ZDDP ppm vs Zinc/Phos elemental ppm
09-02-2011, 07:09 PM
#1
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Apr 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 47 Likes
on
25 Posts
ZDDP ppm vs Zinc/Phos elemental ppm
When people are concerned about the amounts of zinc and phosphorus in their motor oil, are they talking about elemental zinc/phos ppm levels or ZDDP ppm levels? My guess is that many people don’t even know there is a difference, because they often use the numbers and terms interchangeably.
Compiling recent motor oil lab test data, pointed out that the correlation between the ppm (parts per million) numbers used in reference to ZDDP levels and the ppm numbers used in reference to elemental Zinc/Phos levels from lab tests, is not what many might think. They are NOT the same thing. Here’s an example:
Royal Purple 10W30 HPS (High Performance Street) lab test results
Zinc = 1774 ppm
Phos = 1347 ppm
OK, those numbers look pretty healthy for those who want elevated levels of zinc and phos. But those are elemental levels of zinc and phos, NOT the ZDDP level. Is ZDDP ppm = zinc ppm + phos ppm? That might just naturally seem to be the case (but ZDDP contains more than just zinc and phos). If that were the case, then you would have 1774 + 1347 = a ZDDP level of 3,121 ppm, but that would be insane (not to mention incorrect).
Because earlier testing by the motor oil industry has found that OVER .14% or 1,400 ppm ZDDP INCREASED long term wear, even though break-in wear was reduced. It was also found that .20% or 2,000 ppm levels of ZDDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.
Could ZDDP be the average of zinc and phos ppm? Then that would be (1774 + 1347)/2 = 1561 ppm ZDDP, which seems more reasonable. But what about the other components that make up ZDDP? The only thing we can say with confidence is that the lab report showed that 1774 ppm of zinc, and 1347 ppm of phos “from” ZDDP was present.
So, to clear up the confusion, and determine how the two different types of ppm counts fit in with each other, I contacted the Technical Services Manager at Royal Purple for a clarification. Here’s what he had to say:
--------
Concerning ZDDP levels vs. elemental zinc/phos levels that are found in oil analysis lab tests, the direct correlation will vary depending on the exact make-up of the additive package being used. No motor oil manufacturer quotes amounts of additive compound because that is proprietary formulation information. At best, the zinc/phos elemental levels from a lab test, can be used only to get a qualitative value of anti-wear content.
But, the exact amounts that are "good" and "bad" cannot be determined from a lab report because it depends on the exact compounds being used, the quality of those compounds, and the rest of the oil formulation. It is an unfortunate fact for the consumer, that not much that is meaningful for performance comparisons between competitive oils, can be determine by simple lab tests.
------------
BOTTOM LINE:
There are many articles about ZDDP which quote ppm levels that are desirable, and how it has changed over the years. But motor oil manufacturers, the only ones who can provide that info about their products, do NOT provide it, since it is part of their proprietary additive package. So, any consumer discussion of a certain oil having a certain level of ZDDP is not possible. And no direct comparison between elemental zinc/phos and ZDDP can be made, since there are as many variations as there are oil manufacturers.
The best you could do is lab test an oil to see how much elemental zinc/phos is in it. Then try to make something of an apples to oranges comparison between oils, since zinc and phos alone do not determine an oil’s absolute wear protection capability.
An example of that would be a cheapo no name 5W30 API SN dino oil that you come across on sale at Walmart. And say that oil has 900 ppm zinc and 900 ppm phos as its only anti-wear component. Now compare that to full synthetic Royal Purple 5W30 API SN that also has 900 ppm zinc and 900 ppm phos. But that oil also has RP’s proprietary Synerlec additive that they say is their primary extreme pressure anti-wear component, and that the zinc/phos is only icing on the cake.
If you are among those who only look at zinc/phos levels to determine wear protection capability, you’d be WAY off on this comparison. Because the Royal Purple would FAR outperform the cheapo oil in a wear test, with the difference being the overall additive package, not just the zinc/phos levels alone.
All the never ending debate and concern about zinc/phos levels, is only considering part of the overall equation. Therefore, we are only left with wear testing as the REAL way to make a meaningful comparison between competitive oils. It’s the final total product that matters, not just a couple of pieces of it. Proof of that is seen with people who have run Royal Purple street oil with reduced zinc/phos levels in flat tappet motors for years without issue. If they had only looked at zinc/phos levels, they would have thought that oil could not work in flat tappet motors, but it does.
