Lessons learned from Motor Oil Wear Testing
Thread Starter
Pro
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 625
Likes: 49
From: Southern California
Lessons learned from Motor Oil Wear Testing
The original “Motor Oil Wear Test Results” thread was getting old, tired and I imagine confusing for some. So I decided to start a new follow-up thread to discuss the “Lessons Learned” from that testing. But first I want to address a couple of things that came up during that first discussion, so that those who may be confused by the whole thing, can get things straight in the minds.
Some folks complained that this “Lab” testing was basically worthless because the testing wasn’t performed in an actual running engine. The uninformed should be aware that “Lab” testing is the gold standard for countless companies in many, many industries. It shortens development time, and allows them to design and build a quality product in a timely manner. And of course time is money, in industry. In fact, many companies simply could not compete or even exist without lab testing.
Here’s one example. You simply cannot test a new jet aircraft in actual flight, to see at what point its wings will break off. So, you MUST perform static “Lab” testing on the ground, to determine that information.
It is similar with this oil testing, in that not all testing is practical in a running engine, even though in a perfect world that would be ideal. Try testing 44 different oils in an engine, with the "exact same" conditions every time, and doing all that in a timely manner. That simply would NOT be possible. So, that’s were oil “LAB” testing comes in. And wouldn't you rather select an oil that "Lab” tests well, rather than one that does not? Or even worse, have no real idea what oil to select, and simply have to go by your gut feeling, or have to go by advertising hype, or have to pick the prettiest bottle, or to have to simply guess?
I choose to use technical data for determining which oil to select for myself. So, I invested a lot of time and money to perform motor oil “Lab” torture testing, at a representative oil temperature, in order to generate that data. Because you simply cannot find this data anywhere else.
The tester's psi numbers are generated from a non-rotating test specimen simply being “gradually” pressed down onto a spinning ring, that's it. And that gradual application of the load, allows time for the local friction point to heat up to so that the heat activated zinc can become effective. No engine parts are designed that way. Testers and engines are NOT the same, and are NOT intended to be the same. Lab testing speeds up the evaluation process so that you don't have to wait 100,000 miles to see what happened.
And some folks also complained that the “Lab” testing did not allow high zinc/phos oils the ability to perform as well as they could, because the high zinc/phos oils did not dominate the top of the ranking list. But I beg to differ. The following high zinc/phos oils were ranked in the top OUTSTANDING PROTECTION category of the ranking list, and all had over 90,000 psi capability.
*** Lucas 10W30 Racing Only
*** Valvoline 10W30 NSL (not street legal) Conventional Racing Oil
*** Valvoline 10W30 VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle)
*** Valvoline 10W30 VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle)
*** Amsoil 10W30 Z-Rod Oil
It is very clear here, that the “Lab” testing DID in fact, allow high zinc/phos oils to perform as well as they could. If the testing did not allow those oils to perform as well as they could, then these oils would NOT have ended up in the top ranked category, and would have instead ended up near the bottom with some of the other lower performing high zinc/phos oils. This stuff is NOT hard to grasp, comprehend or understand. It is NOT Rocket Science. The testing was a real world test, not some flaky theory. And it is pretty darn hard to argue with a real world test. If someone cannot grasp all this, then perhaps they should consider switching to a less technical hobby like Bowling.
And if anyone thinks they can provide BETTER data, this extensive, that directly compares all these oils at a meaningful temperature, then I challenge them to do so.
So, now on with the “LESSONS LEARNED” from this testing:
*** The latest API certified street oils that use a newer and different chemistry instead of old school high levels of zinc/phos, have generally surpassed the traditional High Performance and Racing Oils in wear prevention capability. The oil industry knows what it is doing, and the latest API certified oils are generally outstanding, in spite of what Hotrodders and Racers have been brain-washed to believe. And as further proof that you do NOT need high levels of zinc/phos for High Performance engines, I present exhibit A:
Joe Gibbs 10W30 XP3 (NASCAR) Racing Oil
zinc = 743 ppm
phos = 802 ppm
This oil is also in the OUTSTANDING PROTECTION category, with over 90,000 psi capability.
This oil has zinc/phos levels like modern API SN oils. It is nothing like traditional high zinc/phos oils. And no engines are subjected to more demanding endurance stress that NASCAR racing engines. Is there anyone here who has the courage to put their credibility on the line, and say that this low zinc/phos oil is no good for Racing engines? I didn’t think so, and I rest my case.
*** Simply having high levels of zinc/phos was absolutely NOT a guarantee of high “load carrying capacity/film strength”. Some high zinc/phos oils had excellent test results, while other high zinc/phos oils had only fair test results.
*** This testing has clearly shown that a particular oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength”, is NOT determined just by its zinc/phos levels, but rather, it is determined by the oil and its additive package “as a whole”. So, if people choose an oil strictly based on its zinc/phos levels, they could easily end up having a “LOT LESS” protection than they think they have.
*** People need to get with the program, and realize that you do not HAVE to have high levels of zinc/phos for engine protection. Alternate motor oil chemistry now in use, can be as good or better than high levels of zinc/phos. Its fine if you do want to use high levels of zinc/phos, but it is NOT mandatory.
