itsonlyairandfuel

Whether you knew it or not , your cam was already in the process of a slow death, before you changed the break in oil. To bad you changed it in time introduce another variable. Good luck in the future. Ron B.

pauldana

Built many motors... and several flat tappet race engines... no, it was just fine until I put in the mobile1.... then the cam started to be eaten,,,, the oil change from the break in oil was clear clean and smooth.... this is not my first rodeo.

Sig1977

Just an FYI from a very good old GM mechanic – do not use synthetic oil in your original GM engine because the gaskets are not made for the synthetic oil. Will leak. And add zinc additive ˝ bottle per oil change. STP makes one you can buy at Walmart

63mako

Modern synthetic additive packages have been modified with seal conditioners and gasket swellers. The old mechanic is biting on an old wives tail from the 70's when it was a real issue. Modern synthetics have no issues if your gaskets are in good condition, even original gaskets. If you have bad gaskets they leak oil. Zinc additives are not a good option. Additive clash is a big issue. A lot of guys are running synthetics in original engines with no leakage.

Sig1977

Good to know.

I have the original 350 L82 4sp with 77k original miles. What is your recommendation on the oil I should use?

Thanks

63mako

Amsoil Z-rod 10W-30. Actual true synthetic, Group IV basestock, over 1300 PPM ZDDP, One of the highest ranking in the film strength testing on this thread and has an additive package designed specifically for gasoline, flat tappet engines that might sit or be stored for extended periods. Change it once a year with a quality filter and you good to go. Save 25% by going to the right side of this page and scroll down through the Corvette Forum sponsers until you find the Amsoil link. C66 racing is a good guy and helps forum members out with great Preferred Customer pricing if you tell him your a forum member.

1974CorvetteJimCr

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%

Sig1977

Outstanding.

Given that I am talking to the technical SME on oils what is your opinion on the Joe Gibbs motor oil vs. Amsoil understanding we are talking synthetic vs. standard oil.

P.S. I am learning a lot and I appreciate your time and knowledge and that is one of many outstanding things about this form are people like you who take the time to share experiences and knowledge

63mako

Additive packages vary from each manufacturer, generally from each viscosity oil they make and many times will change on the same exact oil in the same looking bottle one week, one month or one year later. I like Group IV (PAO) synthetic basestocks. Conventional Group III Basestocks have varying size molecules. Group IV basestocks have uniform molecule size. Take a piece of glass. Put a bunch of BB's on it, put another piece of glass on it. Roll it around. This is the microscopic effect you get with a true synthetic. Now take a piece of glass, put varying size shot from BB to #8 on it, put the other piece of glass on it, roll it around. This is the microscopic effect you get with conventional oil. I am sure the Joe Gibbs oil is a high quality oil and probably has a good additive package, how good is debatable and unknown. What I do know is a true synthetic Group IV basestock experiences less shear, requires NO paraffin, protects better, breaks down slower, withstands temperature extremes better, requires fewer viscosity improvers and friction modifiers and flows quicker to reduce startup wear than a similar viscosity conventional oil. It also cost more. Any oil will work in your car. Some will provide better protection than others. Many US "Synthetics" actually use ultra refined Group III basestocks many with NO POA. Amsoil uses ONLY Group IV. The Pennzoil Pure Platinum made from Natural Gas is interesting but lower in ZDDP, <800 PPM Don't know if it has been tested by 540rat yet. If you check Mercedes, Porsche, Audi, Ferrari, Lamborghini you will find they ALL require a European formula Synthetic ONLY to qualify for warrantee. The European formulas require >1000 PPM ZDDP and have to be a group IV basestock or they can not be labeled synthetic under European regulations. These engines are higher hp, higher rpm engines that need better protection with REALLY good engineers. When I changed my wifes Aveo from conventional to synthetic (Amsoil) in the engine and transaxle it went from 32 MPG average to 35 MPG average with no other changes. Less friction. Ran a UOA on it @ 10,000 miles and it was all good. Still change it even though the change oil light don't come on.

