540 RAT

First, here’s a look at some background info, for those not familiar with me or my oil testing write-ups, or for those who are familiar but still may not be clear about it all. I'm a working Professional Degreed Engineer, as well as a U.S. Patent holder, who deals with Engineering technical matters for a living. And I’m not just some guy who went to College to become an Engineer. I have also been wrenching on cars and motorcycles since I was a teenager. Before and during College I was a Professional Mechanic. I built my own 540 BBC Street Hotrod engine from scratch. I did not just write a check for someone else to do it.

For a number of years I also held an NHRA Competition Driver's License. In addition to that, I used to Drag Strip test Motorcycles for Honda Motor Company. So, in addition to being an Engineer, I’m also a hands-on gear head and have been a Drag Racer, just like the rest of you.
THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT thing a motor oil does for your engine, is prevent wear. Everything else it does for your engine, comes AFTER that. So, at the beginning of 2012, I began Tribology Research using motor oil “Wear Testing” equipment, to get to the truth about the wear prevention capabilities of motor oil. And for those not familiar with the terminology, Tribology means the study of friction, lubrication, and wear between moving surfaces.

I'm a total perfectionist when it comes to technical issues. And those who know me personally, know that I would never jeopardize my reputation or my integrity, by posting data that would turn the Hobby/Industry on its ear, unless I was absolutely sure about the data I put out there. Of course I've always known my carefully generated data was completely accurate, but now my data has been validated and backed-up by a total of FOUR other independent Industry sources. They are as follows:

1. Well known and respected Engineer and Tech Author David Vizard, whose own test data, largely based on real world engine dyno testing, has concluded that more zinc in motor oil can be damaging, more zinc does NOT provide today's best wear protection, and that using zinc as the primary anti-wear component, is outdated technology.

2. The GM Oil Report titled, "Oil Myths from GM Techlink", concluded that high levels of zinc are damaging and that more zinc does NOT provide more wear protection.

3. A motor oil research article written by Ed Hackett titled, "More than you ever wanted to know about Motor Oil", concluded that more zinc does NOT provide more wear protection, it only provides longer wear protection.

4. This from the Brad Penn Oil Company:
There is such a thing as too much ZDDP. ZDDP is surface aggressive, and too much can be a detriment. ZDDP fights for the surface, blocking other additive performance. Acids generated due to excessive ZDDP contact will “tie-up” detergents thus encouraging corrosive wear. ZDDP effectiveness plateaus, more does NOT translate into more protection. Only so much is utilized. We don’t need to saturate our oil with ZDDP.

Those who are familiar with my test data, know that my test results came up with the exact same results stated by all four of those independent sources. So, this is an example where motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” using oil testing equipment, engine dyno testing, Motor Oil Industry testing, and proper motor oil research using only the facts, from a total of five (including my own) independent sources, all converged to agree and come to the same exact conclusion. Back-up validation proof, doesn't get any better than this.

So, with all those sources in total agreement, that should provide more than enough proof to anyone who questioned my test data, that my data is absolutely correct. And that questioning any one of those sources, questions them all, and questions Physics and Chemistry that determined all those identical results. And no sensible person would try to argue against Physics and Chemistry. Because that is a battle no man can win.

The motor oil testing I performed to generate my “Wear Protection Ranking List”, is worst case torture testing using oil testing equipment (and for the record, it is NOT a “One Armed Bandit” tester), which subjects the oil to far more severe loading than even the most wicked flat tappet race engine ever could. The test equipment is NOT intended to duplicate an engine’s internal components. On the contrary, the test equipment is specifically designed to cause an oil to reach its failure point, in order to determine what its capability limit it is. And every oil I test is brought to its failure point, that’s how it works. The difference in the failure points, is what we compare.

But, a running engine is designed to last indefinitely, and of course, they do not generally cause an oil to reach its failure point. So, due to the complete difference in design, the pressures in my test are completely different, and cannot be compared directly to an engine’s lobe/lifter interface pressure. That would be comparing apples to oranges, which makes no sense. My testing is so severe, that the oil fails at an earlier point. And that is why my test data psi values may appear lower than you might expect to see in some running engines. Keep in mind, I’m comparing OIL AGAINST OIL, and the procedure used is exactly the same for each oil tested. For better or worse, each oil stands on its own merit. And if oil A produces twice the psi value of oil B in my testing, then oil A will also offer twice the wear protection capability of oil B, in a running engine.

