63mako

The OP has stated numerous times that zinc levels, specifically ZDDP has absolutely no bearing on wear protection or extreme pressure protection of flat tappet cams and that is a myth believed by gullible fools. His statement is based on his film strength testing that he says proves ZDDP levels have no effect on wear protection.
I argue his 30 second film strength test in no way proves or disproves the effectiveness of ZDDP extreme pressure additives. This is ongoing and will apparently never be settled. That said, I believe that convincing those with high spring pressure, high lift, high rpm flat tappet cams that ZDDP levels are inconsequential will result in multiple catastrophic failures and I try to convince them to use the information provided here for film strength only combined with the other sticky to confirm adequate ZDDP levels to protect their cam and lifters. Both have merit if taken in the context of the testing. There is another sticky devoted to ZDDP levels in automotive rated oils here: https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...ppet-oils.html

pauldana

I wiped out an Edelbrok rpm flat tappet cam 100 miles after I changed the break in oil after 500 miles... Break in oil was rotella ran great, changed oil to his top 10... 100 miles later I was building a whole new 383 again....


Flat tappet cams need zink

540 RAT

First, a little background info so that we are all on the same page. The independent and unbiased Engineering testing I perform at a REPRESENTATIVE OPERATIONAL TEMPERATURE, to establish motor oil wear protection capability, is a dynamic friction test under load, similar to how an engine dyno test is a dynamic HP/Torque test under load. Both tests show how their subjects truly perform in the real world, no matter what brand names are involved, no matter what outrageous claims may have been made, and no matter what their spec sheets may say.

My Motor Oil Wear Protection Ranking List of over 150 different oils, is "proven" by the Physics and Chemistry involved, and it EXACTLY matches 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). You can see the details on this, by going to the Oil Test Data Blog link below.

And the data used to create my Wear Protection Ranking List is NOT my opinion, and it is NOT my theory. The data, as mentioned above, is the result of the Physics and Chemistry involved in the testing. I am only the messenger. The Science is what tells us how these oils perform. And no reasonable person would try to argue with Physics and Chemistry. The fact is, motor oil wear protection capability is determined by the base oil and its additive package "as a whole", with the emphasis on the additive package, which is what contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components, and NOT merely by how much zinc is present. The use of zinc as the primary extreme pressure anti-wear component is outdated technology. Modern extreme pressure anti-wear components are equal to or better than zinc, which is why many modern low zinc oils outperform many traditional high zinc oils.

So, think twice before believing anything the naysayers say when they try to discredit my Motor Oil Engineering Test Data. There are always some who try. They are not actually arguing with me, even if they think they are. They are actually arguing against Physics and Chemistry. Who do you think will win that battle? And ask them how they figure they know more than what the Science of Physics and Chemistry proves. Ask them what their qualifications are. Ask them what testing they have ever done.

They are typically high zinc lovers who just can’t accept the fact that what they’ve always believed about the need for high zinc oils, is only an Old Wives Tale MYTH. So, they get upset and go out of their way trying to undermine anything that goes against what they have been brainwashed to believe about high zinc oils. But, emotion does not determine how good any particular oil is. Factual Engineering tests have proven over and over again that zinc levels alone DO NOT determine an oil’s wear protection capability. The naysayers cannot back-up anything they say, but I back-up everything I say with hard Engineering test data that exactly matches real world experience.

My Test Data Blog now has over 90,000 views worldwide. Of course simply listing the number of views by itself, is not intended to indicate validation of the test data (validation is shown throughout the Blog). But, indicating the number of views does show that an enormous number of people worldwide recognize the value, understand the importance, and make use of the motor oil test data FACTS included there, that cannot be found anywhere else. And as a result, they are posting and sharing links to my Blog, all over the world. See for yourself. A link is provided at the end of this posting.

*****

Now, on with Break-In Oil information.

So-called Break-In oils are typically hyped by claiming they provide for quick ring seating while providing extra wear protection for other parts. Of course no oil can be formulated to “allow” the wear of only certain parts, AND to “prevent” the wear of other parts, at the same time. It has to be formulated for one or the other, which we will see below.

When impossible Marketing claims like that are made, it is only to sell product, no matter what the truth really is. Many would call that blatant false advertising, which motor oils are famous for. The absolute best oils and the absolute worst oils all make the same claim about how great they are. Until my wear protection capability test data became available, buyers had no way of knowing which oils actually live up to those claims and which ones don’t. Because we now know that looking at the zinc level alone, is absolutely worthless, and tells you nothing about an oil’s wear protection capability.

Let’s take a look at component quantities of several Break-In Oils, from the Lab Tests performed by ALS Tribology in Sparks, Nevada.

Lucas 30 wt Break-In Oil, conventional
zinc = 4483 ppm
phos = 3660 ppm
moly = 3 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 1104 ppm
TBN = 5.9
This oil has by far, the highest level of zinc/phos I have ever come across. It has way more than twice the amount of zinc that begins to CAUSE wear/damage. Because of that, the extremely low level of TBN, and the extremely low level of detergent, this oil should be used for only a very short time, as a Break-In oil would suggest.

Comp Cams 10W30 Break-In Oil, conventional
zinc = 3004 ppm
phos = 2613 ppm
moly = 180 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 4234 ppm
TBN = 14.7
This oil also has by far, way too much zinc/phos. It has way more than enough zinc to begin causing wear/damage, rather than prevent it. Because of that, this oil also should be used for only a very short time, as a Break-In oil would suggest.

Edelbrock 30 wt Break-In Oil, conventional
zinc = 1545 ppm
phos = 1465 ppm
moly = 4 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 3452 ppm
TBN = 10.6
This oil is manufactured for Edelbrock by Torco.


