68post

Localized leverage. You are using a very small point on the cam lobe to lifter face to push upward, the rocker also multiplies this leverage, and a 400 lb psi rating is spread over a "square inch" (psi = pounds per square inch). Imagine the extra pressure the exhaust valve opens against !?
(All of it would be easy at 50 rpm and a stream of oil, but 3,000 rpm it's alot harder - and with only a spit of oil ! )

All that and it's also an inefficient way to do the lifting, besides - it's smearing the oil film away at this same time with metal to metal contact.
(it's only a splash lubed area )
Thus the need for an "extreme pressure/boundary lubrication" additive such as ZDDP and Moly.

A strong oil film is great to have - but it'll only take you so far !!

63mako

http://www.doc88.com/p-9909454055703.html
Here you go. This is the Sequence IIIG SAE test to determine backward comapability of modern oils.
Go to page 5 and read from
Runs with .003% phosphorous give high wear to
Importance of scuff rediscovered
on the next page. Look at page 7, table 3, bottom 5 test results. You can see reduced wear with higher ZDDP levels with a huge difference when running .005% and going from a #180 spring (PE02) to a #205 spring (PE03) Then a drastic decrease in wear from PE/03 to PE/04, the best test @ .0095% (highest tested) This is in a factory stock 3.8 v6 with stock flat tappet engine with #205 open pressure springs. It was run at 3600 RPM for 100 hours with oil temperature maintained at 150 degrees.
Now think of a 400 HP v8 with a fast ramp flat tappet with #400 springs that sees 6500 RPM and the additional load seen at the lifter contact point. Think it needs more ZDDP than the 3.6?

AirBusPilot

I'm just trying to mathematically compute how there is a multiplication on the order of 500 times (500 x 400 lbs = 200,000 lbs), per 63mako. I'm not doubting the effectiveness of zinc/phos.

63mako

The actual contact point between the radiused cam lobe and convex lifter bottom is less than 1/500 of a square inch. That said the extreme pressure and sliding motion shears the oil film no matter how strong it is. The heat and pressure also shears the ZDDP molecule grinding the phosphorous into the peaks and valleys of the lobe and lifter making a thin microscopic protective phosphorous film on those parts, reducing friction (wear) at the contact point. This wears off, friction increases, heat increases, more is deposited as needed. It is an amazing additive. It also gets used up over time, the more load (lift intensity, spring pressure, rpm) the faster it is used and bigger chance that wear of the actual surfaces happens (wiped lobes, flat lifters). It is a polar molecule, it is attracted to the metal surfaces like a magnet, Detergents and dispersants are also polar molecules and directly compete with the ZDDP for the same space. This is why Diesel oil has more ZDDP, it has higher detergent and dispersant levels so it needs higher levels of ZDDP to provide the same, not more protection. Best protection is 1200 - 1500 PPM ZDDP with little to no detergent or dispersant. (racing oil) Downside is it requires very frequent changes because the lack of detergent does not suspend the dirt allowing the filter to remove it. The "hot rod" oils like Joe Gibbs synthetic hot rod oil and Amsoil Z-Rod have high ZDDP, medium detergents, Anti corrosion and antioxidant additives and stays stable in storage with a true synthetic base stock. This is an engineered base stock and additive package for a specific use. You will pay extra for that. You also need to change it every 3000 miles or once a year whichever comes first.

QIK59

You divide the load by the contact area - (if) the contact area is a tiny fraction of a square inch in area (point contact) it results in a sky high per square inch loading
Benefit of higher (technical) education LOL

AirBusPilot

Wow, just 1/500". Makes more sense now. Thanks.

540 RAT

First, let's make sure we are all on the same page about motor oil. My Motor Oil Test Data Blog has received such widespread acceptance, that it has now reached nearly 70,000 views worldwide. And it grows by about 5,000 views per month. People from all over the world have embraced it because they finally have usable factual information available to make an informed choice to select the best motor oil for their needs. Until my test data became available, all they had was the old MYTH that any high zinc oil was all they needed.