And for the record, in spite of what it sounds like, I’m not trying to promote Royal Purple. Really I’m not, I don’t care what oil other folks buy. I’m just a little more familiar with RP than some others. So, run whatever you like, but just don’t hang your hat on zinc/phos levels alone. Because it’s just not that simple.
Compiling recent motor oil lab test data, pointed out that the correlation between the ppm (parts per million) numbers used in reference to ZDDP levels and the ppm numbers used in reference to elemental Zinc/Phos levels from lab tests, is not what many might think. They are NOT the same thing. Here’s an example:
Royal Purple 10W30 HPS (High Performance Street) lab test results
Zinc = 1774 ppm
Phos = 1347 ppm
OK, those numbers look pretty healthy for those who want elevated levels of zinc and phos. But those are elemental levels of zinc and phos, NOT the ZDDP level. Is ZDDP ppm = zinc ppm + phos ppm? That might just naturally seem to be the case (but ZDDP contains more than just zinc and phos). If that were the case, then you would have 1774 + 1347 = a ZDDP level of 3,121 ppm, but that would be insane (not to mention incorrect).
Because earlier testing by the motor oil industry has found that OVER .14% or 1,400 ppm ZDDP INCREASED long term wear, even though break-in wear was reduced. It was also found that .20% or 2,000 ppm levels of ZDDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.
Could ZDDP be the average of zinc and phos ppm? Then that would be (1774 + 1347)/2 = 1561 ppm ZDDP, which seems more reasonable. But what about the other components that make up ZDDP? The only thing we can say with confidence is that the lab report showed that 1774 ppm of zinc, and 1347 ppm of phos “from” ZDDP was present.
So, to clear up the confusion, and determine how the two different types of ppm counts fit in with each other, I contacted the Technical Services Manager at Royal Purple for a clarification. Here’s what he had to say:
--------
Concerning ZDDP levels vs. elemental zinc/phos levels that are found in oil analysis lab tests, the direct correlation will vary depending on the exact make-up of the additive package being used. No motor oil manufacturer quotes amounts of additive compound because that is proprietary formulation information. At best, the zinc/phos elemental levels from a lab test, can be used only to get a qualitative value of anti-wear content.
But, the exact amounts that are "good" and "bad" cannot be determined from a lab report because it depends on the exact compounds being used, the quality of those compounds, and the rest of the oil formulation. It is an unfortunate fact for the consumer, that not much that is meaningful for performance comparisons between competitive oils, can be determine by simple lab tests.
------------
BOTTOM LINE:
There are many articles about ZDDP which quote ppm levels that are desirable, and how it has changed over the years. But motor oil manufacturers, the only ones who can provide that info about their products, do NOT provide it, since it is part of their proprietary additive package. So, any consumer discussion of a certain oil having a certain level of ZDDP is not possible. And no direct comparison between elemental zinc/phos and ZDDP can be made, since there are as many variations as there are oil manufacturers.
The best you could do is lab test an oil to see how much elemental zinc/phos is in it. Then try to make something of an apples to oranges comparison between oils, since zinc and phos alone do not determine an oil’s absolute wear protection capability.
An example of that would be a cheapo no name 5W30 API SN dino oil that you come across on sale at Walmart. And say that oil has 900 ppm zinc and 900 ppm phos as its only anti-wear component. Now compare that to full synthetic Royal Purple 5W30 API SN that also has 900 ppm zinc and 900 ppm phos. But that oil also has RP’s proprietary Synerlec additive that they say is their primary extreme pressure anti-wear component, and that the zinc/phos is only icing on the cake.
If you are among those who only look at zinc/phos levels to determine wear protection capability, you’d be WAY off on this comparison. Because the Royal Purple would FAR outperform the cheapo oil in a wear test, with the difference being the overall additive package, not just the zinc/phos levels alone.
All the never ending debate and concern about zinc/phos levels, is only considering part of the overall equation. Therefore, we are only left with wear testing as the REAL way to make a meaningful comparison between competitive oils. It’s the final total product that matters, not just a couple of pieces of it. Proof of that is seen with people who have run Royal Purple street oil with reduced zinc/phos levels in flat tappet motors for years without issue. If they had only looked at zinc/phos levels, they would have thought that oil could not work in flat tappet motors, but it does.