Royal Purple 10W30 Break-In Oil, conventional
zinc = 1170 ppm
phos = 1039 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
total detergent/dispersant/anti-deposit build-up/anti-sludge = 3184 ppm
TBN = 9.8

As you can see above, there is absolutely no consistency at all, between the Break-In oils that were fomulated by these various Oil Companies. These oils are all over the place and bouncing off the walls. We see zinc from 1170 ppm to 4483 ppm. We see phos from 1039 ppm to 3660 ppm. We see detergent levels from 1104 ppm to 4234 ppm. And we see TBN values from 5.9 to 14.7. WOW!!! These oils couldn’t be much more different, and yet they are all aimed at the EXACT SAME Break-In oil market. It makes you wonder if these Oil Companies have any idea what they are doing, and if they even test these oils to see what they can really do.

So, let’s take a look at the wear protection these oils and several other Break-In oils, actually provide, and see how they rank just among themselves, according to their “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength" psi value. This data will tell us once and for all, what the Oil Companies would not, and that is, whether the oils are formulated to “allow” wear or “prevent” wear.

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

The higher the psi , the better the Wear Protection



1. 30wt Amsoil Break-In Oil conventional = 78,192 psi
zinc = 2051 ppm
phos = 1917 ppm
moly = 0 ppm


2. 30wt Edelbrock Break-In Oil conventional = 69,160 psi
zinc = 1545 ppm
phos = 1465 ppm
moly = 4 ppm


3. Royal Purple 10W30 Break-In Oil, conventional = 62,931 psi
zinc = 1170 ppm
phos = 1039 ppm
moly = 0 ppm


4. Crane Cams 10W40 Break-In Oil, conventional = 62,603 psi
zinc = TBD, but bottle claims high zinc formula
phos = TBD
moly = TBD


5. 30wt Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, Break-In Oil, conventional = 56,020 psi
zinc = TBD, but the bottle claims high zinc
phos = TBD
moly = TBD


6. 10W30 Comp Cams Break-In Oil, conventional = 51,749 psi
zinc = 3004 ppm
phos = 2613 ppm
moly = 180 ppm


7. 15W50 Joe Gibbs Driven BR Break-In oil, conventional = 51,299 psi
NOTE: Total Seal also sells this Break-In Oil with their label on it.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD


8. 30wt Lucas Break-In Oil, conventional = 49,455 psi
zinc = 4483 ppm
phos = 3660 ppm
moly = 3 ppm


9. 5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven BR30 Break-In Oil, conventional = 47,483 psi
NOTE: Total Seal also sells this Break-In Oil with their label on it.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD


Anyone who has followed my previous oil tests, knows that the wear protection capability psi values provided by most of these Break-In oils is quite low overall. Only the Amsoil made it into the GOOD WEAR PROTECTION category (75,000 to 90,000 psi). Edelbrock, Royal Purple and Crane Cams oils made it into the MODEST WEAR PROTECTION category (60,000 to 75,000 psi), while the Brad Penn, Comp Cams, Lucas and both Joe Gibbs Break-In oils managed only the UNDESIRABLE PROTECTION category (below 60,000 psi).

In comparison, the highest ranking oil (with no aftermarket additives) on my Wear Protection Ranking List, is 5W30 Motul 300V Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic = 112,464 psi, with a zinc level of 1724 ppm. That oil provides FAR GREATER wear protection capability than even the top ranked Amsoil Break-In oil here. And it provides nearly 2 1/2 times as much wear protection as the lowest ranked Joe Gibbs Break-In oil here.

So, now we finally know that because of their low wear protection capabilities, these Break-In oils are formulated only to allow wear, and are NOT formulated to provide a high level of wear protection. Of course it was impossible for them to be capable of both things at the same time, in spite of their advertising claims. And without the type of dynamic wear testing performed here, we would have never known what these Break-In oils were truly formulated for. To see how all 9 Break-In Oils rank in the overall Ranking List with over 150 different oils, go to the Oil Test Data Blog link below.

Every oil test I've performed, showed that the level of zinc has nothing to do with an oil's wear protection capability, nor its ranking against other oils. And we've seen it yet again here, that high zinc levels do NOT always provide better wear protection. In fact, the ULTRA HIGH zinc Lucas Break-In oil, ended up in next to last place in wear protection capability for this group of Break-In oils, and in the overall RankingLlist of over 150 different oils, it also ended up in next to last place.

And no one can complain that my test equipment and test procedure do not allow high zinc oils to perform at their highest level. Because here are some high zinc (over 1100 ppm) conventional, semi-synthetic, and full synthetic oils that I’ve tested previously. And they all had test results over 90,000 psi, which put them all in the “OUTSTANDING WEAR PROTECTION” category.


5W30 Motul 300V Ester Core 4T Racing Oil, synthetic = 112,464 psi
zinc = 1724 ppm
phosphorus = 1547 ppm
moly = 481 ppm


10W30 Lucas Racing Only, full synthetic = 106,505 psi
zinc = 2642 ppm
phos = 3489 ppm
moly = 1764 ppm


5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven LS30 Performance Motor Oil, synthetic = 104,487 psi
zinc = 1610 ppm
phosphorus = 1496 ppm
moly = 0 ppm


10W30 Valvoline NSL (Not Street Legal) Conventional Racing Oil = 103,846 psi
zinc = 1669 ppm
phos = 1518 ppm
moly = 784 ppm


10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
zinc = 1472 ppm
phos = 1544 ppm
moly = 3 ppm


10W30 Valvoline VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle) = 101,139 psi
zinc = 1180 ppm
phos = 1112 ppm
moly = 162 ppm


30 wt Red Line Race Oil, full synthetic = 96,470 psi
zinc = 2207 ppm
phos = 2052 ppm
moly = 1235 ppm


10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil, full synthetic = 95,360 psi
zinc = 1431 ppm
phos = 1441 ppm
moly = 52 ppm


10W30 Quaker State Defy, API SL (semi-synthetic) = 90,226 psi
zinc = 1221 ppm
phos = 955 ppm
moly = 99 ppm

As you've seen above in the poor performing high zinc break-in oils and immediately above in the excellent performing high zinc non-break-in oils, the zinc levels completely overlap among all those poor performing and excellent performing oils. So, that is absolute proof once and for all, that you simply CANNOT predict an oil's wear protection capability based on its zinc level alone.

