I have only seen it for sale through distributors, and in bulk. 5 gallon pails is the smallest container they sell as of the last time I checked.(about 3 moths ago, I think).

I've been anxious to try it out, but I ain't gonna buy 5 gallons at $5+ a quart ($100 a pail!) just to satisfy my curiosity!

Hey, "ThunderRoad",
I just checked your list of mods to your car, and I would say you definately need the zinc-added oils!
That's a nice set of mods you have listed there...I'll bet it runs great!

Against conventional wisdom, engine wear decreases as oil ages to a certain extent, which means that changing your oil more frequently actually causes engine wear; these findings were substantiated by studies conducted by the auto manufacturers and petroleum companies.

Click to expand...

Whoa!.. Now THIS is something I didn't know

Thanks for posting that link Doug.

Gee, I hate to blatantly disagree with you, but that is totally incorrect. Evaporative as well as operational additive depletion, soot and silca contamination and fuel dilution are all culprits in reducing the effectiveness of a motor oil's ability to reduce wear on any engine.
While it is true that the measurable rate of wear-and-tear does diminsh after an engine is fully broken in, that is not a measurement of the oil's ability to reduce wear-and-tear. It is simply the mechanisim of the engine acquiring and maintaining 'equilibrium', which is measured on a sliding scale. It ramps up pretty quickly for the first 10,000 miles or so, then levels off to near zero. As the wear-and-tear accumulates, the slope starts to taper off, ever more aggresively as the mileage increases.
Eventually, the drop-off is near vertical, representing complete engine failure.
Keeping the engine in equilibrium is the function and goal of the oil. Dirty, contaminated oil increases the rate of drop.
I spent much time at the Texaco Additive Research Facility in the Catskills studying just this matter. Many vehicles were run on computerized dyno's for many thousands of miles and meticulous measurements and readiings were taken at like-intervals for each vehicle. The results were universaly the same:
After a fresh oil change, and at operating temperature, the highest rate of volatilty-induced oil level reduction (burn-off) takes place during the first (approximately) 500 miles, then tapers off to near zero (in a healthy, well-tuned engine). Including a top-off at this point, the maximum amount of engine protection is provided at this point.
As the oil accumulates contaminants and degrades, wear increases.

The real issue that most people don't comprehend is that motor oil has several vastly different duties to perform in any engine. Each one of those abilities diminishes and eventually ceases at differing rates, all depending on the variations in driving style, engine condition, etc...
While some functions of the oil may be perfectly acceptable, other functions may be totally depleted at any given point.
In a perfect world, we would want to change our oil as soon as the first function nears expiration. This would lead to wasting the other functions of the oil by changing it out at that point, but that is the only was to get the maximum protection of the oil.
In reality, however, manufacturers and consumers tend to promote the idea to use every last bit of the oil's ability before gettig rid of it. While some functions may have theoreticllay expired only a few miles before changing it, other functions could have been non-existant for many thousands of muiles already.
This is the primary cause of rapid post-equilibrium wear.

It is better (in my opinion) to throw away a little good oil to make the engine last longer, than to throw away a little good engine to make the oil last longer. The oil is the disposable part of the equation, after all.

Whenever I find myself on my stupid soap-box like this, I just remember what an old instructor told me:
"Spend less time talking about oil, and more time changing it and your engine will last longer!"

I knew there was a reason I didn't change my oil on schedule. I changed the oil in the XR7 about every - hmm - year. Usually. And it didn't wear out at all and low and behold the darn thing was clean as a whistle when I tore it down too.


Eh, what do I know.

Kit Sullivan said:

Actually, our cars ( I assume yours is a Super Coupe) are not really one of the models years that are really in any danger. Engines from about 1985 and above are OK for the most part due to all the low-tension parts the manufactuerers started installing for better economy. The SCs are especially low-tension and low compression, so there should be no problem. Of course the effcts of the blown motor may put a little more stress on the valve train, but I don't see that it would have much direct effect on the valve train.

If your is heavily modified, I say definately use a different oil.

Quaker State has a new line of 'Q Full Synthetic Racing' oils made just for this issue. DO NOT confuse this with thier line of "Q Synthetic'...it's not the same stuff.
The 'Q Racing' was made with the older ZDDP-heavy formulation intact,and therefore is NOT a GF-4 rated oil. Can't be used in new vehicles.
The oil comes in standard viscosities (5W-30, 10W-30 and 20W-50), but it also has a new viscosity: 17.5W-35. That puts it squarely in the middle of waht a lot of older cars may need. A little more viscous than the factory rec'd 10W-30, but no need to get the syrupy 20W-50, which is really BAD for newer engines...ours especially.

Only problem so far is it is kinda hard to find. I have only seen it for sale through distributors, and in bulk. 5 gallon pails is the smallest container they sell as of the last time I checked.(about 3 moths ago, I think).