And for the record, in spite of what it sounds like, I’m not trying to promote Royal Purple. Really I’m not, I don’t care what oil other folks buy. I’m just a little more familiar with RP than some others. So, run whatever you like, but just don’t hang your hat on zinc/phos levels alone. Because it’s just not that simple.
09-02-2011, 07:50 PM
#2
Le Mans Master
I would expect that as long as the elemental levels of P and Zn are both > 1,000 ppm the oil will have sufficient ZDDP for most flat-tappet cams.
Certainly there are many, many other factors as you note - but to say that a very low ZDDP oil could still be sufficient for a flat-tappet cam if it has the right additive package is contrary to the guidance provided by the cam manufacturers. Even Royal Purple doesn't recommend their API oils for flat-tappet cams...and makes the following statement:
Royal Purple HPS Series motor oil is specifically formulated to maximize performance and meet the demands of high performance and modified engines. It is fortified with a high level of zinc/phosphorus anti-wear additive and Royal Purple’s proprietary Synerlec® additive technology. This unique blend enables HPS to outperform leading synthetics and conventional lubricants.
I agree ppm ZDDP isn't the total picture of the capability of the oil nor an indicator of quality - but it is a a reasonable "qualitative value " to grab this difficult question by.
Certainly there are many, many other factors as you note - but to say that a very low ZDDP oil could still be sufficient for a flat-tappet cam if it has the right additive package is contrary to the guidance provided by the cam manufacturers. Even Royal Purple doesn't recommend their API oils for flat-tappet cams...and makes the following statement:
Royal Purple HPS Series motor oil is specifically formulated to maximize performance and meet the demands of high performance and modified engines. It is fortified with a high level of zinc/phosphorus anti-wear additive and Royal Purple’s proprietary Synerlec® additive technology. This unique blend enables HPS to outperform leading synthetics and conventional lubricants.
I agree ppm ZDDP isn't the total picture of the capability of the oil nor an indicator of quality - but it is a a reasonable "qualitative value " to grab this difficult question by.
Last edited by billla; 10-13-2011 at 06:14 PM.
10-12-2011, 03:17 AM
#3
Racer
Originally Posted by Technical Services Manager at Royal Purple
At best, the zinc/phos elemental levels from a lab test, can be used only to get a qualitative value of anti-wear content.
The OP is saying that ZDDP levels can not be quantified based on elemental zinc/phosphorus levels (which sounds like what you're attempting).
[not picking a fight, just conveying my interpretation...]
I wish we did have a way to ascertain the zddp content...
10-12-2011, 07:27 AM
#4
Le Mans Master
Many manufacturers identify their ZDDP content, and where that's the case those numbers are posted in the sticky.
I interpret the comment as being ZDDP levels a) can't be exactly determined by VOA and b) ZDDP levels aren't the only aspect of anti-wear in an oil.
There's no conflict with either of those statements, nor with the RP comments.
It doesn't change the simple fact that Zn and P levels, averaged, approximate the ZDDP level in the oil, nor that levels around 1,000 ppm are required regardless of the rest of the additive package.
I interpret the comment as being ZDDP levels a) can't be exactly determined by VOA and b) ZDDP levels aren't the only aspect of anti-wear in an oil.
There's no conflict with either of those statements, nor with the RP comments.
It doesn't change the simple fact that Zn and P levels, averaged, approximate the ZDDP level in the oil, nor that levels around 1,000 ppm are required regardless of the rest of the additive package.
Last edited by billla; 10-13-2011 at 06:17 PM.
10-12-2011, 08:29 AM
#5
Burning Brakes
thanks 540 rat for all the work you put into providing some answers and trying to clear this up. I like the post you provided recently and think it should be a sticky just cause it spells out just the facts.
10-13-2011, 05:48 PM
#7
Melting Slicks
I, and I suspect many others, use the ZDDP term as a writing shortcut for the Zinc/Phosphorus level. Does any oil manufacturer quote their ZDDP level in their specs? I can only find Zinc and Phosphorus levels listed separately, i.e. 0.14 zinc, 0.13 Phosphorus as listed in a Spec sheet for Valvoline VR-1 oil.
10-13-2011, 06:12 PM
#8
Le Mans Master
As noted above, some manufacturers do specifically call out ZDDP vs. Zinc and Phosphorus.