*** This testing has clearly shown that an oil’s viscosity is also absolutely NOT an indicator of its “load carrying capacity/film strength”. Among the 44 oils tested here, 50 wt type oils ranked from 6th to 40th, 30 wt type oils ranked from 1st to 44th, and 20 wt type oils ranked from 10th to 35st. So again, an oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength” is determined by the oil and its additive package “as a whole”, nothing else.
*** This testing has clearly shown that you simply CANNOT PREDICT an oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength” by looking at its specs or its viscosity. You can only determine that capability by performing some type of actual wear testing.
*** The latest “LOW” zinc/phos API certified oils, both synthetic and conventional, are very good oils. In fact, they are so good that their capability has surpassed most of the traditional high zinc/phos High Performance and Racing oils. There are other motor oil additive components that provide extreme pressure protection besides zinc and phos. And some of those other components are used in modern oil so that the catalytic converters are not fouled.
*** There is not much real difference between synthetic and conventional oils in terms of “load carrying capacity/film strength” or wear protection. The biggest difference is that synthetic oils can tolerate temps up to around 325*F before breaking down. But conventional oils can only tolerate temps up to around 290*F before breaking down.
*** “Low cost” conventional API certified oils have extremely good capability. If an oil has the API SN certification, it will be quite good.
*** There were no BAD oils in this test. Some are simply better than others in terms of “load carrying capacity/film strength”. Those that have a higher capacity, offer a higher margin of safety than those with a lower capacity, that’s all.
At the end of the day, you can simply run the oil you have always run, or you can consider some highly capable oils that you would have never ever considered, before this testing was done. There is really nothing to get all worked up about here. You just have more data for reference, than you had before. It’s all good…………….
Some folks complained that this “Lab” testing was basically worthless because the testing wasn’t performed in an actual running engine. The uninformed should be aware that “Lab” testing is the gold standard for countless companies in many, many industries. It shortens development time, and allows them to design and build a quality product in a timely manner. And of course time is money, in industry. In fact, many companies simply could not compete or even exist without lab testing.
Here’s one example. You simply cannot test a new jet aircraft in actual flight, to see at what point its wings will break off. So, you MUST perform static “Lab” testing on the ground, to determine that information.
It is similar with this oil testing, in that not all testing is practical in a running engine, even though in a perfect world that would be ideal. Try testing 44 different oils in an engine, with the "exact same" conditions every time, and doing all that in a timely manner. That simply would NOT be possible. So, that’s were oil “LAB” testing comes in. And wouldn't you rather select an oil that "Lab” tests well, rather than one that does not? Or even worse, have no real idea what oil to select, and simply have to go by your gut feeling, or have to go by advertising hype, or have to pick the prettiest bottle, or to have to simply guess?
I choose to use technical data for determining which oil to select for myself. So, I invested a lot of time and money to perform motor oil “Lab” torture testing, at a representative oil temperature, in order to generate that data. Because you simply cannot find this data anywhere else.
The tester's psi numbers are generated from a non-rotating test specimen simply being “gradually” pressed down onto a spinning ring, that's it. And that gradual application of the load, allows time for the local friction point to heat up to so that the heat activated zinc can become effective. No engine parts are designed that way. Testers and engines are NOT the same, and are NOT intended to be the same. Lab testing speeds up the evaluation process so that you don't have to wait 100,000 miles to see what happened.
And some folks also complained that the “Lab” testing did not allow high zinc/phos oils the ability to perform as well as they could, because the high zinc/phos oils did not dominate the top of the ranking list. But I beg to differ. The following high zinc/phos oils were ranked in the top OUTSTANDING PROTECTION category of the ranking list, and all had over 90,000 psi capability.
*** Lucas 10W30 Racing Only
*** Valvoline 10W30 NSL (not street legal) Conventional Racing Oil
*** Valvoline 10W30 VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle)
*** Valvoline 10W30 VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle)
*** Amsoil 10W30 Z-Rod Oil
It is very clear here, that the “Lab” testing DID in fact, allow high zinc/phos oils to perform as well as they could. If the testing did not allow those oils to perform as well as they could, then these oils would NOT have ended up in the top ranked category, and would have instead ended up near the bottom with some of the other lower performing high zinc/phos oils. This stuff is NOT hard to grasp, comprehend or understand. It is NOT Rocket Science. The testing was a real world test, not some flaky theory. And it is pretty darn hard to argue with a real world test. If someone cannot grasp all this, then perhaps they should consider switching to a less technical hobby like Bowling.
And if anyone thinks they can provide BETTER data, this extensive, that directly compares all these oils at a meaningful temperature, then I challenge them to do so.
So, now on with the “LESSONS LEARNED” from this testing:
*** The latest API certified street oils that use a newer and different chemistry instead of old school high levels of zinc/phos, have generally surpassed the traditional High Performance and Racing Oils in wear prevention capability. The oil industry knows what it is doing, and the latest API certified oils are generally outstanding, in spite of what Hotrodders and Racers have been brain-washed to believe. And as further proof that you do NOT need high levels of zinc/phos for High Performance engines, I present exhibit A:
Joe Gibbs 10W30 XP3 (NASCAR) Racing Oil
zinc = 743 ppm
phos = 802 ppm
This oil is also in the OUTSTANDING PROTECTION category, with over 90,000 psi capability.