But, my test data has completely BUSTED the old myth that all high zinc oils provide the needed wear protection. The fact is that some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc oils only provide poor wear protection. On my ranking list, the number one ranked oil right out of the bottle is a high zinc oil, but an oil with the highest amount of zinc I've ever seen, is ranked dead last. The oil you need, all depends on your engine's wear protection requirements vs the amount of wear protection your motor oil provides. You may be OK, or you may not. Just because your engine has not seized up with oil you are using, does NOT mean you are using a great oil. It only means is that your oil provides enough wear protection for engine's current setup and usage. But, it says absolutely nothing about how much reserve wear protection capacity that motor oil provides. So, people who choose an oil simply because it has a high level of zinc present, may well be using an oil that only provides a very low margin of safety, which means they are playing Russian Roulette with their engine for no good reason. We can do much better now, than blindly believing that old wives tale about needing high zinc levels.

The zinc level alone, (and using zinc as the primary extreme pressure anti-wear component is outdated technology) does NOT determine how well a motor oil can prevent wear. And even more zinc CANNOT physically increase the wear protection. Zinc simply does NOT work that way. And anyone or any Company that says it does, does NOT understand how zinc works, and is spreading false information from the old myth. Zinc is sacrificed and used up, a little at a time, as mileage accumulates. So, the amount of zinc present in the oil is reduced over time. But, testing of various used oils with 5,000 miles on them, showed no reduction in wear protection capability even though the zinc level had been reduced by about 25% on average, which is another example of how the zinc level does NOT determine wear protection. The zinc level went way down, but the wear protection held steady. More zinc simply takes longer to be depleted because there is more of it to begin with. It is much like more gas in your tank takes longer to run out, but more gas in your tank does NOT give you more power.

My Engineering motor oil test data is "proven" by Physics and Chemistry, and EXACTLY MATCHES real world race track experience. Proof doesn't come any better than that. And my test data also has numerous endorsements by other Engineers as well as Automotive Industry experts. See my Motor Oil Testing Blog link below for all the details.

But of course, there are some outspoken brainwashed zinc loving individuals who cannot come to grips with the actual shortcomings of zinc in their oils. So, they go out of their way in an attempt to discredit my Engineering test data. But, what they blindly believe, simply because of what they have been told, read and heard for many years about needing high zinc levels, is only folklore that cannot be proven with hard data, because it simply is NOT true. They cannot back-up anything they say with any kind of hard data. All they can do is provide a link to some lame Internet article. However, I prove what I post with hard data to back-up everything I say. And the fact that my test data exactly matches real world race track experience, cancels out all of the bogus things they say in a pointless attempt to discredit my data. They only make themselves look bad by thinking anyone would believe their words can somehow cancel out Physics, Chemistry and the matching of race track experience.

Wiped flat tappet lobes still happen with too much frequency, even though people used high zinc oils or low zinc oils with zinc additives. And this proves my point about not being able to rely on zinc levels alone. Of course high zinc believers try to make excuses by saying the cam/lifter material was bad or that the break-in procedure was wrong. But, most failures occurred with name brand parts that now provide good quality material, and you don't need any special break-in procedure if you use the correct motor oil. So, those folks have overlooked the root cause of the failures, which was that not all high zinc oils provide enough wear protection.

The fact is, if you select a high ranking oil from my wear protection ranking list, no matter how much zinc is in it, you will be good to go and can quit worrying about the oil in your engine, no matter what type of cam you run or how wicked the engine is.

My test data ranks motor oil based on film strength load carrying capacity, NOT how much zinc is in it. And the only thing that matters, is an oil's film strength load carrying capacity. Because, you have to penetrate an oil's film strength, in order to reach metal to metal contact and suffer wear or damage. In fact, as mentioned above, and it is worth repeating, you don't even have to use some elaborate break-in procedure if you select one of the high ranked oils from my list, even if you run a wicked flat tappet engine. Just break it in like you would a brand new vehicle. In other words, you don't have to lose sleep over break-in anymore if you select a proper oil.

Here is just one example of that. A buddy built a 500 HP, flat tappet, solid lifter, 383ci small block Chevy for his '69 Corvette several years ago. He asked me what oil he should use to break it in and to use later on as well. He wanted to use a conventional oil at that time, that was affordable, and readily available. So, I suggested he use conventional low zinc 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN, that provided 95,392 psi in my testing, which put it in the OUTSTANDING wear protection category.