Now the brainwashed high zinc believers have ironclad data to show them that everything they have always believed about only needing to look at zinc levels, is total nonsense. Zinc levels alone are completely worthless. Only film strength/load carrying capability from dynamic wear testing under load, can tell us which oils provide good wear protection and which oils don't. If the high zinc believers don't grasp the value of this information, then they will never be able to select the best possible oil for their needs.

A fair number of people have been able to get away with using these poor performing Break-In oils in high performance flat tappet engines without a problem. But, they typically were only able to do that with these oils by following elaborate and worrisome break-in procedures. Those break-in procedures typically include removal of the inner valve springs, to reduce the pressure between the lobes and lifters. They also typically follow the routine of keeping the engine at around 2,500 rpm for 20 minutes, etc, etc. Everything they do as part of their elaborate and nerve wracking break-in procedure, is only a crutch to prevent wiping lobes because these break-in oils provide such poor wear protection. But, if high ranking oils were selected instead, and used for Break-In, people wouldn't have to go through all that, because NO elaborate break-in procedures would be required with those far superior high ranking oils.

People think they have to go through all this break-in agony, because they assume parts quality isn't that high, even when using parts from reputable Industry leading companies. They never even consider for a moment that their beloved high zinc oils are to blame. But, as you can see above, these break-in oils show that they put flat tappet engines at serious risk of failure, because of their poor wear protection capability, even though they have high zinc levels. People typically believe they are getting sufficient wear protection because of all that zinc, from what the bottles and/or websites claim. But, now we know that the hype about great wear protection was nothing more than false advertising snake oil. These oils are formulated only to allow wear, by having low wear protection capability, in spite of their high zinc levels.

And that is precisely why there are still so many flat tappet wiped lobe engine failures at break-in and shortly thereafter. When people use these poor performing break-in oils, in flat tappet engines, they are simply playing Russian Roulette with their engines. They may be OK, or they may suffer engine failure. It's extremely iffy, because the margin of safety is about zero with these oils. But, it does NOT have to be that way if a highly ranked oil is chosen instead.

It's a similar situation where a fair number of people have managed to get away with using low zinc oils with aftermarket zinc additives added into those oils, for breaking-in high performance flat tappet engines. Some people were able to squeak by with this type of oil concoction that also provides only minimal wear protection capability. But, quite a few people have experienced wiped lobe engine failure doing this. These people also "thought" they were getting outstanding wear protection, from what those zinc additive bottles and/or websites claimed. But, Engineering test data has proven over and over again, that simply having high zinc levels, is no guarantee of having sufficient wear protection.

I tested the zinc additives "ZDDPlus" which added a whopping 1848 ppm zinc when added at the recommended quantity, and "Edelbrock Zinc Additive" which added 573 ppm zinc when added at the recommended quantity. Each zinc additive was tested in two full synthetic oils and one conventional oil. And in EVERYONE of the six test oils, the wear protection capability DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY.

The "ZDDPlus" caused a drop of about 25% on average, and the "Edelbrock Zinc Additive" caused a drop of about 34% on average. The oils with the "ZDDPlus" ended up having a "Load carrying capacity/Film strength" of only 58,855 psi on average. And the oils with the "Edelbrock Zinc Additive" ended up having a "Load carrying capacity/Film strength" of only 51,930 psi on average. That puts them into the UNDESIRABLE PROTECTION category (below 60,000 psi). So, the wear protection capability of these oil concoctions, was right in the exact same range as most of the Break-In oils tested here. Oil Companies have typically said to NEVER add anything to motor oil, because doing that will ruin an oil's carefully balanced additive package and its resulting chemical properties. And they were absolutely correct, because that is precisely what the test data showed.

It's also a similar situation where a fair number of people have managed to get away with using Diesel oils for breaking-in high performance flat tappet engines. They were able to squeak by with Diesel oil even though these oils also provide only minimal wear protection capability, which puts their engines at a substantial risk of failure. These folks "thought" they were getting outstanding wear protection. But, I tested 13 different popular conventional and synthetic Diesel oils, including the "OLD" Rotella, and they had a "Load carrying capacity/Film strength" of only 72,408 psi on average, putting them in the MODEST PROTECTION category (60,000 to 75,000 psi). This wear protection capability puts them right at the upper range of the Break-In oils tested here.

To summarize, most of the Break-In oils, the low zinc oils with aftermarket zinc added to them, and the Diesel oils, provided about the same level of modest to undesirable wear protection in gasoline engines. And that makes most of them a risky proposition for use as Break-In oils.

This points out that all the effort, including elaborate break-in procedures, that people go through with these motor oils, in order to prevent wiped lobes in High Performance flat tappet engines, is misguided because these oils DO NOT provide the best wear protection in the first place. There are far better motor oil choices readily available.

Many people probably have a gut feeling that whatever Break-In oil they use, should not be overly protective against wear, so that components can break-in quickly. That's why you often hear people say to break-in an engine with conventional oil, then later switch to synthetic, even though they aren't aware that an oil being conventional or synthetic does not determine its wear protection capability.

But, then the flat tappet guys often want to have max protection against wear to avoid wiped lobes. So, they will then often choose conventional oil with high levels of zinc, "falsely believing" that will help increase the oil's wear protection. But, as mentioned many times before, "wear testing" and "lab testing" have ALWAYS shown that the level of zinc does NOT determine an oil's wear protection capability. No more than the level of gas in your tank determines how much HP your engine makes.

We've only looked at the "lower end" of the spectrum of Break-In oils, which are formulated to allow break-in wear. But, since things just aren't that simple, let's also take a look at the "upper" end of the spectrum of Break-In oils. Consider the following facts.