This oil has zinc/phos levels like modern API SN oils. It is nothing like traditional high zinc/phos oils. And no engines are subjected to more demanding endurance stress that NASCAR racing engines. Is there anyone here who has the courage to put their credibility on the line, and say that this low zinc/phos oil is no good for Racing engines? I didn’t think so, and I rest my case.
*** Simply having high levels of zinc/phos was absolutely NOT a guarantee of high “load carrying capacity/film strength”. Some high zinc/phos oils had excellent test results, while other high zinc/phos oils had only fair test results.
*** This testing has clearly shown that a particular oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength”, is NOT determined just by its zinc/phos levels, but rather, it is determined by the oil and its additive package “as a whole”. So, if people choose an oil strictly based on its zinc/phos levels, they could easily end up having a “LOT LESS” protection than they think they have.
*** People need to get with the program, and realize that you do not HAVE to have high levels of zinc/phos for engine protection. Alternate motor oil chemistry now in use, can be as good or better than high levels of zinc/phos. Its fine if you do want to use high levels of zinc/phos, but it is NOT mandatory.
*** This testing has clearly shown that an oil’s viscosity is also absolutely NOT an indicator of its “load carrying capacity/film strength”. Among the 44 oils tested here, 50 wt type oils ranked from 6th to 40th, 30 wt type oils ranked from 1st to 44th, and 20 wt type oils ranked from 10th to 35st. So again, an oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength” is determined by the oil and its additive package “as a whole”, nothing else.
*** This testing has clearly shown that you simply CANNOT PREDICT an oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength” by looking at its specs or its viscosity. You can only determine that capability by performing some type of actual wear testing.
*** The latest “LOW” zinc/phos API certified oils, both synthetic and conventional, are very good oils. In fact, they are so good that their capability has surpassed most of the traditional high zinc/phos High Performance and Racing oils. There are other motor oil additive components that provide extreme pressure protection besides zinc and phos. And some of those other components are used in modern oil so that the catalytic converters are not fouled.
*** There is not much real difference between synthetic and conventional oils in terms of “load carrying capacity/film strength” or wear protection. The biggest difference is that synthetic oils can tolerate temps up to around 325*F before breaking down. But conventional oils can only tolerate temps up to around 290*F before breaking down.
*** “Low cost” conventional API certified oils have extremely good capability. If an oil has the API SN certification, it will be quite good.
*** There were no BAD oils in this test. Some are simply better than others in terms of “load carrying capacity/film strength”. Those that have a higher capacity, offer a higher margin of safety than those with a lower capacity, that’s all.
At the end of the day, you can simply run the oil you have always run, or you can consider some highly capable oils that you would have never ever considered, before this testing was done. There is really nothing to get all worked up about here. You just have more data for reference, than you had before. It’s all good…………….
Le Mans Master
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,403
Likes: 95
I suspect if we could go back open up a can of oil from the 60s with all there zddp or whatever additives they knew to use in that time period compare them to modern oils you would see what a joke they were compared to todays oil quality. Like trying to compare an old vette to a new one no comparison in quality.
I remember seeing tons of slow ramp flat tappit performance cams of that era with wiped lobes and lifters with all there zddp. People did not complain because thats all you could get back then short of a full race solid roller cam.
If i could go back in time id rather poor any modern oil regardles of zzdp rating in my car then the crap that was around in the 1960s.
I remember seeing tons of slow ramp flat tappit performance cams of that era with wiped lobes and lifters with all there zddp. People did not complain because thats all you could get back then short of a full race solid roller cam.
If i could go back in time id rather poor any modern oil regardles of zzdp rating in my car then the crap that was around in the 1960s.
Last edited by Little Mouse; Mar 28, 2012 at 03:35 PM.
Burning Brakes
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 4
From: Concord Calif
The original “Motor Oil Wear Test Results” thread was getting old, tired and I imagine confusing for some. So I decided to start a new follow-up thread to discuss the “Lessons Learned” from that testing. But first I want to address a couple of things that came up during that first discussion, so that those who may be confused by the whole thing, can get things straight in the minds.
Some folks complained that this “Lab” testing was basically worthless because the testing wasn’t performed in an actual running engine. The uninformed should be aware that “Lab” testing is the gold standard for countless companies in many, many industries. It shortens development time, and allows them to design and build a quality product in a timely manner. And of course time is money, in industry. In fact, many companies simply could not compete or even exist without lab testing.
Here’s one example. You simply cannot test a new jet aircraft in actual flight, to see at what point its wings will break off. So, you MUST perform static “Lab” testing on the ground, to determine that information.
It is similar with this oil testing, in that not all testing is practical in a running engine, even though in a perfect world that would be ideal. Try testing 44 different oils in an engine, with the "exact same" conditions every time, and doing all that in a timely manner. That simply would NOT be possible. So, that’s were oil “LAB” testing comes in. And wouldn't you rather select an oil that "Lab” tests well, rather than one that does not? Or even worse, have no real idea what oil to select, and simply have to go by your gut feeling, or have to go by advertising hype, or have to pick the prettiest bottle, or to have to simply guess?
I choose to use technical data for determining which oil to select for myself. So, I invested a lot of time and money to perform motor oil “Lab” torture testing, at a representative oil temperature, in order to generate that data. Because you simply cannot find this data anywhere else.