Regardless, Zn and P levels remain a good way to estimate ZDDP levels as ZDDP contains approximately equal amounts of both - so averaging the two will be close enough.
Regardless, Zn and P levels remain a good way to estimate ZDDP levels as ZDDP contains approximately equal amounts of both - so averaging the two will be close enough.
Last edited by billla; 10-13-2011 at 06:16 PM.
10-14-2011, 08:05 PM
#9
Pro
Thread Starter
Member Since: Apr 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 47 Likes
on
25 Posts
First a few of comments about certain low zinc/phos oils being fine in flat tappet engines.
A buddy of mine has run 20W50 Royal Purple Street Oil in his flat tappet, 700+ HP BBC Street/Strip Chevelle for the past 6 years without issue. And this street oil version of Royal Purple has reduced zinc/phos levels compared to RP's XPR and HPS higher zinc/phos oils. And of course a certain amount of that extra zinc/phos is just to passify buyers who want it. You have to sell your product, right? And adding some extra zinc/phos, even if not needed won't hurt anything.
And from time to time on the various Forums, other people have reported doing the same thing with Royal Purple Street Oil in their flat tappet motors.
And the reason they can do this without issue is because of Royal Purple's proprietary "Synerlec" extreme pressure additive. They consider the Synerlec their primary anti-wear component, with the zinc/phos only being icing on the cake. And for really serious hard core spring pressures, they offer the higher zinc/phos XPR and the HPS oils, for even more protection, as well as to satisfy the buying public who all think that extra zinc/phos is the answer to everything.
Then we have Joe Gibbs XP3 Racing Oil which is one of the leading oils used in Winning NASCAR Sprint Cup endurance engines (flat tappet motors last time I checked), yet it has very low levels of zinc/phos. 743 ppm zinc and 802 ppm phos, which is about the same as modern API SN oils. So, this is yet another example of a textbook case showing that you cannot really depend on elemental zinc/phos numbers alone, to predict how well an oil can protect against wear in high HP, high RPM engines. If you looked at the zinc/phos levels alone with this oil, like so many folks do, you’d think this oil should only be used in granny’s late model grocery getter. But you'd be dead wrong. Is there anyone here willing to step up and tell these guys that they don't know what they are doing?
Lab test results of the zinc/phos elemental values will only give you a rough idea of an oil's wear prevention capability, but to get the true story, you need to actually test the oil's ability to prevent metal to metal contact. Testing an oil that way, tests it as a total product, the base oil plus the entire additive package as a whole, and doesn’t just look at a couple of elements that are present.
I think I'll be able to shed a lot more light on the whole aspect of motor oil wear protection, in the coming months. Because I'll be performing motor oil load carrying capacity testing with the tester I have on order. I'll be testing all the oils that I have posted lab test results on, and maybe a few others. Plus I'll be performing all the tests with all the oils at normal operating temperature, for the most representative results possible. I'll rank them from best to worst so that everyone can see which oils walk the walk, and which oils only talk the talk. Those results should clearly show just how well zinc/phos elemental numbers correspond with real actual wear prevention capability. Stay tuned.......
A buddy of mine has run 20W50 Royal Purple Street Oil in his flat tappet, 700+ HP BBC Street/Strip Chevelle for the past 6 years without issue. And this street oil version of Royal Purple has reduced zinc/phos levels compared to RP's XPR and HPS higher zinc/phos oils. And of course a certain amount of that extra zinc/phos is just to passify buyers who want it. You have to sell your product, right? And adding some extra zinc/phos, even if not needed won't hurt anything.
And from time to time on the various Forums, other people have reported doing the same thing with Royal Purple Street Oil in their flat tappet motors.
And the reason they can do this without issue is because of Royal Purple's proprietary "Synerlec" extreme pressure additive. They consider the Synerlec their primary anti-wear component, with the zinc/phos only being icing on the cake. And for really serious hard core spring pressures, they offer the higher zinc/phos XPR and the HPS oils, for even more protection, as well as to satisfy the buying public who all think that extra zinc/phos is the answer to everything.