540 RAT

I’m aware that most, if not all, of my Oil Test Data Forum critics, don’t even bother to read the motor oil information I provide. So, they never see all the real world experience references that exactly match my test data. They just make negative untrue comments right off the top, completely unaware of the information I provide, that all came directly from the scientific FACTS generated by the Physics and Chemistry, that determine the test data results. Nor do they even know that I have already addressed most anything they ever come up with, which shows that their comments are without merit.

If they ignore my data, that is their loss. But, it doesn’t affect me one way or the other, since I have no involvement with selling motor oil or motor oil additives. But, what is worse than them losing out on valuable information that they can benefit from, is that there are some people who aren’t sure about the whole thing, who may follow the bad information the critics mistakenly believe and put out there even though they don't understand that it is worthless info.

The old belief that any high zinc oil will provide sufficient wear protection for any engine has never been true, but gullible people have been brainwashed to believe it anyway. And repeating completely false information a million times, does NOT magically make it become true. The fact is, flat tappet lobes are still being wiped while using high zinc oils, because people are following bad advice from critics and even Cam Companies, who simply don't know what they are talking about when it comes to motor oil.

As for the Oil Companies themselves, many of them, especially the smaller Oil Companies, practice blatant false advertising, with the only goal being to make money off unsuspecting buyers. And few of them ever provide any actual wear test data at all for their high zinc oils. In fact, it is quite obvious that many Oil Companies don't even bother to perform any wear protection capability tests on their oils, to even know how they perform. That leaves buyers with little more than advertising hype to base their motor oil choices on. That is until I began independent and unbiased motor oil wear protection capability Engineering tests, to find out how motor oils truly perform under load, at a normal operating temperature. I am the only one who will provide truthful information, because I have no vested interest in which particular oil people choose to buy. I provide the FACTS just as they came out of my testing, good or bad. And people can decide for themselves which particular oil they want to spend their money on.

The whole idea that all high zinc oils are great, is simply a MYTH that has been busted. And real world experience proves it, the same way my Scientific motor oil test data proves it. If you continue to follow the false belief that any high zinc oil is good enough, you are playing Russian Roulette with your engine. And if you are running a flat tappet engine, you are putting it at extreme risk of failure. If you are running a roller engine, then you may not experience outright failure, but you may well experience unnecessary wear over time, that could have been avoided with a better choice of oil.

So here, I’m including real world experience and how it exactly matched up with my Motor Oil Test Data, which many people have never seen before, since as I said, they don’t actually read my threads or Oil Test Data Blog. No sensible person would argue against real world experience. And precise validation of my Test Data doesn't get any better than this. These examples will prove to any sensible person that my Motor Oil Engineering Test Data is just as valid as all Engineering Test Data that drives Tech Fields the world over. So, read on and decide for yourself. The engine you save may be your own.


OIL TEST DATA AND SEVERE OVER-HEATING EXPERIENCE ARE IDENTICAL
I received the following feedback from one of my Oil Test Data Blog readers:

Hi RAT, I want to share a real world experience about one of the oils you have tested.

About a year ago, my son was driving our old 1999 Toyota Camry, with 230,000 miles on it at the time, in heat of summer. And you know how young kids are today, they don’t know very much about how to look after cars. So, he drives about 45 miles to his destination, and parks it.

By this time, because of a leak from the water pump, most of the coolant is gone. But, because he shuts the engine off and walks away without noticing the leak, the engine cools off. The next day when he wants to drive home, there is no coolant left in engine. But, he doesn't know that, so he starts it up and drives away. After driving about 30 miles on the freeway, it overheats so much that the engine stalls. That’s when I get the call!

After I towed the car home, I filled radiator and noticed the leak from water pump, and the head gasket was leaking into the combustion chamber. So, I knew it had over-heated really bad, TWICE. I expected that the pistons and valves must have been damaged due to the extreme heat. But, after I took the head off, the valves and cylinder walls looked in surprisingly good shape. After I put it back together, it ran as good as before. And it now has 244,000 miles on it.