The tester's psi numbers are generated from a non-rotating test specimen simply being “gradually” pressed down onto a spinning ring, that's it. And that gradual application of the load, allows time for the local friction point to heat up to so that the heat activated zinc can become effective. No engine parts are designed that way. Testers and engines are NOT the same, and are NOT intended to be the same. Lab testing speeds up the evaluation process so that you don't have to wait 100,000 miles to see what happened.
And some folks also complained that the “Lab” testing did not allow high zinc/phos oils the ability to perform as well as they could, because the high zinc/phos oils did not dominate the top of the ranking list. But I beg to differ. The following high zinc/phos oils were ranked in the top OUTSTANDING PROTECTION category of the ranking list, and all had over 90,000 psi capability.
*** Lucas 10W30 Racing Only
*** Valvoline 10W30 NSL (not street legal) Conventional Racing Oil
*** Valvoline 10W30 VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle)
*** Valvoline 10W30 VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle)
*** Amsoil 10W30 Z-Rod Oil
It is very clear here, that the “Lab” testing DID in fact, allow high zinc/phos oils to perform as well as they could. If the testing did not allow those oils to perform as well as they could, then these oils would NOT have ended up in the top ranked category, and would have instead ended up near the bottom with some of the other lower performing high zinc/phos oils. This stuff is NOT hard to grasp, comprehend or understand. It is NOT Rocket Science. The testing was a real world test, not some flaky theory. And it is pretty darn hard to argue with a real world test. If someone cannot grasp all this, then perhaps they should consider switching to a less technical hobby like Bowling.
And if anyone thinks they can provide BETTER data, this extensive, that directly compares all these oils at a meaningful temperature, then I challenge them to do so.
So, now on with the “LESSONS LEARNED” from this testing:
*** The latest API certified street oils that use a newer and different chemistry instead of old school high levels of zinc/phos, have generally surpassed the traditional High Performance and Racing Oils in wear prevention capability. The oil industry knows what it is doing, and the latest API certified oils are generally outstanding, in spite of what Hotrodders and Racers have been brain-washed to believe. And as further proof that you do NOT need high levels of zinc/phos for High Performance engines, I present exhibit A:
Joe Gibbs 10W30 XP3 (NASCAR) Racing Oil
zinc = 743 ppm
phos = 802 ppm
This oil is also in the OUTSTANDING PROTECTION category, with over 90,000 psi capability.
This oil has zinc/phos levels like modern API SN oils. It is nothing like traditional high zinc/phos oils. And no engines are subjected to more demanding endurance stress that NASCAR racing engines. Is there anyone here who has the courage to put their credibility on the line, and say that this low zinc/phos oil is no good for Racing engines? I didn’t think so, and I rest my case.
*** Simply having high levels of zinc/phos was absolutely NOT a guarantee of high “load carrying capacity/film strength”. Some high zinc/phos oils had excellent test results, while other high zinc/phos oils had only fair test results.
*** This testing has clearly shown that a particular oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength”, is NOT determined just by its zinc/phos levels, but rather, it is determined by the oil and its additive package “as a whole”. So, if people choose an oil strictly based on its zinc/phos levels, they could easily end up having a “LOT LESS” protection than they think they have.
*** People need to get with the program, and realize that you do not HAVE to have high levels of zinc/phos for engine protection. Alternate motor oil chemistry now in use, can be as good or better than high levels of zinc/phos. Its fine if you do want to use high levels of zinc/phos, but it is NOT mandatory.
*** This testing has clearly shown that an oil’s viscosity is also absolutely NOT an indicator of its “load carrying capacity/film strength”. Among the 44 oils tested here, 50 wt type oils ranked from 6th to 40th, 30 wt type oils ranked from 1st to 44th, and 20 wt type oils ranked from 10th to 35st. So again, an oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength” is determined by the oil and its additive package “as a whole”, nothing else.
*** This testing has clearly shown that you simply CANNOT PREDICT an oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength” by looking at its specs or its viscosity. You can only determine that capability by performing some type of actual wear testing.
*** The latest “LOW” zinc/phos API certified oils, both synthetic and conventional, are very good oils. In fact, they are so good that their capability has surpassed most of the traditional high zinc/phos High Performance and Racing oils. There are other motor oil additive components that provide extreme pressure protection besides zinc and phos. And some of those other components are used in modern oil so that the catalytic converters are not fouled.
*** There is not much real difference between synthetic and conventional oils in terms of “load carrying capacity/film strength” or wear protection. The biggest difference is that synthetic oils can tolerate temps up to around 325*F before breaking down. But conventional oils can only tolerate temps up to around 290*F before breaking down.
*** “Low cost” conventional API certified oils have extremely good capability. If an oil has the API SN certification, it will be quite good.
*** There were no BAD oils in this test. Some are simply better than others in terms of “load carrying capacity/film strength”. Those that have a higher capacity, offer a higher margin of safety than those with a lower capacity, that’s all.
At the end of the day, you can simply run the oil you have always run, or you can consider some highly capable oils that you would have never ever considered, before this testing was done. There is really nothing to get all worked up about here. You just have more data for reference, than you had before. It’s all good…………….
Some folks complained that this “Lab” testing was basically worthless because the testing wasn’t performed in an actual running engine. The uninformed should be aware that “Lab” testing is the gold standard for countless companies in many, many industries. It shortens development time, and allows them to design and build a quality product in a timely manner. And of course time is money, in industry. In fact, many companies simply could not compete or even exist without lab testing.