He used that oil from day one with no elaborate break-in procedure at all. He just drove the car. It is his only car, so it is his daily driver, which he always drives like he stole it. And he has never had any issue with his cam or lifters. Then maybe a year or so ago he decided he wanted to switch to a synthetic oil that was affordable and readily available, so I suggested he go with low zinc synthetic 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN, that provided 105,875 psi in my testing, which put it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category.

He has used that oil ever since and still has not had any issue at all with his cam or lifters. He has tens of thousands of hard Hotrod miles on that cam and lifter combo, which is far more miles than most weekend only Hotrods will ever see, and he has never suffered one bit from not using a high zinc oil. So, that is yet another example of the fact that high zinc oils are NOT needed for sufficient wear protection, even in flat tappet engines, and not even for break-in. The only thing that matters, as mentioned above, is an oil's film strength load carrying capacity. And that is precisely the data my Oil Testing Blog ranks.

For the high zinc lovers who just can't wrap their minds around that, I invite them to actually sit down and read my entire Blog from start to finish, with an open mind. And they will very likely be convinced that their old beliefs about high zinc oil have been wrong all along. That will allow them to use 21st Century motor oil Engineering test data to finally choose the oils that truly are the best for their needs.

I've received countless PM's and Blog comments from people all over the world, thanking me for providing factual motor oil data that they've never been able to find before. They make use of it, and you can too. Keep in mind, that I do not sell oil nor work for any motor oil Company. I do not sell motor oil additives nor work for any motor oil additive Company. I do not sell nor work for any cam/lifter Company. I only share the test data that came out of my Engineering tests, as a courtesy to other gear heads.

The test data I provide is the real deal, and is NOT my theory, and is NOT my opinion. The data was all determined by the Physics and Chemistry involved. The high zinc lovers cannot change Physics and Chemistry, so don't believe a word they say about always needing high zinc oils for adequate wear protection. Because that is simply NOT true. Newer technology extreme pressure anti-wear components used in modern low zinc oil additive packages are better than just zinc/phos alone from the old days. Time marches on and motor oils have greatly improved, no matter what the high zinc guys say.

You can embrace my factual Engineering test data and make use of it, or you can ignore my data, and continue to follow the old MYTH about always needing high zinc levels, that is your call. All I ask is that you read my entire Blog from start to finish with an open mind, then decide for yourself. The engine you save, may be your own.

*****************

So finally, on with the specific topic of this posting. A Forum member asked me to test 10W40 Spectro Motor-Guard High Performance Conventional Motorcycle Oil, API SL, for him to see if it was really any good. I agreed to perform the testing, so he sent me a bottle for the test. He was interested in using it in his Hotrod, since it came highly recommended by another Forum member who considers it his favorite motor oil because it "claims" 2X the ZDDP, 1800 ppm zinc/phos, superior protection, and other big claims.

Hmmmm, the guy recommending this oil to the Forum member who contacted me, decided this was his favorite oil just because of what was printed on the bottle and on Spectro's website??? WOW!!! High zinc lovers will attack me and my ENGINEERING TEST DATA which is the real deal, and EXACTLY MATCHES race track experience, yet they have no problem embracing an oil simply because of its ADVERTISING??? Talk about a double standard. That shows how little credibility high zinc lovers have. They will embrace an oil with absolutely nothing technical to support it, yet if I provide actual Engineering test data, in their minds I'm the bad guy. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I don't appreciate being made the bad guy just because I provide real Engineering data. That is total insanity. Engineering test data drives the world, and multi-million dollar corporate decisions are made based on Engineering test data. And for the record, motor oils are among the worst products I've ever seen for false advertising. So, never believe anything a motor oil hype "claims", only believe what actual real world test data "proves".

So, I performed the test on this 10W40 Spectro Motor-Guard oil, of course using the exact same test procedure that I've used on every other motor oil I've ever tested. And I've ranked it below among other high zinc oils (over 1100 ppm zinc) I've tested, so you can see how it performed relative to other high zinc oils. That way it is on a level playing field, with no low zinc oils in the mix to confuse the issue. This way it will be a direct apples to apples comparison.

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

The higher the psi number, the better the wear protection.