I then knew, the oil that was in it at the time, played very important role, and had prevented the pistons from being damaged. BUT, that oil wasn’t in your ranking list at the time. So, I always wondered where that oil would it rank if ever tested?

Guess what? Now that you have tested that oil, it ranked near the very top of the Ranking List. It is 5W30 Valvoline MaxLife High Mileage (red bottle).

So if anyone doesn’t want to believe in your oil test ranking, I have to tell them they better believe it. I am positive that it was the high wear protection capability of that motor oil that kept the engine from further damage!!

His experience shows precisely what I've talked about, when I have said that having extra reserve wear protection capability from highly ranked oils, may well save your engine when bad things happen.


OIL TEST DATA AND RACE TRACK EXPERIENCE ARE IDENTICAL
An oval track dirt racer (his class is extremely competitive, so he asked that his name be left out) on the SpeedTalk Forum runs a 7200 rpm, solid flat tappet, 358ci Small Block Chevy motor, with valve spring pressures of about 160 on the seat and 400 open, that are shimmed to .060” from coil bind. The rules and the combination of parts, were causing him to experience repeated cam failures while using high zinc, semi-synthetic 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 motor oil. Lab Report Data from testing performed by Professional Lab, “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada, showed that this oil contains 1557 ppm zinc, 1651 ppm phosphorus, and 3 ppm moly. In spite of this being a high zinc oil, that most folks would “assume” provides excellent wear protection, he experienced wiped lobe cam failure about every 22 to 25 races.

A race consists of one 8 lap (a lap is typically 3/8 mile) heat race and one 20 lap feature race, plus any caution laps. If you add it all up, 25 races only total about 281 miles at the point of cam failure. So, that is a perfect example of what I’ve been saying all along about high zinc levels being absolutely NO GUARANTEE of adequate wear protection. And my test data on this 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 motor oil, shows that it produces a wear protection capability of only 71,206 psi, which puts it in the MODEST wear protection category, and it ranks a very disappointing 115th out of 159 oils tested so far. That means of course that there are 114 different oils I’ve tested that provide better wear protection.

So, my test data ACCURATELY PREDICTED EXACTLY what he experienced during racing. And that is, that this oil does not provide high enough wear protection capability to provide a sufficient margin of safety for this engine’s operating conditions. Looking at my “Wear Protection Ranking List” and choosing a much higher ranked oil, would have prevented all those cam failures. Repeatedly suffering cam failures in motors with so little time on them, may have been considered by some folks to be a normal consumption of parts back in the ‘60’s or ‘70’s. But, in the 21st Century that we live in now, by any measure, that is for sure premature failure. We no longer have to accept that as the cost of doing business, because we can do far better now.

So, he switched to the super micro polished billet lifters from PPPC and the cam life went up to 40 races, which was an improvement since he could now go 450 miles between failures. But, that was still clearly unacceptable. Then later on, he started using “Oil Extreme Concentrate” as an additive to the 10W30 Brad Penn, and he’s never lost a lobe on a cam since. Adding the “Oil Extreme Concentrate” completely eliminated his premature wiped lobe cam failures. At the time of this writing, the motor had gone 70+ Races without issue, and was still doing fine. This “Oil Extreme Concentrate” is one additive that actually works as advertised, and makes low ranked oils far better than they were to begin with. And that is PRECISELY WHAT MY MOTOR OIL TEST DATA PREDICTED as well.

Here’s how. I also added “Oil Extreme Concentrate” to 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 semi-synthetic, as part of my motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” research. And with 2.0 OZ of “Oil Extreme Concentrate” added per qt, which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability shot up by a BREATH TAKING 56%, to an amazing 111,061psi, which puts it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category, and now ranks it a jaw dropping 6th out of 159 oils tested so far. So, it moved up a whopping 109 ranking positions, just by adding the “Oil Extreme Concentrate”. This totally accounts for the reason all his cam lobe failures were eliminated.