I've been anxious to try it out, but I ain't gonna buy 5 gallons at $5+ a quart ($100 a pail!) just to satisfy my curiosity!

Click to expand...

20W-50 is bad for our motors?! I have always used 20W-50. In my 89xr7, 89sc, and 93sc.

XR7 Dave said:

I knew there was a reason I didn't change my oil on schedule. I changed the oil in the XR7 about every - hmm - year. Usually. And it didn't wear out at all and low and behold the darn thing was clean as a whistle when I tore it down too.


Eh, what do I know.

Click to expand...

1350 feet and six dyno runs is HARDLY enough to get a lot of ware out of...Now if you quit breaking parts, you may see the validity of this testament.

Chris

XR7 Dave said:

I changed the oil in the XR7 about every year... Usually. And it didn't wear out at all...and low and behold the darn thing was clean as a whistle when I tore it down too.


Eh, what do I know.

Click to expand...

Measurements of wear and tear in labaratory settings are vastly different than just relying on anecdotal evidence from normal useage.
While you (as well as most everybody else too!) cannot and will not notice the difference in wear rates from simply driving the car over many thousands of miles...they are there.
Wear and tear is actually a function of meterial weight lost from each component. The before and after weights are compared and the difference is trhe wear rate...obviously.
This is tedious, exacting and expensive work. But is also very accurate.

The same goes for using 20W-50 in a engine not intended or suitable for it. While there may not be any noticeable wear and tear, it is there.

seawalkersee said:

1350 feet and six dyno runs is HARDLY enough to get a lot of ware out of...Now if you quit breaking parts, you may see the validity of this testament.

Chris

Click to expand...

Dude, you have no idea what kind of abuse that motor stood up to. The only parts I broke that caused any downtime was the driveshaft/transmission that broke last year. The motor had 200K miles on it, many of those 1/4 mile at a time. I've seen plenty of SC motors torn down and I've yet to see one come apart cleaner than that one. The car has seen 150mph, extreme rpm, extreme heat, detonation, extreme boost, towing, blown headgaskets, and other things not on the list of what Ford intended for the SC.

I'm not arguing with anyone's test results as my experience is far from scientific. However, it remains fact that people are in large quite unaware of what consititues abuse and/or what causes the majority of wear in their motors. People naively think that changing their oil religiously will prevent wear and other problems. If that is what they want to think that's fine with me.

I was merely posting anecdotal information. Nothing more.

Kit Sullivan said:

Measurements of wear and tear in labaratory settings are vastly different than just relying on anecdotal evidence from normal useage.
While you (as well as most everybody else too!) cannot and will not notice the difference in wear rates from simply driving the car over many thousands of miles...they are there.

Click to expand...

I find this funny. If you can't notice the difference after many thousands of miles, does it make a difference? Is laboratory evidence of value if it doesn't represent real world conditions? It wouldn't be the first time that laboratory testing, while accurate, was misguided and therefore pointed to a false conclusion.

Wear and tear is actually a function of meterial weight lost from each component. The before and after weights are compared and the difference is trhe wear rate...obviously.
This is tedious, exacting and expensive work. But is also very accurate.

The same goes for using 20W-50 in a engine not intended or suitable for it. While there may not be any noticeable wear and tear, it is there.

Click to expand...

You are overlooking some serious issues that apply to the situation. I'm not going to sit here and tell you I have answers but there are many questions that you (or the lab in this case) have not addressed.

For one thing, wear due to normal friction is not the primary killer of SC engines. Therefore all the wear testing in the world will not answer the question as to why SC's wear out rod bearings or what to do about it.

I Think That The Greater Stress In The Bottom End Is Under Boost

XR7 Dave said:

I find this funny. If you can't notice the difference after many thousands of miles, does it make a difference? Is laboratory evidence of value if it doesn't represent real world conditions? It wouldn't be the first time that laboratory testing, while accurate, was misguided and therefore pointed to a false conclusion.



You are overlooking some serious issues that apply to the situation. I'm not going to sit here and tell you I have answers but there are many questions that you (or the lab in this case) have not addressed.

For one thing, wear due to normal friction is not the primary killer of SC engines. Therefore all the wear testing in the world will not answer the question as to why SC's wear out rod bearings or what to do about it.

Click to expand...

AND HIGH TEMPS ARE GOING TO ALLOW THE WEAR TO TAKE PLACE IN NASCAR FOR TIME TRIALS THEY USE LIGHT WT OIL BUT FOR ALL OUT RACING IT IS MUCH HEAVIER THEY PUSH THE MOTOR TO HIGHER RPM AND TEMPS IN THE 500 MILES OR SO AND TEAR DOWN AFTER EACH RACE OR SELL THE MOTOR OUTRITE FOR 5 OR 10 GRAND

XR7 Dave said:

If you can't notice the difference after many thousands of miles, does it make a difference? Is laboratory evidence of value if it doesn't represent real world conditions?