1.5W30 Motul Ester Core 4T Motorcycle Racing Oil, synthetic = 112,612 psi
zinc = 1724 ppm
phos = 1547 ppm

2. 10W30 Lucas Racing Only, synthetic = 106,505 psi
zinc = 2642 ppm
phos = 3489 ppm

3. 5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven LS30 Performance Motor Oil, synthetic = 104,487 psi
zinc = 1610 ppm
phos = 1496 ppm


4. 10W30 Valvoline NSL (Not Street Legal) Conventional Racing Oil = 103,846 psi
zinc = 1669 ppm
phos = 1518 ppm


5. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
zinc = 1472 ppm
phos = 1544 ppm


6. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle) = 101,139 psi
zinc = 1180 ppm
phos = 1112 ppm


7. 30 wt Red Line Race Oil synthetic = 96,470 psi
zinc = 2207 ppm
phos = 2052 ppm


8. 10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil synthetic = 95,360 psi
zinc = 1431 ppm
phos = 1441 ppm

9. 5W30 Maxima RS530 Synthetic Racing Oil = 91,162 psi
zinc = 2162 ppm
phos = 2294 ppm


10. 10W30 Quaker State Defy, API SL semi-synthetic = 90,226 psi
zinc = 1221 ppm
phos = 955 ppm


11. 10W30 Joe Gibbs HR4 Hotrod Oil synthetic = 86,270 psi
zinc = 1247 ppm
phos = 1137 ppm


12. 15W40 RED LINE Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4/CI-4 PLUS/CI-4/CF/CH-4/CF-4/SM/SL/SH/EO-O = 85,663 psi
zinc = 1615 ppm
phos = 1551 ppm


13. 5W30 LAT Synthetic Racing Oil = 81,800 psi
zinc = 1784 ppm
phos = 1539 ppm

14. 30wt Amsoil Break-In Oil, conventional = 78,192 psi
zinc = 2051 ppm
phos = 1917 ppm

15. 5W30 Lucas API SM synthetic = 76,584 psi
zinc = 1134 ppm
phos = 666 ppm


16. 5W50 Castrol Edge with Syntec API SN, synthetic, formerly Castrol Syntec, black bottle = 75,409 psi
zinc = 1252 ppm
phos = 1197 ppm


17. 5W30 Royal Purple XPR (Extreme Performance Racing) synthetic = 74,860 psi
zinc = 1421 ppm
phos = 1338 ppm


18. 5W40 MOBIL 1 TURBO DIESEL TRUCK synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4 and ACEA E7 = 74,312 psi
zinc = 1211 ppm
phos = 1168 ppm

19. 0W50 Mobil 1 Racing Oil = 73,811 psi
zinc = 1676 ppm
phos = 1637 ppm


20. 15W40 CHEVRON DELO 400LE Diesel Oil, conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CF-4,CF/SM, = 73,520 psi
zinc = 1519 ppm
phos = 1139 ppm


21. 15W40 MOBIL DELVAC 1300 SUPER Diesel Oil conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4/SM, SL = 73,300 psi
zinc = 1297 ppm
phos = 1944 ppm


22. 15W40 Farm Rated Heavy Duty Performance Diesel, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF/SL, SJ (conventional) = 73,176 psi
zinc = 1325ppm
phos = 1234 ppm


23. 15W40 “NEW” SHELL ROTELLA T Diesel Oil conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CF-4,CF/SM = 72,022 psi
zinc = 1454 ppm
phos = 1062 ppm

24. 0W30 Mobil 1 Racing Oil = 71,923 psi
zinc = 1693 ppm
phos = 1667 ppm


25. 0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 (semi-synthetic) = 71,377 psi
zinc = 1621 ppm
phos = 1437 ppm


26. 15W40 “OLD” SHELL ROTELLA T Diesel Oil conventional, API CI-4 PLUS, CI-4, CH-4,CG-4,CF-4,CF,SL, SJ, SH = 71,214 psi
zinc = 1171 ppm
phos = 1186 ppm


27. 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 (semi-synthetic) = 71,206 psi
zinc = 1557 ppm
phos = 1651 ppm


28. 15W50 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 70,235 psi
zinc = 1133 ppm
phos = 1,168 ppm