In addition to this, a NASCAR team sent me three high zinc synthetic Mobil 1 Racing Oils for testing, because they were having wear problems when using these oils. Lab Report Data from testing performed on these oils by Professional Lab, “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada, showed that on average, these oils contained 1774 ppm zinc, 1658 ppm phosphorus, and 1444 ppm moly. And because these were all high zinc oils, most folks would “assume” that they’d provide sufficient wear protection. However, the results of my testing showed that these oils only provided POOR WEAR PROTECTION CAPABILITY. So, they were NOT a good choice for their racing application, which confirmed why they had wear problems. The team then switched to better performing oil, and their wear problems disappeared. So, this is yet another perfect example of what I’ve been saying about high zinc levels being NO GUARENTEE of adequate wear protection. And this example clearly showed once again that my test data EXACTLY MATCHED what this race team had experienced on the track.

These examples PROVE once and for all, that my test data EXACTLY MATCHES REAL WORLD RACE TRACK EXPERIENCE, and that my test data is the spot on REAL DEAL, just as I’ve said all along. This completely confirms that my test results WILL ACCURATELY PREDICT what we can expect from motor oils in running engines on the track or on the street, EVEN if those oils are high zinc oils.


OIL TEST DATA AND WIPED LOBE AT BREAK-IN EXPERIENCE ARE IDENTICAL
A guy on the Corvette Forum, whose name I will leave out, built a replica 454, flat tappet LS6 BBC engine for a 1970 Corvette, using a Crane Cams blueprint LS6 cam and Crane solid lifters. He used Brad Penn Break-In oil, then after initial break-in, he changed the oil to Brad Penn 10W40. Then after about 100 miles he heard a tapping noise. After looking into it, he found a wiped cam lobe and ruined lifter. There were metal particles throughout the entire engine, causing devastation which had damaged the rod and main bearings, the oil pump, and the crankshaft, thus requiring another very costly and time consuming total rebuild.

He has built many engines over the years, always using Crane Cams solid or hydraulic cams and never had a failure. So, he's an experienced engine builder, used parts from Crane Cams, a reputable Industry Leader, and used oil with plenty of zinc. Problem is, he is among those who think any oil is fine, as long as it has plenty of zinc in it. However, my Engineering tests of the Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, Break-In oil, shows that it produces a film strength load carrying capacity of only 56,020 psi, which ranks it 151st out of 159 oils tested so far, and puts it in the UNDESIRABLE wear protection category, even though it's high in zinc. And my Engineering tests of the 10W40 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, shows that it produces a film strength load carrying capacity of only 57,864 psi, which ranks it 147th out of 159 oils tested so far, and also puts it in the UNDESIRABLE wear protection category, even though it has a high zinc level. That of course means that 150 other oils provide better wear protection than his Break-In oil, and 146 other oils provide better wear protection than his after break-in oil.

So, this is another example where my test data accurately predicted that using these particular high zinc oils, that provided such low wear protection capability, would put a flat tappet engine at extreme risk of failure during and after break-in. And of course very expensive engine failure is exactly what happened. Selecting a highly ranked oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List, no matter how much zinc is in it, would have provided the engine with far better wear protection. With so many other excellent performing motor oils on the market, it makes no sense to choose oils that are ranked so low on my list, even if they do have a lot of zinc in them. Because high zinc levels are absolutely no guarantee of sufficient wear protection. The line of thinking that you always need a high zinc level, is nothing more than a total MYTH.


OIL TEST DATA AND HIGH PERFORMANCE STREET EXPERIENCE ARE IDENTICAL
And here is one example of a flat tappet High Performance Street Hotrod engine operating just fine with low zinc oils, just as my Test Data predicts. 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 a couple of years 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, this 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, is an oil's film strength load carrying capability. And that is precisely the data my Motor Oil Testing ranks.

