540 RAT

A June 2018 Testimonial regarding Amsoil 5W30 Signature Series, was sent by one of my Blog readers from Greece, which PROVED ONCE AGAIN that my motor oil Engineering Test Data "EXACTLY MATCHES" real world racing experience, and that you absolutely DO NOT need high zinc levels for incredible wear protection, as I have always said. It also proves ONCE AGAIN, that all my critics are DEAD WRONG, and have no idea what they are talking about, regarding motor oil and its performance capabilities. If you want the FACTS about motor oil, you need to read my Blog. The link is below.

For reference, at the time of this writing Amsoil 5W30 Signature Series low zinc oil, produced 134,352 psi, and is ranked 2nd for oils "just as they come, right out of the bottle" (only Amsoil 0W20 Signature Series, was able to slightly beat it), out of 223 oils tested so far. And Amsoil 10W30 Dominator Racing high zinc oil, produced a far lower 97,118psi, is ranked 62nd. The higher the psi value an oil can produce, the better the wear protection. Here is what he said in his Testimonial:

****

Hi (again) 540 Rat,

I ‘ve seen several times, as a Rally spectator ‘n’ fan, a Skoda Fabia S2000 participating in Greek Rally Championship, sponsored by Amsoil, and after reading your blog, the question “which specific Amsoil do they use, in a N/A 1,996 cc = 121c.in. racing motor running up to 9500r.p.m. and approx. 300hp…” emerged. So, I took myself to the service park with the intention to ask team engineers about that. In fact, I didn’t need to do so, because I saw them in an oil change using Amsoil 5W30 Signature Series oil, instead of Amsoil Dominator Racing oil. I found that this was kind-a-weird, so I decided to ask them “why so”.

Chief engineer told me that every time they need to rebuild the engine, they measure accurately, all geometric parameters such as clearances, ring’s width, cams heights etc. in order to replace if something was out of specs, and after 3800 racing kms (2000+miles), they decided to use Amsoil 5W30 Signature Series oil, because all mentioned components’ wear was close to non-measurable from one to the next rebuild procedure.

In fact, that’s -in my opinion- another proof that your data are “online” with real world’s facts. Of course, a high pressure oil pump and FIA approved oil cooler are provided. But apart from these, it’s still a highly stressed engine, revving most of its lifespan between 6,000 and 9,500 rpm, “feeding” via gearbox all 4 wheels.

The question remains: why not use Amsoil Dominator Racing oil...

(To mention rally team’s name, in order to avoid “suspicious minds” from “bad thoughts”: “Cabilis Performance”)

Keep doing great things,
E.C.
Greece

****

My final comment about this Testimonial: Amsoil Signature Series low zinc oil has performed far better than Amsoil Dominator Racing high zinc oil, in my Engineering tests. So, the obvious choice is their Signature Series low zinc oil, if you want the absolute best wear protection. Perhaps this Race Team has been reading my Blog.

540 RAT

For the truth about motor oil wear protection, that is not just opinion or theory, see my "TECH FACTS, NOT MYTHS" Blog, which now has over 460,000 views worldwide. You can see the Blog and my entire 223 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. Credentials, methodology, proof, facts, data, Industry endorsements, real world validation, etc, are all included in the Blog. See for yourself, the engine you save may be your own.

http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/

lionelhutz

OMG, the flagship oil line from one of the top synthetic oil companies is actually good oil. Who knew?

The manufacturer Amsoil describes that oil as both having a strong film strength and robust anti-wear additives which goes directly against your claims about film strength being the only factor that matters.

Also, that's not a testimony. It's just 3rd party hearsay. I would have thought you'd know the difference.

Kerz

Wow, but no surprise. The preference of engine oils seems to be driven mostly by historical usage, marketing hype, and Internet drive. Released tech data is basically marketing data not true tech info (or complete tech data). The discussion will continue from now on. Its interesting, but not statistically significant.
Vic

shaark92

Thanks ... I had just sent to Amsoil their recc as the "finder" starts at 1980 year models.