Countless thousands of brand new Performance cars have come off the production line, factory filled with full synthetic motor oil. We've seen this for years in both domestic and import Performance Cars. Perhaps the most commonly known is the full synthetic 5W30 Mobil 1 that comes in High Performance GM vehicles. Also the Ford GT Sports Car of a few years back, as well as Ford's Supercharged Shelby GT500 Mustangs, came factory filled with full synthetic 5W50 Motorcraft oil.

That full synthetic 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN oil ranks in the top 10% of all the oils I've tested, with a “Load carrying capacity/Film strength" value of 105,875 psi. And the full synthetic 5W50 Motorcraft, API SN oil also ranks in the top 10% of all the oils I've tested, with a “Load carrying capacity/Film strength" value of 103,517 psi. With the extremely impressive wear protection capability provided by these oils, if any oils would interfere with ring seal and proper break-in wear overall, these oils would be the ones to do it. But, that is simply not a problem, and of course these vehicles all come with a normal factory warranty.

CONCLUSION:

We know that countless High Performance factory engines, both 2 valve and 4 valve, have nicely broken-in for many, many years with NO ring sealing problems what so ever, using various oils with high wear protection capability. In addition to that, using oils with excellent wear protection capability, has worked perfectly fine for breaking-in in traditional High Performance flat tappet engines, and have proven that NO elaborate break-in procedures are required at all. You can simply fire the engine and drive the car with no drama and no worries. Try doing that with the poor performing high zinc Break-In oils.

So, why would anyone ever believe that you need so-called Break-In Oils with poor their wear protection capability, when these oils are simply NOT needed for ring seal (properly built engines will seal/seat their rings almost immediately no matter what oil is used), and they put High Performance flat tappet engines at serious risk of wiped lobe engine failure? Plus, they require elaborate break-in procedures if there is any hope at all of getting away with using these poor performing oils. Bottom Line: So-called Break-In oils are simply not necessary and can also put flat tappet engines at serious risk.

If you wondered how those factory full synthetic oils with "high wear protection capability" and how any other synthetic or conventional oil with "high wear protection capability", can still allow proper break-in, here's the answer. Newly manufactured parts will have a surface that "microscopically" looks like peaks and valleys. The loading on those tiny little peaks, will be EXTREMELY high, because the load is not spread out across enough surface area to support the load. And no motor oil ever made by man can stop those peaks from being very quickly worn down, thus leaving a smoother surface that will distribute the load across a surface area large enough to support that load. And that is precisely what happens during actual break-in wear. So, it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to stop break-in wear, no matter how hard we try. And that is a good thing, because we want that initial break-in wear, so that our part interfaces are nicely mated to each other in order to support the loads involved.

Engine break-in is NOT Rocket Science. You just need to make a wise choice when selecting the motor oil to use. At the end of the day, here's what I recommend:

* For traditional flat tappet engines, no matter how wicked they may be - use a highly ranked oil from my Wear Protection Ranking list, no matter how much zinc is in it, for break-in to protect against wiped lobes, and a side benefit is that no elaborate break-in procedures will be necessary. Then continue to use the same oil after break-in. NOTE: This recommendation also applies to any other non-roller type engine.

* For traditional roller lifter engines - since they don't have flat tappet lifter/lobe interfaces, their break-in is not as critical as it is for flat tappet engines. So, you can pretty much use any oil you have sitting around, and it won't make any particular difference for break-in. However, with that said, I would still recommend using a highly ranked oil from my Wear Protection Ranking list, no matter how much zinc is in it, for break-in. Because roller engines still have various component interfaces that can benefit from using oils that provide excellent wear protection. Then continue to use the same oil after break-in. NOTE: This recommendation also applies to any other roller type engine.

No matter what anyone tells you, the same oil can be used just fine for both break-in and after break-in. These above recommendations have proven to work very well in the real world, while providing excellent protection for your engine.

Other points I'd suggest are:

• Always prime an engine, making sure that oil is coming out of all rockers, right before first fire.

• Use a thinner oil such as 5W30 or 10W30, rather than something thicker. Because thinner oil will flow quicker/better. And flow is lubrication. Also quicker/better flow will get oil to all components sooner which is very important to prevent unnecessary wear during cold start-up. And the quicker/better flow of thinner oil, will also carry away heat quicker/better than what thicker oils can. Remember that engine internal parts are DIRECTLY oil cooled, but only INDIRECTLY water cooled.

• And the last thing is to change the oil soon after initial break-in, to get rid of all the contaminants that will be present right after first firing a brand new engine.

This write-up is essentially a stand-alone article, that should not require much question answering. I will not have the opportunity to follow along with the discussion that comes out of this. But, the answers to any questions that may still come up, can generally be found in link below.

540 RAT

Mechanical Engineer

U.S. Patent Holder

Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)

For Motor Oil Tech FACTS, NOT MYTHS, go to the link below:

http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/

63mako

You do realize there is a difference between hydrodynamic film strength which you are testing and extreme pressure additives that deposit a barrier film once the hydrodynamic film is sheared and after your test ends. When the oil film is sheared or squeezed out, then your protection is now reliant on barrier lubricant additives. Oil has 3 states of lubrication, Hydrodynamic, mixed film, and boundary(barrier). You are testing only one of these three and totally discounting the other two as insignificant or having no purpose at all. You are also testing film strength on new oil and totally discounting the rate of breakdown due to different additive packages. How well does an oil protect at 3000 miles and 5000 miles? How well does it protect from extreme pressure after 1/2 of the ZDDP is used up? How many miles before 1/2 is used up with an oil that starts at <800 PPM ZDDP compared to an oil that has 1400 PPM ZDDP and at what PPM level is it inadequate to protect a given flat tappet cam? Saying ZDDP levels have no effect on extreme pressure protection of the cam lobes and lifter bottoms is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. Recommending a synthetic oil with <800 ppm ZDDP and just driving it as you recommend with no 20 minute flat tappet cam break in period is even worse advice.