29. 30wt Edelbrock Break-In Oil conventional = 69,160 psi
zinc = 1545 ppm
phos = 1465 ppm


30. 10W40 Edelbrock synthetic = 68,603 psi
zinc = 1193 ppm
phos = 1146 ppm


31. 15W40 LUCAS MAGNUM Diesel Oil, conventional, API CI-4,CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SL = 66,476 psi
zinc = 1441 ppm
phos = 1234 ppm


32. 10W30 Royal Purple HPS (High Performance Street) synthetic = 66,211 psi
zinc = 1774 ppm
phos = 1347 ppm


33. 10W40 Valvoline 4 Stroke Motorcycle Oil conventional, API SJ = 65,553 psi
zinc = 1154 ppm
phos = 1075 ppm


34. 5W30 Klotz Estorlin Racing Oil, API SL synthetic = 64,175 psi
zinc = 1765 ppm
phos = 2468 ppm


35. “ZDDPlus” added to Royal Purple 20W50, API SN, synthetic = 63,595 psi
zinc = 2436 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2053 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 24% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Most major Oil Companies say to NEVER add anything to their oils, because adding anything will upset the carefully balanced additive package, and ruin the oil’s chemical composition. And that is precisely what we see here. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.


36. Royal Purple 10W30 Break-In Oil conventional = 62,931 psi
zinc = 1170 ppm
phos = 1039 ppm


37. 10W30 Lucas Hot Rod & Classic Hi-Performance Oil, conventional = 62,538 psi
zinc = 2116 ppm
phos = 1855 ppm


38. 10W30 Comp Cams Muscle Car & Street Rod Oil, synthetic blend = 60,413 psi
zinc = 1673 ppm
phos = 1114 ppm


39. 10W40 Torco TR-1 Racing Oil with MPZ conventional = 59,905 psi
zinc = 1456 ppm
phos = 1150 ppm


40. 10W40 Summit Racing Premium Racing Oil, API SL conventional = 59,483 psi
zinc = 1764 ppm
phos = 1974 ppm

41. 10W40 Spectro Motor-Guard High Performance Motorcycle Oil, API SL, conventional = 57,977 psi
zinc = 1800 ppm (claimed on the bottle)
phos = 1800 ppm (claimed on the bottle)

42. “ZDDPlus” added to O’Reilly (house brand) 5W30, API SN, conventional = 56,728 psi
zinc = 2711 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2172 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 38% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.


43. “ZDDPlus” added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 56,243 psi
zinc = 2955 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2114 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 12% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.

44. 0W Mobil 1 Racing Oil = 55,080 psi
zinc = 1952 ppm
phos = 1671 ppm


45. “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Royal Purple 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 54,044 psi
zinc = 1515 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1334 ppm (up 517 ppm)
The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was a whopping 36% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.


46. 10W30 Comp Cams Break-In Oil conventional = 51,749 psi
zinc = 3004 ppm
phos = 2613 ppm


47. “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Lucas 5W30, API SN, conventional = 51,545 psi
zinc = 1565 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1277 ppm (up 517 ppm)
The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was a “breath taking” 44% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.


48. “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 50,202 psi
zinc = 1680 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1275 ppm (up 517 ppm)
The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 22% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.


49. 30wt Lucas Break-In Oil conventional = 49,455 psi
zinc = 4483 ppm
phos = 3660 ppm

So, as you can see above, the results for 10W40 Spectro Motor-Guard High Performance Motorcycle Oil were disappointing. It only ranked 41st out of these 49 high zinc oils, which of course means that 40 other high zinc oils provided better wear protection. And it ranks 134th out of 143 oils tested so far on my overall Wear Protection Ranking List, which means that a whopping 133 other oils provided better wear protection. This 10W40 Spectro Motor-Guard oil did not support the bold claims made on the bottle, which has been a common theme among many of the smaller name Oil Companies. It has been typical for many of the smaller name Oil Companies to dump in a high level of zinc and then claim their oil is amazing. You'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, and think that they are not blatantly putting out false advertising. I would expect these small oil Companies are made up of good people who mean well, but are simply following the old myth about needing high zinc levels for adequate wear protection. Apparently they do not have the resources to actually test their products to see how well they actually perform.