Was looking at this very oil on the their website with an EaO filter. From others I've seen here on the site, looks like the "shorty" filter is installed. Can the "full quart" size be used on a C3? (specifically a '71?)

Kerz

Valvoline Technology, product development, testing, and application. This video is a bit dated but still is applicable to the development process.
Vic

fishinfool145

Hi Rat

Thanks for the Data. I'll take data over opinion every time.

My question deals with the long term testing.

My apologies if this has been covered in the previous 17 pages of this forum, but since most of us don't change our oil every quarter mile, do you have any data covering the oils after a few thousand miles?

I have to wonder if the best oils when new, turn into the worst oils after 2k miles.

Thx for your time.

540 RAT

The following is from a reader who contacted me, and my response, which is relevant to discussions here.

February 5, 2021

Hello 540 Rat,

I’d like to thank you for your Blog, I wish I’d read it sooner! I’m not a professional engine builder, but I’ve done a dozen or so rebuilds over the years. Never had any kind of problems, failures or breakage, so when this happened I was stunned.

My current build is a Pontiac 455. It ate the first cam during the break-in and did a lot of damage in the process. From my first rebuild in 1982 to this point, I had never seen this happen or known anyone it’s happened to. I had followed all the recommendations that I got from parts manufacturers, speed shops, engine builders, automotive Forums, and Summit’s Tech Department, but I still ended up with wiped lobes. Since I believed everything was done right, I blamed the cam and switched brands.

I followed all those same recommendations again, and the second cam lost a lobe on the break-in. At least this time it was caught before any other damage was caused.

Then, I ran across your Blog and everything started to make sense. So, I switched to the 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability that was ranked very high on your Wear Protection Ranking List, but still had lighter springs on it for the break-in. I just did the initial start-up on cam number 3. I ran it around 20 minutes, then pulled the intake to check for damage before I put the new springs on it. And this time, I found NO DAMAGE AT ALL, with the 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, which is incredible oil. Again, Thank You, I wish I’d read your Blog sooner!

I have at least 2 more builds to do when this one is done and would just like to confirm a couple of things with you.

1. The lighter valve springs are not necessary for break in? The cam lift will be around .500″ or less.

2. The oil additives that the camshaft manufacturers suggest, should not be used?

3. Does it matter, camshaft assembly lube/grease or STP oil treatment?

Again, I can’t thank you enough for all the information.

H. A.
.
.
=================
.
.
Hi H. A,

I’m glad to see that you appreciate the FACTUAL information you found in my Blog, that cannot be found anywhere else.

And I’m happy to see that you finally had success by following my advice on motor oil, while ignoring everyone else’s bad advice that had caused you to suffer multiple engine failures.

It’s just mind blowing how sources such as parts manufacturers, speed shops, engine builders, Summit’s Tech Department, and Automotive Forums, all continue to put out the same BAD information that is so wrong that it often destroys engines. People think if they read or are told the same thing over and over, that it must be correct, so they keep repeating it. But, repeating bad information a million times does not make it magically become true. When wiped lobes happen, people always want to blame everything “BUT” their extremely poor choice in motor oil.

The fact is, many favored high zinc oils and aftermarket zinc additives are actually among the worst performers when put through my Engineering Torture Test on motor oil. And I have the test data to prove it. Wiped lobes are typically caused by using poor performing motor oil, no matter what people might “think” about those oils. What people “think” about motor oil does not matter, only actual test data shows us the truth. My test data has proven over and over again, to EXACTLY MATCH real world experience. It has to, because Engineering Test Data is the real deal Gold Standard that drives the world.

So, it is no surprise that my Blog and its FACTUAL Engineering Test Data, have proven over and over again to SAVE engines, and prevent failures. Numerous other people have also contacted me after suffering wiped lobes just like you, and were looking for help. I always provided them with recommendations for the proper motor oil to use, and they never had any wiped lobes again. Test Data validation doesn’t get any better than that.

I back-up everything I post in my Blog with hard Engineering Test Data, which no one else does. It is a shame that you didn’t find my Blog sooner. Because I could have saved you a lot of time, money, and agony.