Here’s one example. You simply cannot test a new jet aircraft in actual flight, to see at what point its wings will break off. So, you MUST perform static “Lab” testing on the ground, to determine that information.
It is similar with this oil testing, in that not all testing is practical in a running engine, even though in a perfect world that would be ideal. Try testing 44 different oils in an engine, with the "exact same" conditions every time, and doing all that in a timely manner. That simply would NOT be possible. So, that’s were oil “LAB” testing comes in. And wouldn't you rather select an oil that "Lab” tests well, rather than one that does not? Or even worse, have no real idea what oil to select, and simply have to go by your gut feeling, or have to go by advertising hype, or have to pick the prettiest bottle, or to have to simply guess?
I choose to use technical data for determining which oil to select for myself. So, I invested a lot of time and money to perform motor oil “Lab” torture testing, at a representative oil temperature, in order to generate that data. Because you simply cannot find this data anywhere else.
The tester's psi numbers are generated from a non-rotating test specimen simply being “gradually” pressed down onto a spinning ring, that's it. And that gradual application of the load, allows time for the local friction point to heat up to so that the heat activated zinc can become effective. No engine parts are designed that way. Testers and engines are NOT the same, and are NOT intended to be the same. Lab testing speeds up the evaluation process so that you don't have to wait 100,000 miles to see what happened.
And some folks also complained that the “Lab” testing did not allow high zinc/phos oils the ability to perform as well as they could, because the high zinc/phos oils did not dominate the top of the ranking list. But I beg to differ. The following high zinc/phos oils were ranked in the top OUTSTANDING PROTECTION category of the ranking list, and all had over 90,000 psi capability.
*** Lucas 10W30 Racing Only
*** Valvoline 10W30 NSL (not street legal) Conventional Racing Oil
*** Valvoline 10W30 VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle)
*** Valvoline 10W30 VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle)
*** Amsoil 10W30 Z-Rod Oil
It is very clear here, that the “Lab” testing DID in fact, allow high zinc/phos oils to perform as well as they could. If the testing did not allow those oils to perform as well as they could, then these oils would NOT have ended up in the top ranked category, and would have instead ended up near the bottom with some of the other lower performing high zinc/phos oils. This stuff is NOT hard to grasp, comprehend or understand. It is NOT Rocket Science. The testing was a real world test, not some flaky theory. And it is pretty darn hard to argue with a real world test. If someone cannot grasp all this, then perhaps they should consider switching to a less technical hobby like Bowling.
And if anyone thinks they can provide BETTER data, this extensive, that directly compares all these oils at a meaningful temperature, then I challenge them to do so.
So, now on with the “LESSONS LEARNED” from this testing:
*** The latest API certified street oils that use a newer and different chemistry instead of old school high levels of zinc/phos, have generally surpassed the traditional High Performance and Racing Oils in wear prevention capability. The oil industry knows what it is doing, and the latest API certified oils are generally outstanding, in spite of what Hotrodders and Racers have been brain-washed to believe. And as further proof that you do NOT need high levels of zinc/phos for High Performance engines, I present exhibit A:
Joe Gibbs 10W30 XP3 (NASCAR) Racing Oil
zinc = 743 ppm
phos = 802 ppm
This oil is also in the OUTSTANDING PROTECTION category, with over 90,000 psi capability.
This oil has zinc/phos levels like modern API SN oils. It is nothing like traditional high zinc/phos oils. And no engines are subjected to more demanding endurance stress that NASCAR racing engines. Is there anyone here who has the courage to put their credibility on the line, and say that this low zinc/phos oil is no good for Racing engines? I didn’t think so, and I rest my case.
*** Simply having high levels of zinc/phos was absolutely NOT a guarantee of high “load carrying capacity/film strength”. Some high zinc/phos oils had excellent test results, while other high zinc/phos oils had only fair test results.
*** This testing has clearly shown that a particular oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength”, is NOT determined just by its zinc/phos levels, but rather, it is determined by the oil and its additive package “as a whole”. So, if people choose an oil strictly based on its zinc/phos levels, they could easily end up having a “LOT LESS” protection than they think they have.
*** People need to get with the program, and realize that you do not HAVE to have high levels of zinc/phos for engine protection. Alternate motor oil chemistry now in use, can be as good or better than high levels of zinc/phos. Its fine if you do want to use high levels of zinc/phos, but it is NOT mandatory.
*** This testing has clearly shown that an oil’s viscosity is also absolutely NOT an indicator of its “load carrying capacity/film strength”. Among the 44 oils tested here, 50 wt type oils ranked from 6th to 40th, 30 wt type oils ranked from 1st to 44th, and 20 wt type oils ranked from 10th to 35st. So again, an oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength” is determined by the oil and its additive package “as a whole”, nothing else.
*** This testing has clearly shown that you simply CANNOT PREDICT an oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength” by looking at its specs or its viscosity. You can only determine that capability by performing some type of actual wear testing.
*** The latest “LOW” zinc/phos API certified oils, both synthetic and conventional, are very good oils. In fact, they are so good that their capability has surpassed most of the traditional high zinc/phos High Performance and Racing oils. There are other motor oil additive components that provide extreme pressure protection besides zinc and phos. And some of those other components are used in modern oil so that the catalytic converters are not fouled.