The ranking list above for these 49 high zinc oils is ABSOLUTE PROOF that not all high zinc oils provide equal wear protection capabilities. As you can see, some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc oils only provide poor wear protection. And that makes it totally clear, that you simply CANNOT predict an oil’s wear protection capability by looking only at its zinc level. If you only look at zinc levels, that is no better than guessing.

A motor oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, with the emphasis on its additive package which is what contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components, and NOT simply by how much zinc is present. The ONLY way to know for sure how much wear protection any given oil can provide, is to look at an oil's film strength load carrying capacity, which is precisely what my Wear Protection Ranking List is based on.

I also tested this 10W40 Spectro Motor-Guard oil for the onset of Thermal Breakdown, which showed it reached that point at 245*F. This is the lowest value I've seen from conventional oils that I've tested for the onset of Thermal Breakdown. The other conventional oils I tested, reached the onset of Thermal Breakdown between 260* and 280*.

If you've used this 10W40 Spectro Motor-Guard oil in your combo without issue, that means it has been providing enough wear protection for your engine as it is, and for the way it is being used, so you don't have to stop using it. As long as nothing changes with your engine or its usage, you will probably never have a problem. But, you don't have as much reserve wear protection capability as you would have with higher ranked oils.

540 RAT

Mechanical Engineer

U.S. Patent Holder

Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)

To see my entire 140+ motor oil “Wear Protection Ranking List” Blog (with over 65,000 “views” worldwide), along with additional motor oil tech FACTS, which are "proven" by Physics and Chemistry, and exactly matches real world track experience, go to this link:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/

63mako

Here is an actual ASTM test using the exact same oil with 2 spring strengths and ZDDP levels of 300,500 and 950 PPM being the only difference then wear tested at the lobe, Real world 100 hour test in a real running engine.

540 RAT

That test was shown to have come from many years ago back in 2001, and clearly did NOT use the same oils I have been testing over the past 2 to 3 years. How could ****** possibly believe that the manipulated oil they used is the exact same oil I've tested? On top of that, they tested oil at 150*C which equals 302*F, and every oil I've ever tested for the onset of thermal breakdown, had already reached thermal breakdown by 302*F. In fact, the NOACK Volatility Test is specifically designed to test oil at 302*F, to measure the percentage of the oil's weight loss due to volatilization as the oil is failing due to being overheated. So, that means the oil they tested was already in the process of failing, even during the test, which will have skewed the results. Testing oil for wear protection in that condition is completely invalid nonsense, because the oil is in failure mode, and that temp does not represent actual normal running engine conditions.

A competent Engineer would not blindly accept a bogus ASTM test temperature, just because ASTM laid out the procedure. I have seen ASTM motor oil test temps that are too cold, as well as some that are too hot. If a motor oil test does not represent realistic engine oil temps, then it is worthless for providing any useful information, even if it came from ASTM. That is why I would not accept an ASTM test procedure for the wear protection testing I perform. In the end, I developed my own test procedure at a representative temp, because ASTM did not provide a test at reasonable engine oil temps. If I had wear tested motor oil at a non-representative temperature, you can rest assured that ***** and others would have slammed me for testing at a bogus temp.

So, I test oil at a representative 230*F which is a typical temperature for normal running engines. As usual, all ***** did was supply another lame internet link that does not reflect the actual oils on the market today, nor the conditions under which they normally operate. He needs to learn a lot more about motor oil, and will have to come up with something much better than that. It's no secret that modern extreme pressure anti-wear components are better than the old zinc/phos formulations.

No matter what ****** says, my test data EXACTLY MATCHES real world race track experience (see my Oil Test Data Blog for all the details). Real world proof validating my test data doesn't get any better than that. So, whatever ***** says against my test data, is worthless. He has made it his life's work to try and discredit my oil test data, any way he can, even though he has no credentials to support anything he says. Even so, he thinks he is the world's only motor oil guru just because he looks stuff up on the internet, and if anyone else has anything to say, they are stepping into his territory. Don't believe a word he says, if you want to learn the facts. Because all he ever puts out there is incorrect and/or misleading information. If you follow his recommendations, you will be putting your engine at risk for no good reason.

I have numerous endorsements from other Engineers and Industry Experts, as well as nearly 70,000 views worldwide of my Oil Test Data Blog. Can ***** make any of those claims? Read my entire Blog from start to finish, then decide for yourself.