The “dynamic wear testing under load” I use, is intentionally designed to find the SPECIFIC LIMIT of each individual oil’s “Load carrying capacity/film strength”, at a representative operational temperature of 230*F. Or in other words, to determine each oil’s “wear protection capability” psi value, which can be compared to any other oil tested on the same equipment. The results that come out of my testing are NOT my opinion, and they are NOT my theory. They are the FACTS that come out of the Physics and Chemistry involved in the tests.

Performing “dynamic wear testing under load”, is the ONLY TYPE OF TESTING that will provide accurate data regarding an oil’s film strength. Dynamically testing motor oil under load, is the same concept as dynamically testing an engine under load on a dyno. That is the only way to truly find accurate performance data of a motor oil, or of an engine.

And obtaining accurate oil film strength data is ABSOLUTELY THE ONLY WAY to determine an oil’s wear protection capability, because an oil’s film strength is the last line of defense against metal to metal contact. In order to reach metal to metal contact, and subsequent wear or damage, you MUST penetrate the film strength of the oil. And oil thicker than a mere film becomes liquid oil. Of course liquids are NOT compressible, which is how hydraulics work. Since liquids cannot be compressed, ALL oils provide THE SAME wear protection when they are in liquid form, no matter if they cost $1.00 per quart or $20.00 per quart. So, oil film strength testing is the GOLD STANDARD for determining how capable an oil is at preventing wear, and how different oils directly compare to each other. In other words, the ONLY THING that separates one oil’s ability to prevent wear from another oil’s ability to prevent wear, is the difference in their individual film strength capabilities.

But, testing motor oil in a running engine CANNOT determine the EXACT SPECIFIC wear protection LIMIT of an oil, which is necessary, in order to make an accurate comparison between various oils. So, attempting to test various motor oils for comparison in a running engine, provides no meaningful data, other than perhaps that a given oil did not cause a failure in that particular engine combo. If you were to test say a half a dozen different oils in your engine combo, and you had no problems with any of them, how can you tell how they rank against each other? It’s a proven fact that all oils do not provide the same wear protection capability. That means you have no way of knowing which of those 6 oils provides you with the highest level of protection. Therefore, motor oil testing in a running engine, is a waste of time, effort and money, when it comes to gathering accurate data for comparison between various oils. And that is precisely why I perform all my testing with motor oil test equipment, rather than in an engine.

Many, many Industries worldwide use test equipment to determine the actual capability of their products, before they are put to use by consumers. Using the test results that come out of my testing, allows us to see exactly how various oils compare head to head, under the exact same conditions, regarding their individual wear protection capabilities. Since my oil testing COMPARES various oils under worst case conditions, absolutely no further testing is required in a running engine. If oils rank higher in my “Wear Protection Ranking List” than the oil you currently use, those higher ranked oils will provide a HIGHER LEVEL OF WEAR PROTECTION than your current oil. It’s really that simple. This is NOT Rocket Science.

If folks see that the oil they prefer to use does not rank all that high on my “Wear Protection Ranking List”, and they have not had a problem using it, then they don’t need to stop using it. I’ve never said that at all. And I have never said that any oil failed my testing, nor have I ever said that any oil is bad. I’ve only said that some oils provide a higher level of wear protection than others, and that most folks would probably want the best protection they can get. For the folks who have had good success with whatever oil they use, that does not mean they have been using a great oil, it only means that they are not exceeding the capability limit of that oil. If they continue to stay below that oil’s capability limit, they will never have a problem. But, if they want to choose a better oil, for extra wear protection insurance in case things ever start going south, all they have to do is look at my ranking list and choose a higher ranked oil. The HIGHER the psi value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.

It should also be noted that I do NOT get paid by any Oil Company, nor by any Motor Oil Retailer, nor do I sell anything myself. So, I have no vested interest in what oil people choose to run. Therefore, all the data here is totally independent, unbiased, and is reported exactly how the test results came out. I have no agenda here, other than simply sharing the FACTS with like-minded gear heads.

And you will NOT find this many oils tested on the exact same equipment, using the exact same procedure, using the exact same real world representative oil temperature, by the exact same operator, anywhere else. Therefore, this is the best apples to apples motor oil comparison you will ever find.

The “Wear Protection” test data here DIRECTLY APPLIES to flat tappet lobe/lifter interfaces (no matter how wicked the engine), distributor gear/cam gear interfaces, mechanical fuel pump pushrod tip/cam eccentric interfaces, and all highly loaded engine interfaces.