*** There is not much real difference between synthetic and conventional oils in terms of “load carrying capacity/film strength” or wear protection. The biggest difference is that synthetic oils can tolerate temps up to around 325*F before breaking down. But conventional oils can only tolerate temps up to around 290*F before breaking down.
*** “Low cost” conventional API certified oils have extremely good capability. If an oil has the API SN certification, it will be quite good.
*** There were no BAD oils in this test. Some are simply better than others in terms of “load carrying capacity/film strength”. Those that have a higher capacity, offer a higher margin of safety than those with a lower capacity, that’s all.
At the end of the day, you can simply run the oil you have always run, or you can consider some highly capable oils that you would have never ever considered, before this testing was done. There is really nothing to get all worked up about here. You just have more data for reference, than you had before. It’s all good…………….
Believe what you will, but an oil company cannot meet or receive any level of ratings without doing real running engine testing no if's!! Most all the "sequence" testing is run by ASTM set rules to meet a given rating. Bench testings is the first step to see if a product merit's any further testing but the bench test is never accepted by ASTM as whole and complete. There are set engines these test have to be run in and the parts for the engines and test stands are qualified to a set standard. There is much more to this than what I have said here, but the point is your small beginning stage of an oil test means nothing to the finished products performance.
Race Director
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 122
From: Millington Illinois
St. Jude Donor '08-'09
You are making a lot of assumptions. You tested film srength.That is all you tested. Film strength is a measure of the amount of pressure it takes to break the film of oil. Viscocity modifiers increase film strength. They are an additive, They break down with use. Conventional oils use a lot of viscocity improvers, some more than others. Synthetics don't need them. This the main reason synthetics can run extended oil change intervals. Viscocity modifiers will not protect a flat tappet cam. They are not an antiwear additive. A 30 second test is not sufficiant time for the sacrificial layer that ZDDP deposits on the lobes and lifters to develop. This sacrificial layer is an ongoing process. It takes heat, pressure and time to develop. If your test results were affected by the sacrificial layer they would skew your results since the test you are performing is a test for film strength not antiwear additives. Film strength is a measure of the amount of pressure it takes to break the film of oil, No oil has sufficiant film strength alone to protect the flat tappet cam/lobe interface. The sliding, over 200000 psi force at a flat tappet lifter/lobe interface will break any oils film strength. The main antiwear protection at this point once the oil film is broken is the sacrificial layer built up over time from the heat and pressure this area sees when the engine is running. No where in a modern roller cammed engine is this type of sliding high pressure force seen. You are drawing conclusions from your test that are not relevant to a flat tappet lobe/lifter interface. By stating these conclusions as facts you are leading people to believe that ZDDP is not required to protect their flat tappet cams. Cam manufacturers, oil companies, lubrication engineers and thousands of victims of flat tappet cam failures will disagree with your conclusions. If you are an engineer you should know better.
Last edited by 63mako; Mar 30, 2012 at 12:44 AM. Reason: spelling
Race Director
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 122
From: Millington Illinois
St. Jude Donor '08-'09
I suspect if we could go back open up a can of oil from the 60s with all there zddp or whatever additives they knew to use in that time period compare them to modern oils you would see what a joke they were compared to todays oil quality. Like trying to compare an old vette to a new one no comparison in quality.
I remember seeing tons of slow ramp flat tappit performance cams of that era with wiped lobes and lifters with all there zddp. People did not complain because thats all you could get back then short of a full race solid roller cam.
If i could go back in time id rather poor any modern oil regardles of zzdp rating in my car then the crap that was around in the 1960s.
I remember seeing tons of slow ramp flat tappit performance cams of that era with wiped lobes and lifters with all there zddp. People did not complain because thats all you could get back then short of a full race solid roller cam.
If i could go back in time id rather poor any modern oil regardles of zzdp rating in my car then the crap that was around in the 1960s.
Oil tech has progressed. The additive packages in todays oil is light years ahead of the 60's. That said ZDDP is still the most common and best antiwear additive. Moly and boron are also common antiwear additives but nothing else in modern oils provide the sacrificial layer on highly stressed components that ZDDP does. It is in all oil formulations and usually at close to the highest levels allowed by the EPA. There is a good reason for this. It is the best and only anti wear additive that deposits this additional protective layer bonded to the stressed parts to prevent metal to metal contact at pressures that exceed the film strength breaking point.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,231
Likes: 65
From: Seattle WA
St. Jude Donor '14
You tested film strength.That is all you tested.
You are drawing conclusions from your test that are not relevant to a flat tappet lobe/lifter interface. By stating these conclusions as facts you are leading people to believe that ZDDP is not required to protect their flat tappet cams. Cam manufacturers, oil companies, lubrication engineers and thousands of victims of flat tappet cam failures will disagree with your conclusions.
You are drawing conclusions from your test that are not relevant to a flat tappet lobe/lifter interface. By stating these conclusions as facts you are leading people to believe that ZDDP is not required to protect their flat tappet cams. Cam manufacturers, oil companies, lubrication engineers and thousands of victims of flat tappet cam failures will disagree with your conclusions.
These are the key points.I recognize the effort and accomplishment, and for the one aspect tested it is very complete and comprehensive. But conclusions from the testing are extrapolations without foundation. Add in that the OP didn't engage any industry expertise in the process to validate the connection he made between film strength and other conclusions and the information becomes very one-dimensional. The testing methodology was simply not complete enough for the conclusions reached.