Click to expand...

If you read my earlier post, you will see that I addressed this exact issue. Real-world results vs. labratory testing is definitive, yes...but it does not take into account the cost effectiveness issue.
And I agree with you completely: That is an important issue that is often overlooked or glossed over in may manufacturer's attempts to make thier products (whatever they may be) look more attractive to thier target consumer.

An example: Years ago, I was a scuba-instructor, which basically means you have shill equipment to pay for the privelage to take a charter dive whenever you want. Selling the store's gear was 31 to the shop.
Anyway, we carried an expensive line of diving watches...which I refused wear. My $100 Casio was (and still is!) the best diving watch I have owned...and the cheapest.
The Casio is rated for 10 Atmospheres (330 feet). Very appropriate since the virtual limit for sport diving is about 100 feet or so. Deep-Sea divers certainly need equipment rated for greater depths, but we did not in any way support or cater to professional or deep-sea divers.
However, our watches were all rated at 1,000 feet or more. And every turd in the store sold them based on the depth rating. What's the point?

Another one is the classic ad campaign for Mobil 1 from many years ago. It shows two frying pans: one with M-1 and the other with 'dino'. As the pans heat up, the voice-over shows the dino degrading as it reaches ever-higher temps, while the M-1 stays peachy-keen.
At around 600 degrees or so, the dino is basically black tar, but the M-1 looks great. The tag line is "Which one would you rather have in your car?"
A typical passenger car keeps the motor oil operating at around the 225-250 degree range. At those temps, all quality oils, synthetic or dino, operate well.
If your engine is so hot that you have the ability to heat the OIL up to over 600 degress...you have a whole host of other very serious problems to worry about before the oil comes into question.

So yes: I agree totally. Cost effectivenes is imporant. If the car is nothing more than an appliance to you, and if you are not going to keep it 'forever'...why buy the best oil and change it every 3000?
But if you are like most of us here: you know, obsessive-compulsive motor-heads that like the have the knowledge that they are doing the best they can for thier car, even though they may never realize its total potential value R.O.I., then the best is what you want.

Why Then Does Mobil One Now

SAY IT HAS LONG MILEAGE OIL UP TO 15000 MILES BTW ROYAL PURPLE SAYS ALSO THAT IT IS A LONG MILEAGE OIL AS WELL I WAS TOLD AS LONG AS THE OIL IS FILTERED AND DOES NOT GET AICDS OR MOISTURE AND NOT OVER HEATED IT SHOULD BE GOOD FOREVER IF THE OIL COMPANIES WERE JUST TRYING TO MAKE MONEY BY HAVING SO MANY DRAINING 3 TIMES A YEAR AS SOME USED TO SAY JUST MY TC

ThunderRoad said:

I WAS TOLD AS LONG AS THE OIL IS FILTERED AND DOES NOT GET AICDS OR MOISTURE AND NOT OVER HEATED IT SHOULD BE GOOD FOREVER.

Click to expand...

Well, the only way for those conditions to be met is never to take the oil out of the bottle.
No acids or moisture? Can't be stopped: natural by-product of combustion.
Not overheated? Even if not overheated, oil is heated every time it is used which eventually leads to severe oxidation issues.
Whoever gave you that little tid-bit of info is sadly misinformed.

ThunderRoad said:

SAY IT HAS LONG MILEAGE OIL UP TO 15000 MILES BTW ROYAL PURPLE SAYS ALSO THAT IT IS A LONG MILEAGE OIL AS WELL I WAS TOLD AS LONG AS THE OIL IS FILTERED AND DOES NOT GET AICDS OR MOISTURE AND NOT OVER HEATED IT SHOULD BE GOOD FOREVER IF THE OIL COMPANIES WERE JUST TRYING TO MAKE MONEY BY HAVING SO MANY DRAINING 3 TIMES A YEAR AS SOME USED TO SAY JUST MY TC

Click to expand...

There are many things which affect oil change interval much more than mileage. If an engine is running clean with a good tune and the rings are in good shape then it can go a long time between oil changes. The oil itself doesn't wear out, but what happens is it becomes contaminated. So the question is, how much does your SC contaminate it's oil? How is your tune? How are your O2 sensors? How are your rings? How about your valve guides? What about your headgaskets?

And we haven't even started to talk about the effects of detonation on your bearings..... detonation is the #1 killer of rod bearings in an SC. That fact leads us to the next question. What clearances do you have in your motor? And what weight of oil is needed to properly float a bearing at the clearances you are running? If your bearings have copper showing (they do) then what is your margin of safety? All good questions, no?