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

Finally, the data on the 3 new Diesel Oils tested. Some time back, I had previously tested 13 different Diesel Oils. And the Wear Protection Capability results on all those oils were disappointing. But, I had not included Amsoil Diesel Oils in that test. And later, I felt that Diesel Oil testing effort was incomplete without them. So, I got 2 Amsoil Diesel Oils to test, and another Diesel oil that a Forum member asked me to test for him. Here are those 3 new Diesel Oils:

** 15W40 Cenpeco (Central Petroleum Company) S-3 Diesel Oil, conventional, API CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF, CE, CD, SL, SJ, SH = 74,593 psi “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength
This is a little known regional Diesel Oil, out of the Mid-Western U.S. farm country. As Diesel oils go, this small company Diesel oil did very well, by beating out a good number of big name Diesel oils. These guys do know what they are doing, within the context of Diesel oils.

** 5W40 Amsoil Premium Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 PLUS, CF, SN, SM, ACEA E7, E9 = 77,207 psi “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength
I had expected impressive results out of this Diesel oil, since it came from Amsoil with the name “Premium” on it. It turns out that this oil is a good oil as Diesel oils go, but it just wasn’t as impressive as I’d expected it to be. Even its onset of thermal breakdown point was only mediocre. So, that just goes to show you, that a big name brand, with a fancy name (and even a pretty bottle), doesn’t necessarily represent what’s inside the bottle. You have to perform “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load”, to find out the truth about how good an oil is at protecting against wear.

** 5W30 Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil synthetic, API CI-4 PLUS, CF, SL, ACEA A3/B3, E2, E3, E5, E7 = 102,642 psi “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength
Now, THIS is the SURPRISING RESULT that came out of this latest Diesel Oil testing. Even though this oil doesn’t have a fancy name or pretty bottle, it is BY FAR, the highest ranked Diesel oil I have ever tested. This oil is Engineered for Diesel engines not equipped with Diesel particulate filters (DPF). Amsoil says this oil delivers better wear protection than other popular Diesel oils. And in this case, their hype is absolutely true. They also say it effectively reduces fuel consumption, with its advanced fuel efficient formula. This oil costs $11.15 per quart in the 2013 Amsoil Factory Direct Retail Catalog, which is 10% more than Amsoil’s 5W40 Premium Synthetic Diesel Oil. So, in this case, you pay only 10% more for the Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil, but you get a whopping 33% more wear protection than you get with the Amsoil’s 5W40 Premium Synthetic Diesel Oil. Money very well spent, if you run a Diesel oil intended for engines not equipped with Diesel particulate filters. The next highest ranked Diesel oil only ranks a very unimpressive 44th out of the 101 motor oils I’ve tested so far. Even its onset of thermal breakdown point was impressive. So, this 5W30 Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil is in a class of its own, among all the Diesel oils I have tested.

Here’s how these 3 new Diesel Oils ranked, just among the Diesel Oils that I tested previously. And they are ranked in the order of their “Wear Protection Capability” values:

Wear protection reference categories for use in gasoline engines:

• Over 90,000 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 value, the BETTER the Wear Protection.


1. 5W30 Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil synthetic, API CI-4 PLUS, CF, SL, ACEA A3/B3, E2, E3, E5, E7 = 102,642 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 280*

2. RED LINE, 15W40 Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CJ-4/CI-4 PLUS/CI-4/CF/CH-4/CF-4/SM/SL/SH/EO-O
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 85,663 psi
zinc = 1615 ppm
phos = 1551 ppm
moly = 173 ppm
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 285*

3. 5W40 Amsoil Premium Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 PLUS, CF, SN, SM, ACEA E7, E9 = 77,207 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 267*

4. ROYAL PURPLE, 15W40 Diesel Oil, synthetic, API CJ-4 /SM, CI-4 PLUS, CH-4, CI-4
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 76,997 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 265*

5. 15W40 Cenpeco (Central Petroleum Company) S-3 Diesel Oil, conventional, API CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF, CE, CD, SL, SJ, SH = 74,593 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately TBD

6. MOBIL 1 TURBO DIESEL TRUCK, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4 and ACEA E7
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 74,312 psi
zinc = 1211 ppm
phos = 1168 ppm
moly = 2 ppm
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 270*

7. CHEVRON DELO 400LE, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, SM, SL, “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 73,520 psi
zinc = 1519 ppm
phos = 1139 ppm
moly = 80 ppm
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 265*