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Le Mans Master
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,403
Likes: 95
Oil tech has progressed. The additive packages in todays oil is light years ahead of the 60's. That said ZDDP is still the most common and best antiwear additive. Moly and boron are also common antiwear additives but nothing else in modern oils provide the sacrificial layer on highly stressed components that ZDDP does. It is in all oil formulations and usually at close to the highest levels allowed by the EPA. There is a good reason for this. It is the best and only anti wear additive that deposits this additional protective layer bonded to the stressed parts to prevent metal to metal contact at pressures that exceed the film strength breaking point.Then there is the luxry of simply doing away with any chance of a problem and use a hydraulic roller or a soild roller at least designed with milder ramps for street use without having to run 550 lbs or more of spring pressure. Can you discount an oil simply on what zddp it claims to use i doubt it because you do not know what else is in it that may well make it the better oil to use.
Last edited by Little Mouse; Mar 30, 2012 at 12:46 AM.
Race Director
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 122
From: Millington Illinois
St. Jude Donor '08-'09
I do agree that ZDDP is not the total picture. I am also not totally discounting 540rat's testing. What I am questioning is the assumption from the film stregth test that the highest testing film strength oil would be the best choice for a modern designed flat tappet cam. My previous posts on the original thread I suggested that 540rat's testing results combined with a higher ZDDP level would be a good indicator of an oils ability to protect a flat tappet cam. There are quite a few options that meet both requirements and if I was running a flat tappet cam I would not base my oil choice solely on the film strength testing. I would take it into consideration but also look at ZDDP levels. The final determinig factor for me would be a synthetic for the numerous other benefits. I would also rightfully assume that the conventional oils that are testing higher in the film strength test also have increased levels of viscocity modifiers which are not needed in true synthetics. I have been using Amsoil 10W-40 AMO. I wish the list of oils in the first post in the flat tappet oil sticky would have all been tested. Many of the SM and SN rated oils also have elevated detergent levels which greatly reduce the ability of the ZDDP in the oil to do it's job. This doesn't matter in a roller engine.
Here is a great link:
http://www.joegibbsracingoil.com/tra...aboutzinc.html
And another:
http://www.joegibbsracingoil.com/tra...detergent.html
Here is a great link:
http://www.joegibbsracingoil.com/tra...aboutzinc.html
And another:
http://www.joegibbsracingoil.com/tra...detergent.html
Last edited by 63mako; Mar 30, 2012 at 01:02 AM.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,403
Likes: 95
I do agree that ZDDP is not the total picture. I am also not totally discounting 540rat's testing. What I am questioning is the assumption from the film stregth test that the highest testing film strength oil would be the best choice for a modern designed flat tappet cam. My previous posts on the original thread I suggested that 540rat's testing results combined with a higher ZDDP level would be a good indicator of an oils ability to protect a flat tappet cam. There are quite a few options that meet both requirements and if I was running a flat tappet cam I would not base my oil choice solely on the film strength testing. I would take it into consideration but also look at ZDDP levels. The final determinig factor for me would be a synthetic for the numerous other benefits. I would also rightfully assume that the conventional oils that are testing higher in the film strength test also have increased levels of viscocity modifiers which are not needed in true synthetics. I have been using Amsoil 10W-40 AMO. I wish the list of oils in the first post in the flat tappet oil sticky would have all been tested. Many of the SM and SN rated oils also have elevated detergent levels which greatly reduce the ability of the ZDDP in the oil to do it's job. This doesn't matter in a roller engine.
Here is a great link:
http://www.joegibbsracingoil.com/tra...aboutzinc.html
And another:
http://www.joegibbsracingoil.com/tra...detergent.html
Here is a great link:
http://www.joegibbsracingoil.com/tra...aboutzinc.html
And another:
http://www.joegibbsracingoil.com/tra...detergent.html
Diesels are nothing like a car engine they flow 12 gallons of oil around in the engine in semi trucks there engines are subjected to 35 pounds of boost for 750,000 miles and somtimes longer before a rebuild pulling big time loads, You can probably bet there oils film strength is plenty tuff.
Mobile has a severe duty diesel oil still with the high levels of zddp not for the later trucks use. Be interesting to see it tested.
Last edited by Little Mouse; Mar 30, 2012 at 02:46 AM.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,739
Likes: 630
From: Unreconstructed, South Carolina
540 rat:
if/when you have an opportunity to acquire ... would like to learn your direct results from most recent offering of Non-synthetic Shell Rotella 15W-40 diesel oil ... many continue to swear by it or its equivalents and they're available most anywhere-anytime at low price. Thanks for your time & expense.
FWIW, I do Not believe P nor Zn are the only two oil attributes providing primary lobe-lifter face protection. That's my tail & I'm still sittin' on it.
if/when you have an opportunity to acquire ... would like to learn your direct results from most recent offering of Non-synthetic Shell Rotella 15W-40 diesel oil ... many continue to swear by it or its equivalents and they're available most anywhere-anytime at low price. Thanks for your time & expense.
FWIW, I do Not believe P nor Zn are the only two oil attributes providing primary lobe-lifter face protection. That's my tail & I'm still sittin' on it.