Now to your questions:

1. When using a good high performing motor oil, light weight valve springs are NOT needed for break-in.

2. NEVER EVER use aftermarket motor oil additives, because they ruin an oil’s carefully balanced factory additive package, making the oil WORSE overall than it was to begin with. And contrary to common beliefs, zinc additives are among the worst of them all for REDUCING an oil’s wear protection capability. See my Blog for detailed proof on that topic.

3. STP Oil Treatment is excellent as a cam and lifter “assembly lube”. But, do NOT pour the bottle of STP into the engine as part of the motor oil being used. It is for assembly lube ONLY. Because a significant quantity of sticky oil thickener in the motor oil, no matter what the brand, can cause excessive oil foaming which compromises lubrication. An engine needs “liquid” motor oil, not “air filled foamy” motor oil.

So, here is what you should follow for a successful engine build:

– Build your engine as you normally would, with it ready to drive down the road right after it is fired up, once everything checks out good, such as ignition timing, no leaks, etc.

– Do NOT use so-called Break-In oil which is THE ABSOLUTE WORST performing motor oil on the market.

– Do NOT use any aftermarket motor oil additives.

– Do NOT use a crazy thick motor oil. Use a thinner oil, ideally 5W30, as long as your engine is capable of making acceptable “HOT” oil pressure with that oil viscosity. Depending the oiling system capability, and the bearing clearances, some traditional American V-8 engines will require a high volume oil pump to do that, which is much preferred anyway for the best oil flow lubrication and component cooling.

– Do NOT follow a ridiculous, complicated 20 minute break-in procedure, which is total nonsense and can actually contribute to engine damage, just like you experienced during your two wiped lobe failures. Just as soon as the engine is running and all is good, back the vehicle out of the garage, and go drive it the way you normally plan to use it. That’s it, very simple. Break-in is largely an overblown Myth among non-Engineers, because engines will break-in almost immediately on their own. That is because the engine components are automatically forced to break-in/seat-in very, very quickly in order to carry the load being applied to them. There is even one well known, highly respected Hotrod and Racing engine builder, who often says engines break-in on the starter motor. And he is not far off.

– I’ve built many engines over the years. So, I’ve tested many different ways of breaking them in, to find out if there is a certain way that might better than the others. I’ve broken them in slow and easy, hard and fast, and everything in between. What I’ve found is that it makes absolutely NO difference at all how they are broken-in, as long as you are using a “truly” good motor oil, and not a motor oil that some people just “think” is good.

– That is real world experience which proves and backs-up what I said above, about engines breaking-in almost immediately all by themselves. Therefore, whatever you do shortly after that, makes no difference at all.

– Bottom Line: If an engine is built properly, with quality parts, and a proper motor oil is used that is capable of supporting that particular engine’s needs, then you don’t need to be concerned about how it’s “broken-in”, because it just DOESN’T matter.

– Use only a highly ranked motor oil from my Wear Protection Ranking List in my Blog, from first fire, on. You do NOT need to use different oils at different times. Case in point: Even automotive factories do NOT use break-in oils. Not even in their Highest Performance vehicles. And yes, there are plenty of modern engines that are shim under bucket designs, which have the exact same cam lobe interface as a traditional flat tappet engines. They just use the normal oil that is called for in a given vehicle. My motor oil recommendation is the excellent performing 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability oil, or 5W30 Amsoil Signature Series oil (they rank in the top half, of the Top Ten motor oils, out of 241 motor oils that have been put through my Engineering torture test so far). Then change the oil at reasonable intervals.

– The methodology I use and highly recommend, works extremely well, not because it’s magic, but because it follows the Engineering FACTS. When we make use of the FACTS, we don’t have any problems, just like you found out once you followed my recommendations, rather than the bad recommendations you found from most other sources.

– The number one thing that matters when it comes to motor oil wear protection capability, is the psi value that an oil can produce in my Engineering Torture Test, where everything in the oil’s formulation is involved. Beyond that, it is also important to use the correct motor oil viscosity.