8. MOBIL DELVAC 1300 SUPER, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4/SM, SL , “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 73,300 psi
zinc = 1297 ppm
phos = 944 ppm
moly = 46 ppm
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 250*

9. Farm Rated 15W40 Heavy Duty Performance Diesel, conventional, API CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF/SL, SJ
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 73,176 psi
zinc = 1325 ppm
phos = 1234 ppm
moly = 2 ppm
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 255*

10. “NEW” SHELL ROTELLA T, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4,CF/SM
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 72,022 psi
zinc = 1454 ppm
phos = 1062 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 250*
NOTE: This new Rotella T has SIGNIFICANTLY MORE zinc than the OLD Rotella T, NOT LESS as is often claimed. And these two Rotella oils were Lab tested more than a month apart. So, their component quantities had no chance of being mixed up. This new Rotella’s wear protection capability is just slightly BETTER than the OLD Rotella. Therefore, the new Rotella is NOT the junk some have claimed.

11. “OLD” SHELL ROTELLA T, 15W40 conventional, API CI-4 PLUS, CI-4, CH-4,CG-4,CF-4,CF,SL, SJ, SH
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 71,214 psi
zinc = 1171 ppm
phos = 1186 ppm
moly = 0 ppm
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 250*
NOTE: There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING special about this OLD Rotella, as so many have always claimed. That was only folklore. It is simply ordinary Diesel oil.

12. VALVOLINE PREMIUM BLUE HEAVY DUTY DIESEL, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SM
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 70,869 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 255*

13. CHEVRON DELO 400LE, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, SL, SM,
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 69,631 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 255*

14. SHELL ROTELLA T6, 5W40 synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4/SM
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 67,804 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 260*

15. LUCAS 15W40 MAGNUM Diesel Oil, conventional, API CI-4,CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SL
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 66,476 psi
zinc = 1441 ppm
phos = 1234 ppm
moly = 76 ppm
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 250*

16. CASTROL GTX DIESEL, 15W40 conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4/SN
“Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” = 66,323 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
The onset of thermal breakdown is approximately 265*

Diesel oils with regard to Wear Protection Capability, rank overall between number 9 and 82 out of the 101 motor oils I’ve tested so far. But, if you omit the highest ranked Diesel oil which is FAR, FAR MORE CAPABLE than all the other Diesel oils, the rest only rank between 44 and 82.
The poor overall wear protection performance of all but the one particular top ranked Diesel oil, makes it very clear that in general, Diesel oils are a poor choice for wear protection in High Performance gas engines.

When you look at the onset of thermal breakdown of these Diesel oils, you see the following. On average, for synthetic Diesel oils, the onset of thermal breakdown was 269*F, and on average for conventional Diesel oils, it was 255*F. Overall, these Diesel oils fell victim to heat 13-17*F lower than gas engine oils. So, that is even more reason that using Diesel oils in High Performance gas engines, is a poor choice.

BOTTOM LINE:
High Performance gasoline engines are far better protected against wear by selecting from the much more capable gas engine oils. The only exception is the excellent synthetic 5W30 Amsoil Series 3000 Heavy Duty Diesel Oil, which is also SL rated for gas engines. In the past, I have never recommended using Diesel Oil in a High Performance gas engine. But, this top 10 ranked oil, out of 101 motor oils tested so far, is the only Diesel oil I’ve tested that is actually worth considering for High Performance gas engines, if you just have to run a Diesel oil in your gas engine. And if you have a Diesel engine and can run a Diesel oil intended for engines not equipped with Diesel particulate filters, then choosing this oil is an easy no brainer.

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

If you’d like to see how all 16 of these Diesel oils rank in my entire 101 motor oil “Wear Protection Ranking List”, along with additional motor oil tech info, here’s a link:

http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/


*****************
For those interested, I have the following motor oil tests coming up:

• NASCAR Mobil 1 Track Only Racing Oils in 0wt, 0W30 and 0W50 viscosities.

• And testing the following oils with “Oil Extreme Concentrate” added to them:

1. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM, which is currently ranked number 1 out of all 101 oils I’ve tested so far.

2. 5W30 Royal Purple XPR, which is currently ranked 62nd out of all 101 oils I’ve tested so far.

3. 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, which is currently ranked 73rd out of all 101 oils I’ve tested so far.

4. 10W30 Lucas Hot Rod & Classic Hi-Performance Oil, which is currently ranked 88th out of all 101 oils I’ve tested so far.

5. 10W30 Comp Cams Muscle Car & Street Rod Oil, which is currently ranked 90th out of all 101 oils oils I’ve tested so far.