540 RAT

Mechanical Engineer

U.S. Patent Holder

Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)

To see my entire 140+ motor oil “Wear Protection Ranking List” Blog (with over 65,000 “views” worldwide), along with additional motor oil tech FACTS, which are "proven" by Physics and Chemistry, and exactly matches real world track experience, go to this link:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/

63mako

That is the actual current 2015 ASTM approved Sequence IIIG test used to test backward compatibility in oils. You are saying this is invalid. It was developed in 2001 and is still used by API and ILSAC to determine minimum oil standards. Sequence III testing has been used for 45 years to determine oil valvetrain wear protection effectiveness. Sequence IIIG replaced Sequence IIIF in 2001. Since then it has been upgraded twice Sequence IIIGA and IIIGB. Each test runs 100 hours in a real engine. The results prove the effectiveness of higher levels of ZDDP for Valvetrain wear protection based on real world testing in an actual running engine instead of a film strength test. Film strength and extreme pressure additive effectiveness are 2 different characteristics of oil and require different testing protocol. Sequence IIIG tests extreme pressure additive (ZDDP) effectiveness relating to valvetrain wear. It is the approved ASTM, SAE, API ILSAC standard and it does directly contradict your theory that ZDDP levels have no bearing on valvetrain wear.
http://www.astm.org/Standards/D7320.htm

DUB

ONE THING that I have come to realize is that I APPRECIATE what 540 RAT is doing. REGARDLESS the feedback and lashing from others...which they are entitled to do.

What amazes me is how some people still cling onto the test procedures that have been updated and updated and so on. A person WOULD THINK that if the Petroleum Testing Industry would have its act TOGETHER BY NOW....seeing how we have been using oil in engine for a VERY LONG TIME.

And what is also FUNNY is how the petroleum industry is 'in bed' with the automotive industry...YOU CAN COUNT ON IT...and it can be a situation where 'THEY' are trying to get the oil to work for a specific amount of time....because BOTH automotive and petroleum industries are 'in bed' with the steel companies....and thus making engines still have a life expectancy to them....seeing how this world seems to be moving to a more 'disposable' world. "Buy it...use it till it breaks...throw it away and buy another'.

If you think I am CRAZY...then explain this. WHY did GM use a large cartridge oil filter in the pre-1970's corvettes.....THEN.... they went to a twist on SMALLER OIL FILTER(PF-25).....then ...WHAT did they DO....They discontinued the PF-25 oil filter and REPLACED it with the PF-454 which is even smaller yet. WHY reduce the filter surface area and volume.

Keep up your testing 540 RAT. Just because an Industry has a standard for testing that CHANGES...makes me WONDER... WHY??? When this data should already have been complied 50 years ago...and at least a baseline established. Somewhat like the pharmaceutical industry that makes drugs that can CONTROL some illnesses...BUT not CURE IT. They make more money keeping the problem under control...that's why...unless you give them millions of dollars...then you can get cured. So why not have an oil just 'get by'. ALL about the $$$$.

DUB

63mako

Your test is a film strength test. Nothing more, nothing less. Your test ends when the film strength of the oil breaks period. It has merit as that. It in no way measures extreme pressure additive effectiveness since it ends at about 1/2 of the actual PSI seen at the lobe lifter interface. It also can not measure long term wear protection in a 30 second test.
The Sequence IIIG test is upgraded periodically (3 times since 2001)and is developed as an ASTM standard by tribologists, lubrication engineers and GM engineers to specifically test cam and lifter wear in a flat tappet cammed engine running under load for 100 hours and is intentionally designed to stress the oil to test extreme pressure additive effectiveness (ZDDP) once the oil starts to break down. It used a common base and 3 different ZDDP levels and 2 spring pressures. Differences in wear are documented @ 300, 500, 950, PPM ZDDP. You say this test is invalid, these engineers are idiots and your film strength test is a more valid wear test than an actual measured wear test in a running engine. This is a EDITED additude. READ THE LINK!!!!!!

vettebuyer6369

I understand that part of leaving this thread open is that I have to make a comment from time to time. There's always the chance the monitoring of the thread will no longer be worth it.