540 RAT

Mechanical Engineer

Holder of multiple US Patents

Member of SAE and ASME

MUCH MORE information can be found in my Blog, which now has about 800,000 views worldwide. You can contact me with questions in the Q&A Section of my Blog.

Forums typically don’t want personal links posted, so you can Google me at 540 RAT – Tech Facts, NOT Myths, if you want to find my Blog.

doorgunner

That's amazing about the improvement in Quaker State...in the late '70s/early '80s QuaCker and PennSoil were the two sorriest brands available (worked at a dealership back then).

xpoc454

I have a low mileage 69 427 engine. It gets very few miles on it every year. What's the current consensus for a good high zinc oil to be changing into it that's affordable and functional for the low amount of miles I put on the car? Last change over was penn grade but if I am putting so few miles is there maybe a more affordable oil for my purposes?
thanks

68post

Just add this ; https://www.hyperlube.com/product/zi...ment-additive/

Find more info from a triboloigist (sp) that did in-depth testing @ www.bobistheoilguy.com

CiCiC3

I used Valvoline VR1 in a newly rebuilt 454 and it all leaked out fairly fast. The 3 piece oil pan gasket was losing most of it. I was going to change to a one piece gasket but tried a high mileage oil instead and that got it mostly stopped. So I’ve postponed the gasket change for now.

HandOverFist

I just went through this entire thread (for nostalgia I suppose) and here are my general takeaways -

The common theme seems to be 540Rat's tests involve only oil film strength failure...ok, lets run with that. It's a given that each oil's additive package determines at what point that failure will occur. I would assume that once that barrier has been broken you have metal to metal contact...which means the test is effectively over and done.

The most often mentioned component is ZDDP. Many times I saw where it was argued 540Rat did not "allow" enough time for the additive to gain a foothold. This naturally made me wonder if someone had poured this oil into a new engine, then it stands to reason it would take some time to "allow" the additive to gain a foothold. This in effect would just be a repeat of what 540Rat did for his test. At this theoretical point why would anyone NOT want the utmost film strength barrier? Once metal to metal contact occurs in a engine you are basicly finished. This is perplexing.

Much ado was bantered about 540Rat's test equipment...I really have no clue. I don't doubt whatever he is using is repeatable in process. What I have not seen is anything offered from the opposite aisle when it comes to testing other than "industry standards". I have yet to read anyone questioning their test equipment or methods. In particular I was taken aback about the industry standards when it came to temperature tests...stone cold and beyond the thermal breakdown point make absolutely zero sense to me as a meaningful test.

I would like to know if there is a proven "minimum" concentration of ZDDP...if I'm not mistaken I believe there has been determined an excess. There seems to be some meaning in 540Rat's ranking of oils...we just need some conclusive tests of the ZDDP component instead of simple opinions. It would be interesting if we had the average zinc properties of oils manufactured in the 60's through the 70's just to compare where we are today. Apparently zinc was first introduced into oil to combat bearing corrosion which was a widespread problem many years ago. If I understand correctly there have been other additives introduced into oils that essentially provide the same protection with the lowering of zinc levels. It is baffling how some will add concoctions to oil with zero understanding of what balance they just upended and in the same breath berate others who are doing their best to provide legitimate answers.

Lets throw ZDDP completely out of the picture for a moment. If all oils are equal which I have seen stated many times, then why the large and repeatable variances in the tests? This fact seems to be glossed over by many with no apparent reasoning. I'll relate a story from my youth I'm sure many can draw conclusions from...I was at a friend's home one afternoon while he was working on his early 70's Ford truck. He pulled a valve cover off and I was horrified by what I was looking at...there was a buildup of black jello looking substance covering everything to the point I could not see any way for oil to drain back to the sump. He seemed unconcerned and said he used Quaker State oil. The name Quaker State stuck with me for nearly twenty years as I was certain it was that oil that caused that problem. I did finally realize that particular oil brand had nothing to do with it...tremendous oil change frequencies or lack thereof was the key. Bottom line is like everyone else, you don't know what you don't know. Come full circle and for many years now Quaker State has become my preferred oil lol.

lionelhutz

Film strength and what an additive like zinc provides are 2 different things. To put it really simply, the film is the basic oil stock providing protection between 2 moving surfaces. Under enough pressure, it is compressed and squeezed out until the barrier additives (like zinc) are needed to protect the 2 surfaces from damaging contact.