NOTE: The first oil I tested with “Oil Extreme Concentrate” added to it, ordinary yellow bottle conventional 5W30 Pennzoil, improved its wear protection capability by a whopping 30%. But, for that test, I added the “Oil Extreme Concentrate” at 1.5 oz. of concentrate per qt, as recommended on the bottle. But, this is for street use. David Vizard and Oil Extreme’s President, say to add the concentrate at 2.0 oz. per quart for Racing. And since the Forum is rooted in Hotrodding and Racing, for these upcoming tests, I’ll add the concentrate at 2.0 oz. per quart. And I may even add an additional .5 oz. to the original yellow bottle Pennzoil, bringing it up to 2.0 oz. per quart, and retest it as well.

540 RAT

Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

vetteguy22

Thank you for the very informational read. I appreciate your time and efforts.

rli7275

Good post. I'm going to read your other posts. Thanks for sharing you knowledge

dar322

540 rat- thanks once again for your expert technical posts. this info should be shared with the professional magazines so everyone can read.

63mako

This is a film strength test. Your using a film strength tester. A stock, mild flat tappet cam generates over 200,000 psi at the lobe lifter interface. The film strength fails way before that PSI as your testing shows. Once the film strength is compromised the extreme pressure additives such as ZDDP take over as the only protection against metal to metal contact. Your test does not test the effectiveness of extreme pressure additives, only the point that the film strength breaks at 230 degrees. Nothing more, nothing less.
Your recommendation that high lift, fast ramp flat tappet cams do not require elevated levels of ZDDP extreme pressure additives (over 1000 PPM) to protect them is contrary to every cam manufacturers recommendations and backed up by the failures of tens of thousands of flat tappet cams after the SM and SN oils reduced ZDDP levels to under 800 PPM phosphorous.
You are again assuming adequate extreme pressure additive protection can be extrapolated from the results of a film strength test. These are two different characteristics of every oil and require two different testing protocols.

C66 Racing

540 RAT,
Your results don't really surprise me. The 5w40 you tested is a CJ-4, whereas the Series 3000 5w30 is a CI-4+ which allows higher levels of zinc and phosphorus. AMSOIL's technical service bulletin for flat tappet cam engines does list the Series 3000 5w30 as suitable for this application with phosphorus 1266 ppm, zinc 1379 ppm. It does not list the 5w40 you tested. That said, the Series 3000 5w30 is listed as a secondary recommendation as the Z-ROD 10w30 (phosphorus 1320 ppm, zinc 1440 ppm) is specifically designed for the flat tappet cam market and doesn't have additives needed for a diesel engine that serve no benefit in a gasoline engine. So while the Series 3000 5w30 tests well, I personally would still use the Z-ROD 10w30 if I had a flat tappet cam engine myself.

Guyddog

So can I ask a simple question. For those of us that don't research oils and just need to do a oil change on our cars, what do we use and does it cost $10 a qt to get good oil?

I do appreciate your time into this but man once you start reading one can get confused on what to use and where to get it. I can't afford to swap in a roller cam on a car I rarely drive.

Thanks
Guy D

63mako

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c3-t...ppet-oils.html
Post 1 in this thread will give you all the choices you need for a flat tappet engine.

There are oils formulated for anything you drive. High Mileage, Extended change intervals, Motorcycle oils, diesel oils, racing oils, marine oils, 2 cycle oil, lawn and garden oil, snowmobile oil, classic car oil, ECT, ECT. The differences in these oils is the base stock and the additive package. I use the proven best base stock which is Group IV, True synthetic. I also use an oil with an additive package designed for my specific use which is a performance gasoline engine. The oil I choose is AMSOIL AMO 10W-40 @ $8.50 a quart and change it once a year. Other oils will work. Almost any oil will work, for how long and how well is the question. I feel my investment of over $10,000 in my engine is well protected with what I use. The AMSOIL Z-rod 10W-30 is also a great choice and next year I will change over to it. I see no sense in using an oil with a group II or Group III base stock and an additive package specifically formulated to run in a low RPM diesel tractor in a high performance gasoline engine. Diesel oils all run higher ZDDP levels to offset the type of detergents and dispersants they use that do not differentiate between the phosphorous protective film and the ash deposits and buildup they clean from the internals in a diesel.

LPM19

These results and the additional information provided confirm my lean towards Amsoil, a product I've used forever, and religiously in my Harley, with excellent results. After balancing the miles I may put on my 69 350 (I just got it) and the plethora of data here, I'm going to spend a few more $$ per year and use the Amsoil Z-Rod. Now if I can just get that water temp down....