MY advice is # 1 MAKE SURE ALL LIFTERS ROTATE! Remove inner springs on a radical flat tappet cam, Adjust valves, Use a quality break in oil, prelube. Start the engine and immediately bring to 2,500 rpm. Timing should be adjusted, as closely as possible, to reduce excessive heat or load during break-in. Get the engine running fairly smoothly and vary the engine speed from 1500-3000 RPM in a slow acceleration/deceleration cycle. During this time, be sure to check for any leaks and check out any unusual noises. If something doesn't sound right, shut the engine off and check out the source of the noise. Upon restart, resume the high idle speed cycling. Continue the varying "break-in" speed for 20 - 30 minutes. This is necessary to provide proper lifter rotation to properly mate each lifter to its lobe. Should the engine need to be shut down for any reason, upon re-start it should be immediately brought back to 3000 rpm and the break-in continued for a total run time of 20 - 30 minutes.
Reinstall inner springs, readjust valves, Drain the break in oil and change the filter and refill with a conventional high ZDDP oil for the first 1000 miles. At that point you can change to a synthetic but use at least a 1000 PPM ZDDP oil at ALL times and for a high spring pressure, fast ramp, solid lifter or High RPM use a higher ZDDP oil like 1300-1400 PPM.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/oilshear.htm

540 RAT

I've received numerous requests to continue posting my factual motor oil test data, in spite of the false negative comments made be a few critics. My Motor Oil Engineering Test Data is breakthrough information that can't be found anywhere else, which finally allows us to directly compare the wear protection capability of various motor oils. Engineering Test Data drives the world, yet there are some people who just can't understand the value of this Engineering Test Data. So, they try to tear it down with the emotion that is often found in discussions of Religion or Politics. But, by them rejecting meaningful motor oil information, they are only hurting themselves.

In fact, it is quite clear that most of the time, they don't even bother to read the information I provide. They just make negative comments right off the top, completely unaware of the information provided. Unfortunately for them, that is their loss, because they will have to continue selecting their oil based on the incorrect thinking that zinc level is all they need to know. And in doing so, they will more often than not, end up with far less wear protection than they think they have, which often results in wiped flat tappet lobes. Some people are their own worst enemies. However, for technically savvy folks who do grasp the value of my motor oil film strength/load carrying capability test data, the latest new information is included below.

But, before we get into motor oil tech, let’s briefly touch on a little background info. In addition to being a lifelong Gear Head, Mechanic, Hotrodder, Drag Racer, and Engine Builder, I’m also a working Professional Degreed Mechanical Engineer, as well as a U.S. Patent holder. Mechanical Design Engineering is what I do for a living. A Mechanical Engineer is clearly the most qualified Engineer to test motor oil that was formulated by Chemical Engineers, for wear protection capability between mechanical components under load.

It should also be noted, that I do not sell motor oil, nor do I work for any Motor Oil Company. I have no vested interest in what motor oil people choose to buy. I simply share my Motor Oil Engineering Test Data as a courtesy to other interested parties, so they too can benefit from the knowledge that was never available until now. People can embrace my data and make good use of it, or they can ignore it and continue to make uninformed motor oil choices.

The independent and unbiased Engineering testing I perform at a REPRESENTATIVE OPERATIONAL TEMPERATURE, to establish motor oil wear protection capability, is a dynamic friction test under load, similar to how an engine dyno test is a dynamic HP/Torque test under load. Both tests show how their subjects truly perform in the real world, no matter what brand names are involved, no matter what outrageous claims may have been made, and no matter what their spec sheets may say.

I always check and adjust if needed, the calibration of my test equipment each time I test a different oil, to keep the results accurate. I also perform multiple tests on each oil, then average those values to arrive at the most accurate and representative value that I post for comparison. The results, good or bad, simply are what they are, and are determined by the complete chemical makeup of each oil tested, which is just what your engine sees after you pour it in.

My Motor Oil Wear Protection Ranking List of over 150 different oils, is "proven" by the Physics and Chemistry involved, and it EXACTLY matches 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). You can see the details on all that, by going to the Oil Test Data Blog link below.

It is not a matter of agreeing with my data or not agreeing with it, because the data used to create my Wear Protection Ranking List is NOT my opinion, and it is NOT my theory. The data, as mentioned above, is the result of the Physics and Chemistry involved in the testing. I am only the messenger. The Science is what tells us how these oils perform. And no sensible person would try to argue against Physics and Chemistry. Science is absolute whether people like it or not, and emotion cannot change it.

The fact is, motor oil wear protection capability is determined by the base oil and its additive package "as a whole", with the emphasis on the synergistic effects of the base oil and entire additive package, which is what contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components, and NOT merely by how much zinc is present. The use of zinc as the primary extreme pressure anti-wear component is outdated technology. Modern extreme pressure anti-wear components are equal to or better than zinc, which is why many modern low zinc oils outperform many traditional high zinc oils. Engineering tests have proven over and over again, that it is completely worthless to simply look at the zinc level of a particular motor oil to try to determine how well it provides wear protection.

So, think long and hard before believing anything the naysayers say when they try to discredit my Motor Oil Engineering Test Data. There are always some who try, but fail in their attempt. They are not actually arguing with me, even if they think they are. They are actually arguing against the Science of Physics and Chemistry. Who do you think will win that battle? And ask them how they figure they know more than what the Science of Physics and Chemistry proves. Ask them what their qualifications are. Ask them what testing they have ever done.

They are typically high zinc lovers who just can’t accept the fact that what they’ve always believed about the need for high zinc oils, is only an Old Wives Tale MYTH. So, they get upset and go out of their way trying to undermine anything that goes against what they have been brainwashed to believe about high zinc oils. But, emotion does not determine the Engineering results of how good any particular oil is. As mentioned above, and it bears repeating, factual Engineering tests have proven over and over again that zinc levels alone DO NOT determine an oil’s wear protection capability.