However, for today, let's review a couple of things to remember:

-just because you are absolutely you are sure of something and just as sure everyone else is wrong, that doesnt mean you can personally attack or be disrespectful to another member. Ive said it before, "attack ideas, not members." I will remove continued references to personal members and comments that I consider to be generating conflict. I will make those edits until I do not feel the thread is worth dealing with any more.

-even if someone has begun being personal or disrespectful, it does not mean you can respond in kind, using hostility or name calling or continuing ongoing personal conflict.

I've made some edits, but I'm not going through every post. You guys have behaved for the most part, but are inching towards the penalty box again. Please play nice.

The problems in this section are impossible to monitor full-time. If the above issues continue, please contact me personally rather than participate in any conflict.

PcolaPaul

Here is my question.
I can see where film strength is important in relation to engine bearings and bearing clearance.
Most of us understand that a soft babbit based rod or main bearing survives against a hard steel or cast crank journal, due to the fact the bearing is held off the crank surface by a PRESSURIZED oil film. That is the reason there are clearances to allow for the oil between the surfaces and the reason the bearings survive.

The relationship between a flat tappet camshaft lobe and a lifter are not pressure lubricated, and in fact, depend mostly on splash lubrication from the rod big ends and windage. We are playing a different ballgame comparing cam lubrication to crank bearings. Its a crude metal on metal design and something has to be sacrificial, either the cam lobe or lifter face.
There is {or was} a lot of metallurgy design considered by manufacturers over the years as well as oil additives. Something has to be sacrificial due to the high load metal on metal contact between the cam and lifter face. It does not enjoy riding on a pressurized film of oil and really could be compared to a wheel bearing.
Zinc plays a very important roll, way more than film strength, as its the sacrificial element to prevent wear.

Just my humble opinion.. an Exxon-Mobil retiree that's job was to keep multi-million dollar gearboxes online and not full of wiped cam followers.

lionelhutz

Ya, it has nothing to do with the oil requirements of new engines changing over the years, hence new backwards compatibility testing required.

Funny too that these companies are in bed to make engines last a shorter time yet a new GM LS based engine (just as an example) can easily run 200k miles without much more for maintenance than oil changes and a couple of plug changes. At the end of that 200k miles the engine is still running like new and still not burning any oil between changes. You can't say that of 50 year old engines. The new vehicle goes 3X plus the distance between oil changes too compared to engines from 50 years ago.

Not to mention some manufacturers offering vehicles with unlimited mileage powertrain or even whole vehicle warranties. Those longer warranties must be a result of the engineering done to make vehicles last a shorter amount of time.

DUB

THANK YOU...SERIOUSLY. I hoped someone would 'bite' on what I wrote. Even if only a part of it.

I KNOW all about the LS engines....and how long they can run. They are QUITE IMPRESSIVE.

But even with these revised techniques the 'industry' preforms on the oil (whatever they may be)....makes me wonder why is it so bad that 540 RAT is preforming tests on his own and posting the results.....when he has CLEARLY written he has no personal interests in ANY OIL tested.

I APPLAUD him for doing it and hope that 540 RAT still does tests and lets us all know what he has found. It is interesting data.

DUB

lionelhutz

Because this "ultimate" test of his only tests one small part of the oil, the shear strength. Claiming this list is the "end all, last word on oil" is a complete joke.

63mako

You are right. Test is film strength of new oil at 230 degrees. Nothing more or nothing less can be assumed from those results. If taken in that context the results are valid and useful. Extrapolating extreme pressure additive's effectiveness or long term "wear protection" from this 30 second film strength test is a stretch and a degreed engineer should know better. This test ends at about 1/2 the PSI seen at the cam lobe/lifter interface before the barrier additives are even activated.

68post

100% , I know I've used these test results to upgrade my "Non-flat tappet"(newer roller cammed/stock OEM) engine vehicles oil. I will take a very different approach when assaying the oils for my several flat tappet engines .

QIK59

I really can't figure why adequate zinc level in one's favourite personal lubricant hasn't been discussed.

I believe it would be quite advantageous to have zinc present at levels high enough to counteract damage from breakdown of peoples favourite lube during high speed high friction contact.

Surely this would be a much more valid topic for protracted discussion than the present one.