Overall, there is no explanation of the tests performed. So, you can't even know if the test actually measures the film strength of the oil. If the test actually does measure film strength, then it simply gives the pressure where the barrier additives begin to do their thing. However, when reading some of the ramblings, I'm very doubtful the test is actually measuring film strength. So, what is it actually doing and is it relevant or flawed?

If I wanted to give some info and be trusted then I'd explain exactly how I tested the oil and WHY that test is important and meaningful. Not just saying, "you must trust me because it's science and chemistry which can't be flawed".

As for your other points, zinc isn't the single answer, it's the complete barrier package and yes running a decent oil and changing it on a regular basis is usually enough, but not always.

HandOverFist

But, "you must trust me because it's science and chemistry which can't be flawed" is exactly what we get from the industry when questioned. Have you ever been offered a glimpse of the equipment the "industry" uses for it's testing? Not likely. Never mentioned zinc as being all important...only brought up as it seems to be the holy grail for some reason. If you seriously read the blog all of your questions were answered. The way I see it film strength is determined by the total package...the base oil and the additives combined. This is the reason I believe for the varying test results...not just one component on it's own.

resdoggie

There are all kinds of test standards in the automotive industry. Oil, for example, has a certification such as "SN". There are specific test methods to attain this certification and the test methods are readily available for anyone who wants to read them.

HandOverFist

Understood, and some of those test standards are questionable. Some will read reams of data from these tests and concur without question any explanation or demand for the test equipment used...why the double standard here? You must understand these people are unto themselves and their own closed society...they are certainly not concerned with you. We as consumers are after a specific goal, not just generalities.

lionelhutz

There are well documented and described standard oil test procedures. Those can be examined by anyone willing to spend the money to buy the standards. Some might even be available for free if you look for them. Claiming the industry hides their standard test procedures is simply wrong. Anyone on the planet can use the standard for the test procedure and duplicate the test if they so desired.

Anyways, saying "they hide their test procedures too" isn't a valid explanation for the testing performed.

The only test method I can think of that can be done quickly and gives a pressure where oil would break down is some variation of the 1-arm bandit testers. Overall, those are scoffed at by everyone with lubrication knowledge. They certainly don't measure the film strength.

HandOverFist

Nobody claimed they were hiding "procedures"...we were talking of equipment of which none of us have knowledge of. Feel free to enlighten us on the equipment used to measure film strength. I do know that ASTM uses a machine that is not far off and just a variation from the "one arm bandit" you describe.

I suspect there is more to film strength here than is given credit. I also suspect that higher ppm of zinc does not correlate to increased wear protection...it only provides a larger window of protection before it is depleted. A lower ppm of zinc should work just as well, but for a shorter length of time. When the manufacturers lowered the zinc levels in their products by all accounts other additives were introduced to take up the slack...pretty sure they wouldn't use them if they were ineffective. Your favorite oil analysis should bear this out. Too often experts think so narrowly they can't effectively give you general advice...or don't want to upset the balance.

lionelhutz

Sigh, new engines don't need as much barrier additive because there aren't flat tappet lifters anymore.

HandOverFist

Sigh, you never address the obvious...Captain Obvious.

Quoted from your earlier response to 540Rat... "The manufacturer Amsoil describes that oil as both having a strong film strength and robust anti-wear additives which goes directly against your claims about film strength being the only factor that matters." He knows the additive packages are there when testing and are an integral part of the oil's film strength. For his tests, yes, film strength is the deciding factor...this is what prevents metal to metal contact. It should not be necessary for me to point this out.

How about some of you vocal bashers replicate the tests in any fashion you desire and prove him wrong instead of all these boring and childish rants (opinions) ?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01679X19303214

Food for thought - Do you really believe all the auto manufacturer's in the 50's/60's/70/s had a special break-in method for their engines...or spent 20 minutes doing so on each engine?