These naysayers cannot factually back-up anything they say. They think they are motor oil experts simply because they have done a bunch of Internet reading. They will sometimes make a big deal about what is in the base oil. They will sometimes provide links to lame Internet articles, which are often just a lab test of a single individual zinc component, showing what it did in that particular lab test. But, that is not any actual motor oil that you buy and pour into your engine. It may be somewhat interesting to read, but that type of test does not does not take into account the countless formula variations and synergistic effects found in the actual motor oils that are available on the market. Therefore, you are only looking at a single data point of a test that is not even what will end up in your engine. Or in other words, worthless information that many zinc lovers falsely believe, is the last word on motor oil. That is NOT how Engineering works. And lot of their lame Internet articles are nothing more than one author copying from the same worthless source material as other authors.

And if that isn't bad enough, some information they throw out there as Gospel is only advertising hype from a motor oil's bottle or website. Of course it is no secret that Motor Oil Companies are among the worst for false advertising. The absolute worst motor oils on the market, and the absolute best motor oils on the market, make the same claims about how wonderful they are. So, the claims made on motor oil bottles and websites would only be taken as truthful, by gullible people who are not Technically savvy.

These zinc lover critics may mean well, but they really DO NOT know what they are talking about. Motor Oil Companies will say absolutely anything to sell their products. When it comes to motor oil, there is no such thing as truth in advertising. And that is why you never see any advertising data from a given Motor Oil Company about how its modern low zinc oils compare to its traditional high zinc oils. That is because it is simply not true that all high zinc oils are better than all low zinc oils. The truth is, some high zinc oils are quite good, while other high zinc oils are quite poor. And you cannot tell the difference by looking only their zinc quantities.

Then these naysayers will also sometimes use the oil recommendations from Cam Companies as support for their position on what oil to use. Problem is, just because Cam Companies sell cams, does not mean they know the first thing about motor oil. They are simply staffed by people who are also brainwashed to believe that any high zinc oil will provide all the wear protection necessary for flat tappet cams. But, the proof that they are clueless about motor oil, is the fact that even the leading Cam Companies still have flat tappet lobes getting wiped, when people use the oils they recommend. And those oils are typically the oils that have tested very poorly in my Motor Oil Engineering Wear Protection Testing. On top of that, Cam Companies often do not even employ Degreed Mechanical Engineers. So, it comes as no surprise that they supply bad information as to what oils to use.

The people who recommend poor performing motor oils, believe if they haven’t lost a lobe while using a certain oil, that it must be great oil. But, they just don’t know, what they don’t know. That only means the oil they used provided “enough” protection for the particular application that didn’t fail. But, that does not tell them anything about how much extra protection they had beyond that. So, their “opinion” of that oil is not a good technical evaluation of its capability. That would be like them telling you that an engine making 750 HP, is good as long as it has rods in it that can withstand 751 HP. Yeah, it might not throw a rod, or maybe it will. But, no technically savvy person would want to run a margin of safety that close.

It’s the same idea with the oil you choose to run. Don’t run an oil with a margin of safety that close. My Motor Oil Engineering Test Data, allows us see how different oils truly compare to each other, so we can run a substantial margin of safety to provide the best possible wear protection for our engines. You have to spend money buying oil anyway, so why not buy excellent oil while you are at it? So, before you consider following the bad advice others give about the oil they only “think” is good, read the real world facts about motor oil, at the link provided at the end of this posting, then decide for yourself who is providing factual motor oil information that you can actually use to your advantage.

The whole idea of simply needing a high zinc level for sufficient wear protection, is only an old wives tale myth that has been busted. Modern extreme pressure anti-wear additives are equal to or better than zinc. Relying only on zinc as the primary anti-wear component, is outdated technology. Wiped flat tappet lobes continue to happen over and over again, when people use high zinc oils that produce poor results in my testing. It’s time to take notice of that.

People who want the facts about which motor oils are good and which are not so good, want to see unbiased and independent test data. And that is exactly what my motor oil film strength/load carrying capability data provides. I back-up everything I say with that hard Engineering test data that exactly matches real world experience. It matches real world experience because my test data is the real deal, which accurately predicts what we can expect from the oils we buy. I test the actual motor oils that we buy and pour into our engines. So, my test data comes entirely from real "on-the-market" motor oils, which is what truly matters.

To provide your engine with the best possible wear protection, as well as to prevent wiped flat tappet wiped lobes, I recommend that you select a highly ranked oil (I’d suggest an oil with over 90,000 psi capability for High Performance Street/Strip flat tappet engines) from my Wear Protection Ranking List, no matter how much zinc it has. That same oil, assuming it is not a short term only Racing Oil, can be used for both break-in and after break-in. Also, DO NOT use any aftermarket additives at all, use the oil just as it comes right out of the bottle.

Using special break-in procedures is only a crutch for poor performing high zinc oils. And if you select a highly ranked oil from my wear protection ranking list, no matter how much zinc it has, with no aftermarket additives, you won’t even have to perform any special break-in procedures. Using an oil with a highly ranked film strength/load carrying capability is that good. I have not had one person who has followed that recommendation, ever report a wiped lobe again. If you make a wise motor oil choice based on the data from my motor oil dynamic friction testing under load, rather than the old myth of any high zinc oil is good enough, the engine you save may be your own.

My Test Data Blog now has over 95,000 views worldwide. Of course simply listing the number of views by itself, is not intended to indicate validation of the test data (validation is shown throughout the Blog). But, indicating the number of views does show that an enormous number of people worldwide recognize the value, understand the importance, and make use of the motor oil test data FACTS included there, that cannot be found anywhere else. And as a result, they are posting and sharing links to my Blog, all over the world. See for yourself at the link provided below.


*****

Now, on with Test Data on High Mileage Motor Oils.

High Mileage motor oils are formulated for older engines with over 75,000 miles on them. And High Mileage oils include “Seal Swell” chemicals to help reduce oil leakage in those older engines.

Below is how 5 different High Mileage oils ranked just among themselves, regarding wear protection capability, after they were tested.