Then we have Joe Gibbs XP3 Racing Oil which is one of the leading oils used in Winning NASCAR Sprint Cup endurance engines (flat tappet motors last time I checked), yet it has very low levels of zinc/phos. 743 ppm zinc and 802 ppm phos, which is about the same as modern API SN oils. So, this is yet another example of a textbook case showing that you cannot really depend on elemental zinc/phos numbers alone, to predict how well an oil can protect against wear in high HP, high RPM engines. If you looked at the zinc/phos levels alone with this oil, like so many folks do, you’d think this oil should only be used in granny’s late model grocery getter. But you'd be dead wrong. Is there anyone here willing to step up and tell these guys that they don't know what they are doing?
Lab test results of the zinc/phos elemental values will only give you a rough idea of an oil's wear prevention capability, but to get the true story, you need to actually test the oil's ability to prevent metal to metal contact. Testing an oil that way, tests it as a total product, the base oil plus the entire additive package as a whole, and doesn’t just look at a couple of elements that are present.
I think I'll be able to shed a lot more light on the whole aspect of motor oil wear protection, in the coming months. Because I'll be performing motor oil load carrying capacity testing with the tester I have on order. I'll be testing all the oils that I have posted lab test results on, and maybe a few others. Plus I'll be performing all the tests with all the oils at normal operating temperature, for the most representative results possible. I'll rank them from best to worst so that everyone can see which oils walk the walk, and which oils only talk the talk. Those results should clearly show just how well zinc/phos elemental numbers correspond with real actual wear prevention capability. Stay tuned.......
Last edited by 540 RAT; 10-14-2011 at 08:10 PM.
10-14-2011, 08:42 PM
#10
Le Mans Master
Tackling a few points...
Using anecdotal evidence cuts both ways - for every story of someone running an SM/SN-type oil and having no issues there are a dozen cam failures from the same scenario.
The RP HPS street oil notes that it is "fortified with a high level of zinc/phosphorus anti-wear additive"...so regardless of other additive technologies, the ZDDP is still there - and still needed.
Talking about a race oil that's changed after a few hours of running, regardless of the configuation, has no comparison to a street engine that will see many start/stop cycles, cold starts, extended change intervals, etc.
It's all interesting work - but honestly makes this far, far more complex that it has to be and makes interpretations, connections and allusions that just don't fit the facts.
Using anecdotal evidence cuts both ways - for every story of someone running an SM/SN-type oil and having no issues there are a dozen cam failures from the same scenario.
The RP HPS street oil notes that it is "fortified with a high level of zinc/phosphorus anti-wear additive"...so regardless of other additive technologies, the ZDDP is still there - and still needed.
Talking about a race oil that's changed after a few hours of running, regardless of the configuation, has no comparison to a street engine that will see many start/stop cycles, cold starts, extended change intervals, etc.
It's all interesting work - but honestly makes this far, far more complex that it has to be and makes interpretations, connections and allusions that just don't fit the facts.
Last edited by billla; 10-14-2011 at 08:51 PM.
10-14-2011, 11:10 PM
#11
Drifting
I have a question: There have been more th 90 million small blocks built since 1955. Add to that all the Pontiacs, Oldseys, Caddies and the rest. I'm guessing Zink levels were reduced more than 20 years ago in most passenger car oils. (More knowledgeable people can chime in.) If the reduced Zink level is so bad, why aren't there more problems reported? Heck, I would expect lawsuit after lawsuit... I was just wondering.
10-14-2011, 11:26 PM
#12
Le Mans Master
I have a question: There have been more th 90 million small blocks built since 1955. Add to that all the Pontiacs, Oldseys, Caddies and the rest. I'm guessing Zink levels were reduced more than 20 years ago in most passenger car oils. (More knowledgeable people can chime in.) If the reduced Zink level is so bad, why aren't there more problems reported? Heck, I would expect lawsuit after lawsuit... I was just wondering.
Prior to 1988 API SF specified a minimum of 1500 PPM P. In 1993 API SG reduced reduced the minimum to 1200 PPM, and it was reduced again to 1000 PPM with the SL specification. A broad wave of flat-tappet camshaft failures started in 2004 following introduction of API SM and ILSAC GF-4 oil specifications which set a maximum of 800 PPM and a minimum of 600 PPM P for grades SAE 0W-20, SAE 5W-20, SAE 0W-30, SAE 5W-30 and SAE 10W-30. Initially blamed on poor cam quality control, it was quickly determined that it was in fact the reduction of ZDDP combined with more agressive cam profiles and associated higher spring loads that were the root cause. Testing that showed the new oils would still have acceptable ZDDP for flat-tappet cams was done with very mild cam profiles and very low spring pressures. This is not what is found in even a mild performance engine, but may work - or at least appear to work - in older stock-type engines that don't see hard driving, have mild cams and tired valve springs or just see very few road miles - hence the perspective for some that ZDDP levels are not a genuine issue.