Thanks to all for your expertise and experience.
Leo in NJ

iokepakai

Interesting results,great info! Thanks for taking the time to test and post up your findings.Mako 63 has a valid point about flat tappet pressures.I myself have installed a retro roller cam to avoid all the oil issues surrounding flat tappet cams.Performance gains are worth the costs in my opinion.At first I tried regular dino Chevron 15w-40 oil with the roller cam.Got some tapping noise at start up.Did some research and decided to try Mobil 1 0w-40w that I could buy from Walmart at a great price.This oil has a little more Zinc and PH than the usual 5w-30w Mobil 1 .Right away noticed a smoother running engine and no tapping noise at start up! Would be great to see how this oil performs in your tests.

63mako

I would be interested in the film strength of the Mobil 1 European formula 0W-40 as well. It is a group IV true synthetic with + 1000PPM ZDDP. Seems like a great option for roller and less aggressive flat tappets.

Jeff_Keryk

European Mobil1 0w-40 - Where do you get this stuff?
I will be traveling to Germany next month; perhaps they have a Costco so I can buy a pallet?

Captain bob

I have a 31' Bertram sport fishing boat with twin cummins 6bta 330hp .the engine have about 500 hours on them and cummins says any synthetic oil and all warranties are voided.i started using rotella (new style) and after coming down off plane to idle the very accurate oil alarms would go off from low pressure the oil completely broke down and set off 7 lbs setting of gauges. I turn to valvoline blue (recommended by cummins ) all problems went away and oil still has original consistency after 100 hours.i see you put the rotella ahead of volvoline ,we'll let's put it this way I can get all the rotella I want for free at boat yard but I go out and purchase 7 gallons of blue every 100 hours !

iokepakai

Walmart....Had em in 5 qt jugs.Motor seems to run smoother,could be just my imagination.No tap..tap at startup since use...

iokepakai

I also have diesel powered boat ,2000 Volvo AD41 200hp.Been running Delo 400 15w-40 since new,have 1500hrs on the engine.Tried Rotella once since it was on sale.The usual diesel clatter was a a lot louder at trolling speeds.My fishing buddy noticed the same thing.Got home drained the Rotella and filled with the usual Delo 400.Engine went back to it's normal sound. I noticed Delo has a Syn blend,but the tests results here show the regular Delo better.Go figure!!

lionelhutz

#1 rule of any proper engineering report. You must document the test procedure so everyone knows how you tested and could repeat the tests for themselves. You have failed to provide any useful explanation of the test performed which makes the results useless. Any good engineer will tell you this.

By the use of the film breakdown pressure you do appear to be doing a film strength test and not wear protection testing. Sorry, these are not the same thing.

You have taken the reports which "collaborate" your ZDDP theory out of context. I have read a couple of them and they say that there is a minimum ZDDP level required for protection. I believe around 1300ppm is a good level. Going over about 2000ppm can start to cause issues. You're seem to be claiming that that these reports say that ZDDP simply isn't required and any level is too much. You somewhat got the Penn report correct. Part of the reason a certain ZDDP level is required is to have continued protection during the whole oil change cycle. 800ppm might protect for 300 miles but most people change their oil every 3000 miles.

Unfortunately, your overall top 10 includes oils I would not consider suitable for a high performance flat tappet camm'd engine. It's just sad to read so much sanctimonious "I'm right and all others are wrong" crap being written to support this rather poor list.

v2racing

I have to agree with 63mako and lionelhutz in respect to film strength testing is only one small aspect of oil testing. Oil has many jobs in an engine and it takes a great deal more testing than just film strength to gauge the quality of a given oil.

As far as too much zinc being bad, as with almost anything too much can be bad, but in all the reputable testing I have seen, the too much limit comes in around 1600 PPM. That is well above the limit of any oil I have seen. Cam makers like to see between 1200 and 1400 PPM and that is about where the oils designed for flat tappet or race use usually falls. I don't think that is a coincidence!

63mako

Walmart

ddawson

Jeff, Autozone carries it too. 0W-40 and the Castrol 0W-30 are called European because it meets the requirements of BMW, Volvo etc.

BTW for those who like to quote it's bad for cats, my 29 year old original Cat Mustang still passes the California Emissions test so how bad can ZDDP really be??

v2racing

Over reaction by the EPA and CARB as in most environmental issues!