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


1. 5W30 Valvoline MaxLife High Mileage, API SN, synthetic blend = 108,045 psi

2. 5W30 Pennzoil High Mileage Vehicle, API SN, conventional = 102,402 psi

3. 5W30 Castrol GTX High Mileage, API SN, synthetic blend = 91,404 psi

4. 10W30 Quaker State Defy High Mileage, API SL semi-synthetic = 90,226 psi

5. 5W30 Mobil 1 High Mileage, API SL, synthetic = 88,081 psi

As you can see, these oils all performed very well, even though the top 3 are modern low zinc API SN oils. And that is even more proof that oils do NOT need high zinc levels to provide excellent wear protection.

To see how these oils rank in my overall Wear Protection Ranking List of over 150 different oils, as well as a wealth of motor oil tech FACTS, go to this link:

http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/

540 RAT

Mechanical Engineer

U.S. Patent Holder

Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
Lifelong Gear Head, Mechanic, Hotrodder, Drag Racer, and Engine Builder.

63mako

Again, you are testing the film strength of the oil film of brand new oil @ 230 degrees nothing more, nothing less. The test has merit if used in that context only. Film strength is one of many tested capabilities of oil to obtain a specific rating. You are the one only looking at a single data point of a test. Film strength can be affected by various additives, viscosity improvers and the group of basestock used. Film strength will decrease as these additives and viscocity improvers are sheared and break down. Film strength has absolutely zero effect on the wear in a working engine after it is broken and your test ends. Zero Nada Ziltch. At that point the extreme pressure additives and barrier phosphorous deposits (sheared ZDDP) caused by heat and pressure from friction carry the workload. Since the loading at the cam lifter interface is over 200,000 PSI with a stock hydraulic flat tappet cam with sub #100 seat pressures, twice the loading of film strength failure in your test it is obvious these extreme pressure additives, ZDDP being the most prevelant, have a function not addressed in your testing since it ends halfway to that point. The ONLY point that sees this type of sliding high pressure loading that is a hydrodynamic film not a hydrostatic film is the lifter/lobe interface in a flat tappet application. I have pointed this out dozens of times and you have never, ever addressed it. You choose to insult my mental capacity instead. True indicator of a man that does not have a valid counterpoint because there isn't one.

76strokervette

The primary reason for reduced zinc and phosphorus is based upon the negative effects they have on catalytic converters.It has nothing to do with their wear limiting properties.That is why almost every racing oil has high levels of both.I know for a fact that Amsoil also dyno tests their new formulations to verify how the additive packages perform.Imop endurance testing under load is the only definitive way to
verify true wear performance.As for the cam manufacturer wanting a specific additive package in oil used with their product.I ask, who is going to warranty the parts if there is a failure?

dar322

Hey 540 Rat- Thank you for your continued testing and providing your un-biased oil testing results. I see the 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi that I use in my car is still one of the best. I also use your reports when buying oil for the rest of my families cars...and share your link with friends of mine who dont visit this forum. you should right a book and publish this info...imho.

lionelhutz

So instead of addressing the negative comments and questions technically you just personally insult the individuals making the comments?

You've never once described your test setup in any meaningful fashion.

You've never once addressed the question of EP additive protection when the oil film is broken. Zinc is an EP additive, not a film strength modifier so why do you rant on about how it has no relevance when your test method presumably was not testing it's effect?

You've never once addressed the issue of test duration or how well your oil ranking stands up once the oil is used in an actual engine for any duration.

If this is groundbreaking testing then you should have detailed answers to all of these questions.

Your dismissals stink of shade tree salesmanship who have no better weapons than BS explanations and dismissal of other opinions via personal attack.

Les

This!
And this! Pretty much sums it up.

ddawson

I've said this else where, may last few cars a 1984 Mustang that came with a stock Holley and exhaust still passed the CA sniffer test. Current 1988 RX7 which is a known dirty car all stock with stock exhaust also pass the CA snuffer test.

If Zinc was that bad to cats it's not showing up on my cars and CA is doing it's best to get me to get these off the road with a yearly letter.

63mako

BTW I have read the entire blog. I also have researched oils, additives and basestocks extensively for well over a decade. One of my best friends works for an oil testing firm setting up and calibrating machines that specifically test all of the various requirements in new and used oils and travels worldwide. We discuss this at length on a regular basis and I find it fascinating. Again, your testing is valid as a film strength test on new oil at 230 degrees. These results have no bearing on the effectiveness of extreme pressure additives once the film strength is broken. That is a totally different requirement that demands a completely different test and testing protocol to properly assess. Your comments on ZINC show you are not as informed as you might think. It is actually ZDDP. Zinc is only a carrier and the P in ZDDP is the phosphorous that bonds to the highly loaded parts and provides the protection once extreme pressure shears the ZDDP molecule. Once the molecule is sheared and the deposited sacrificial phosphorous coating wears off the Zinc and Phosphorous are waste products in suspension in the oil. An oil test will still show it but the effectiveness as a EP additive is used up. At that point you need more ZDDP to replace it and begin the cycle over again. This is why the higher ZDDP levels are required, especially in a highly loaded, high spring pressure, fast ramp, high lift, high RPM flat tappet valvetrain. This type of loading is NOT tested in the Sequence III SAE test for backward compatibility when rating modern oils. Nothing in your test is protecting past 115,000 PSI max because at that point the film strength is broken and your test is over, the 30 second test is to fast to shear and deposit adequate phosphorous coating . This has to happen for ZDDP to even work. The molecule has to be sheared to provide protection. Raising the film strength and reducing ZDDP still provides good protection, likely better in a bearing (Hydrostatic film) or on a roller cam where the pressures are less, (IE modern engine.) It has no bearing on wear protection once the film strength is broken.

63mako

I also use your testing results in selecting oil for my 2010 Aveo, my 2008 Colorado and the Audi A8. All use Group IV basestock true synthetics that perform well on your film strength testing and meet the viscocity requirements of the engines with >800 PPM ZDDP. I'm also a proponent of thinner synthetics to get lubrication to the parts quicker on cold starts and provide more flow to cool internals better.