The aftermarket gets more interesting - as there's really no warranty as it wouldn't be considered a defect in workmanship...so the only party would be the oil manufacturers. I guess someone could take a swing at a class action
Last edited by billla; 10-14-2011 at 11:32 PM.
10-14-2011, 11:51 PM
#13
Instructor
analysis of ZDDP
I can't comment on the wear reduction etc., but towards the OP's question:
ZDDP is and isn't simply one discrete compound. Zinc dialkyldithiophoshphates can have a range of (similar) molecular weights since the "dialkyl" portion of the molecules varies. See the Wikipedia article for more clarity. The analyses show ppm for both Zn and P because there is one atom of zinc and two atoms of phosphorous per molecule of ZDDP. The difference in atomic weights accounts for why the ppm level is not simply 1:2. In theory, one could just report a concentration (ppm or %) of ZDDP itself, but in that ZDDP is actually a range of similar molecules, atomic analysis for Zn and P is probably simpler to do in practice.
ZDDP is and isn't simply one discrete compound. Zinc dialkyldithiophoshphates can have a range of (similar) molecular weights since the "dialkyl" portion of the molecules varies. See the Wikipedia article for more clarity. The analyses show ppm for both Zn and P because there is one atom of zinc and two atoms of phosphorous per molecule of ZDDP. The difference in atomic weights accounts for why the ppm level is not simply 1:2. In theory, one could just report a concentration (ppm or %) of ZDDP itself, but in that ZDDP is actually a range of similar molecules, atomic analysis for Zn and P is probably simpler to do in practice.
10-15-2011, 05:06 PM
#14
Instructor
Member Since: Jul 2008
Location: Wertheim Baden-Württemberg Germany
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And this is where the confusion comes in.With my new cam from comp,there is a tech bulletin inclosed about proper levels of ZDDP for flat tappet cams.Problem is nowhere in this bulletin is it stated what the proper levels are,only references to ZDDP overloading.
Leaves me clueless as to what to choose.
Leaves me clueless as to what to choose.
10-15-2011, 05:38 PM
#15
Le Mans Master
CompCams has stated via email to me that the "correct" level is 1000-1400 ppm ZDDP.
The oil sticky has a list of readily available oils that meet those requirements.
The oil sticky has a list of readily available oils that meet those requirements.
10-15-2011, 08:21 PM
#17
Instructor
I'm using Amsoil after cam lobe went toast
Many are right in that correct oil selection is difficult. All I can add after having a new crate engine (350/195) installed in my 1981 Vette, the mechanic..Dub at Corvette Etc in Charlotte researched this and found that Amsoil 10-30 Z-Rod was the proper choice for my new engine. I have been running off the shelves current oil before in other engine and fuel pump cam lobe was toast and some of the other lobes was starting to show major wear. Now cam lobe wear may have been more than an oil used problem but don't want to repeat on new engine so for me it's Amsoil unless Dub tells me to change.
10-15-2011, 08:43 PM
#18
Le Mans Master
Link fixed; you need to determine if you'll take elemental zinc (Zn) on a datasheet as verified for a solid estimate - for the major brands, I personally consider that good enough and I have yet to find one that was out of wack when a VOA was done.
Last edited by billla; 10-15-2011 at 08:46 PM.
10-15-2011, 08:43 PM
#19
Le Mans Master
10-16-2011, 05:09 AM
#20
Instructor
Member Since: Jul 2008
Location: Wertheim Baden-Württemberg Germany
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Castrol GTX 15W-40 A3/B3
Spezifikationen und Freigaben
API SL/CF
ACEA A3/B3
VW 501 01/505 00
MB-Freigabe 229.1
Fiat 9.55535.D2
Was also told by my parts house that any 15W40 has the correct additives in it.He said that the problem lies with the 10W,5W,and 0W products.Not a chemist so I don't know.
Bought a 4oz bottle of ZDDPlus from Corvette Central with my last purchase to be safe.I always used 15W40 anyway.
Last edited by Ravoll; 10-16-2011 at 05:21 AM. Reason: Cause I cain't spel