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.

Motor Oil Tech FACTS, NOT MYTHS:
The independent and unbiased Engineering testing I perform 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.

You can see my entire 150+ motor oil “Wear Protection Ranking List”, which is "proven" by the Physics and Chemistry involved, and EXACTLY matches real world severe over-heating experience, real world Track experience, real world flat tappet break-in experience, and real world High Performance Street experience (test data validation doesn’t get any better than this), along with additional motor oil tech FACTS, by going to the Blog link below.

This Blog now has over 100,000 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 here, that cannot be found anywhere else. And as a result, they are posting and sharing links to this Blog, all over the world. See for yourself.

http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/

63mako

Personal insults and still no answers. Once again, how does your test that ends when the film strength sheers @ 115,000 PSI max test long term extreme pressure additive effectiveness (ZDDP) that only begins forming a protective phosphorous barrier film after the oil's film strength breaks and the ZDDP molecule shears? Your test is done then. You NEVER answered this simple question.
I have read your long, rambling paper start to finish along with every post. They are all full of misinformation and extrapolated conclusions based on a single film strength test.

pauldana

Diatribe

lionelhutz

About the only conclusion I can take is that it's possible the Brad Penn oil isn't very good oil. I wiped a cam a couple of 100 miles after switching out the break-in oil to Mobil 1 5W30 so that kind of negates your claim that it's a great oil which will protect a flat tappet cam.

You have yet to provide;
- Any info on how you test. You know - the rather important scientific peer review process.
- Any info on how your test relates to the long term usage of your ranked oils.
- 63mako's question about the protection when the film strength is broken down

In other words, your long ranting post doesn't address anything the critics have asked.

And you still rant-on about how that scientific fact bS.

You talk about how you don't have any time to answer questions but you can find time to write page long essays about how your tests are so special while anyone who questions the results is basically on the same level as a bible thumping zealot.

I'm not saying that you don't have oils at the top of your list that would work fine for a flat tappet cam. I'm just saying that your rantings and claims are more snakeoil salesmanship then anything scientific.

Les

After all this time it's just the SOS.

F4Gary

I've decided to go with Luca 10W-30 Hot Rod and Classic Car dino oil. Has the added zinc and I got it from Jegs with free shipping and no tax.

We'll see how that works with my 72 LT-1.

jasonberkeley

So, after wasting a lot of time reading all of this, I have one simple question:

Since there are a number of oils that seem to meet both of the general arguments / requirements of the two protaganists on here (high film strength, and high zink and phosphorus levels), would everyone agree that any of the oils that meet both sets of ideas would be excellent for flat tappet cams?

63mako

High film strength, adequate ZDDP levels for the intended use and a true synthetic base stock are my requirements. Use the information available in the context it should be used.

1974CorvetteJimCr

Well done sir, well done !!!

jasonberkeley

So, after speaking with my engine builder and a lubrication engineer at Joe Gibbs, i'm going with Joe Gibbs Racing Oil BR40 Break-In oil, and then switching to Joe Gibbs HR 10W-40 Synthetic Hot Rod Oil.

The lubrication engineer and my engine builder both agreed on the following procedure:

- Fill engine with BR40 break-in oil
- immediately bring revs up to 2000 and vary between 2000 and 2500rpm for 20-25 minutes
- change filter and top-off with more BR40
- drive car like normal for 300-400 miles
- change oil to HR10W40 Synthetic Hot Rod oil

http://www.drivenracingoil.com/dro/b...in-10w-61html/
http://www.drivenracingoil.com/dro/h...ic-10w-48html/

Up until recently, Joe Gibbs racing had been running flat tappet cams in all of their NASCAR cars, and as the developer and end user of their lubricants, they are in a wholly unique position to truly understand what is required for flat tappet cammed engines.

63mako

Sounds like you used the information available and made a solid choice based on all the parameters.