Burning Brakes
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 14
From: LaMoille Illinois
not to add my ignorance to the discussion but i have a 355 that was built in 94 with a comp cam 280 magnum cam and hydraulic lifters ( also comp) that i have beat on over and over with many 7000 rpm shifts and have used nothing but standard valvoline 10w-40.
oil changes ever 2500-3000 miles and this thing runs like the day i bought it!!!
only issues i have had are starters a new water pump and a new fuel pump.
if you ask me the heavier 50 weights are to thick on start up so unless your running a full on race car not needed!!
im no engineer or scientist but i do know what works for me.....
oil changes ever 2500-3000 miles and this thing runs like the day i bought it!!!
only issues i have had are starters a new water pump and a new fuel pump.
if you ask me the heavier 50 weights are to thick on start up so unless your running a full on race car not needed!!
im no engineer or scientist but i do know what works for me.....
Team Owner
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 37,637
Likes: 3,118
From: Crossville TN
My supposition {and I will clearly state that it is only my supposition} is that the problem of wiping cam lobes lies with the cam manufacturers who are using poor quality steel and or poor quality heat treating of that steel. I highly doubt that the oil is the deciding factor in this whole 'boondoggle'. [...just sayin'....] 
Drifting
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,886
Likes: 9
I wonder if the higher incidence of cam deterioration of older engines is related to how these old cars are used nowadays. If a car is only driven occasionally, most of the oil will drip down into the pan between uses. Then, on a cold startup, the cam lobes are dry. I suspect that most of the cam wear takes place right then, in the first few seconds of operation, before oil flow is restored. Probably, we need to find an oil that will stick to the cam lobes for a couple of weeks. Not sure if that is a "tested characteristic" in the previous poster's results.
Just thinking out loud............
Just thinking out loud............
Race Director
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 122
From: Millington Illinois
St. Jude Donor '08-'09
I wonder if the higher incidence of cam deterioration of older engines is related to how these old cars are used nowadays. If a car is only driven occasionally, most of the oil will drip down into the pan between uses. Then, on a cold startup, the cam lobes are dry. I suspect that most of the cam wear takes place right then, in the first few seconds of operation, before oil flow is restored. Probably, we need to find an oil that will stick to the cam lobes for a couple of weeks. Not sure if that is a "tested characteristic" in the previous poster's results.
Just thinking out loud............
Just thinking out loud............
Hydraulic intensity is the problem with modern flat tappet cams.http://forums.corvetteforum.com/1569415021-post7.html
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/1571549355-post16.html
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/1579711214-post16.html
If you don't want to read these Factory FT lobes have a hydraulic intensity of aroud 70 or more. David Vizard says 50 to 55 is the minimum safe hydraulic intensity. One of the voodoo cams in these threads has a hydraulic intensity of 43. Ramp is too steep for the lifter design. All the cam companies are doing this and the hydraulic intensities have been going down with each lobe redesign for the last 15 years. You want the best power and manners with your cam. You don't want to spend roller money so you buy their FT cam and the longevity is reduced because of the lobe design.
Last edited by 63mako; Mar 31, 2012 at 11:04 AM.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,727
Likes: 38
From: Fremont CA
NASCAR motors don't spend much time idling at 600-900RPM like my street motors. The Gibbs oil is very good I'll admit and I use their break in oil on all my builds but, I want a little more extreeme pressure additive than that one oil supplies. NASCAR teams also have spin rigs to bed in cam/lifter sets before they are ever installed into a motor, I don't so, I will stick with my combination.
Melting Slicks
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,772
Likes: 64
From: Mystic CT
Does everyone understand that flat tappet lobes are not flat? There is a very slight amount of taper so the lifter will spin and not wear a trench in the bottom. The forward rearward location of cam and lifter bores determines if they will turn as much as anything so a poorly made timing gear will position the cam incorrectly and cause lifters to fail as well as liter bores to a location other than GM prints. If the cam grinder does not properly put the taper in the lifter fails again. The simple test is to install cam and lifters and timing gear less chain. Put a speed wrench on a cam gear bolt and spin the cam and verify all the lifters do spin in the bore.
Dave
Dave
Tech Contributor
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 20,914
Likes: 962
From: I tend to be leery of any guy who doesn't own a chainsaw or a handgun.
Does everyone understand that flat tappet lobes are not flat? There is a very slight amount of taper so the lifter will spin and not wear a trench in the bottom. The forward rearward location of cam and lifter bores determines if they will turn as much as anything so a poorly made timing gear will position the cam incorrectly and cause lifters to fail as well as liter bores to a location other than GM prints. If the cam grinder does not properly put the taper in the lifter fails again. The simple test is to install cam and lifters and timing gear less chain. Put a speed wrench on a cam gear bolt and spin the cam and verify all the lifters do spin in the bore.
Dave
Dave
I've always been curious how "sensitive" the lifter bore position (or angle) is for decent lobe and lifter life. On my latest engine I reused several exterior parts (pumps, manifolds, heads, etc) and contemplated swapping the cam and lifters too (the "old" track engine had about 5k miles on it) but I was worried that minute differences in the lifter bore position or the Vee angle of the bores might cause mating pattern issues between the (already broken in) cam and lifters. I went the "safe" (but of course more costly) route and put a new cam and lifters in the engine, as it eliminated one variable keeping me up at night. So I'm curious, any learned opinions on the risks of transplanting cams and lifters (retaining the original placement order of the lifters)?
Thanks.