1974CorvetteJimCr

540 RAT, I appreciate the testing you have done, and the data you have shared. I do not agree that a flat tappet does not required ZDDP. However the oil I do use is 10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil, it meets your criteria and mine.

Another test that is just as important is the NOACK Volatility (ASTM D-5800). You briefly touched on it. I did some digging and found it to be a VERY import test.

10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil, full synthetic = 95,360 psi
zinc = 1431 ppm
phos = 1441 ppm
moly = 52 ppm

NOACK Volatility (ASTM D-5800) = 4.86%

540 RAT

There are those who have wondered why I don't return to my Motor Oil Test Data threads to participate in the discussion that follows. Some have even commented that I must be an imposter phony (whatever that is supposed to mean), which of course is ridiculous. The reason is simply that I don't have a lot of time to spend on the Internet. But, I post my data on a few different Forums, for the widest audience to see. That way, the largest number of people can benefit by knowing how motor oils truly compare to each other, in terms of wear protection capability.

However, with that many people involved, answering so many questions that often come up, takes more time than I have available. And the fact is, nearly any question that has ever come up, will almost certainly be answered if people take the time to read my entire Motor Oil Engineering Test Data Blog. Just about everything has been covered there, which is why it is so long. So, they can get the answers they are looking for there, without me having to answer questions individually.

And of course there are always some critics who just want to argue and fight, rather than learn something new that could actually benefit them. That always results in going back and forth for maybe a week or more, and ending up right back where everyone started. And I don't have the time for all that nonsense.

I have received many "Thank You's" from good people all over the world, who appreciate seeing my factual breakthrough Engineering Test Data on motor oil, that can benefit them, rather than just seeing the same old high zinc MYTH that can and does often result in unnecessary wear, as well as wiped flat tappet lobes during Break-In or after Break-In. Engineering Tests have proven that some high zinc oils provide very good wear protection, while other high zinc oils only provide poor wear protection. And you can only tell which is which by looking at how they perform dynamically under load, which is precisely what I do.

I also received a PM the day after I posted the latest thread on "High Mileage" Motor Oil from a Forum member in Australia. He told me that he spoke with a Motor Oil Chemist at Penrite Motor Oil, which is very popular in Australia. Among other things, he told me this, "The chemist said the same thing as you said about Zinc. That it is overplayed and that the overall additive "package" is what is important'.

That goes to show the critics, that people who really know what they are talking about regarding motor oil, know that zinc levels alone, simply don't matter. It's the oil's wear protection performance under load that matters. Most Tech-Savvy people understand the value of dynamic Motor Oil Engineering Testing under load, at representative operating temperatures. Engineering Test Data runs the world, and the data that comes out of this type of motor oil testing, is as good as it gets. The results come strictly from the Science of the Physics and Chemistry involved. There is nothing to agree with or disagree with. Science is absolute, whether people like it or not. The data is NOT my opinion or theory. I'm only the messenger for what the Science has proven. That is why my test data exactly matches real world Track experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High Performance Street experience.

If you select a highly ranked oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List, you will provide your engine with the best possible wear protection. And using one of those oils for flat tappet break-in and after break-in, will provide you with the best possible prevention of wiped lobes, assuming the engine is built right in the first place. I have not had one report of a wiped lobe from people who have followed that advice.

Do yourself a favor, and read my entire Oil Test Data Blog with an open mind, and then decide for yourself if you can benefit from the information provided.

For Motor Oil Tech FACTS, NOT MYTHS, go to this link:

http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/

540 RAT

Mechanical Engineer

U.S. Patent Holder

Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

Lifelong Gear Head, Mechanic, Hotrodder, Drag Racer, and Engine Builder

63mako

He doesn't have time to answer these questions. Too busy. Looks like he don't have much time on the internet looking at the 10,000 word posts.

To qualify for an API certification a motor oil has to pass dozens of SAE and ASTM tests, minimum standards and requirements. Film strength at 230 degrees is just a single data point of these dozens. To gather results from a single unapproved, non peer reviewed test and extrapolate those results to negate the significance of the dozens of other requirements to obtain the API certification is ludicrous. There are also dozens of factors that play just into film strength. Basestock, friction modifiers, viscocity improvers and additive package just to name a few.
Does his test tell you how much "wear protection" the oil provides at startup where 90% of wear occurs? How can it when the test is done @ 230 Degrees? Does it tell you how much "wear protection" the oil provides after the film strength is sheared? How can it when that is when the test ends? Does it tell you how much "wear protection" the oil retains after 1000, 2000, 3000 miles after the additives that contribute to the film strength are sheared and broken down? How can it when the test is on new oil? These are just 3 questions on the viability of the test results on that one, single data point, film strength.

The main reason I keep posting is some people actually believe that Extreme pressure additives have ZERO bearing on extreme pressure wear protection just because 540 Rat says so. Basing you choice solely on that info could cause catastrophic engine failure in a really expensive engine.

lionelhutz

Statements like this are what snake oil salesmen use.

You testing does not come from physics and chemistry. It comes from a test jig you designed and built to test the oil. The validity of your test jig certainly can be questioned. The data most definitely is biased by your opinion since you created the test jig and your opinion of how the oil should be tested was very much a factor in how the oil is tested. Anyone who can't understand this is fool taken in by a wordy salesman. The data does come from your theory since you came up with a theory on how to test the oil and then you created the device to test the theory.

Quit with the excuses and address some of the critics. You post this like it's the last word on oil yet won't back-up or prove anything about it.

1974CorvetteJimCr

(Nervously adjusts tie) "Oh, tough crowd, tough crowd..."


-- Rodney Dangerfield

AirBusPilot

I want to clarify this statement.

Are you saying no special flat tappet camshaft break in procedure is required with a higher protection oil?

lionelhutz

He's saying that no break-in is required. "fire the engine and drive"