I took a calculated risk this spring and changed the oil in my 1979, to valvoline synthetic. Previously the car had always been run with conventional. After 400 miles switching to synthetic the l-82 has a very pronounced knock, I assume it is a lifter. The noise only occurs during acceleration. Sounds fine at an idle. The 79 has 63k on the odometer, new performance ac delco plugs and msd super conductor wires replaced last fall. I run 93 0ctane at all times and will throw in a booster at fill up. I ride fairly heavy on the throttle and should stop there with any further admission of guilt. Does this sound like a typical lifter noise? If so please give me a recommendation. Any help is very appreciated.

 

Lifter noise isually a "ticking" noise, not a knock. Also, lifter problems will typically be worse on start-up and then the noise reduced or eliminated after warm up. And lifter noise is typically continuous; not just on acceleration.

Your problem sounds like something else.

Look for something external first, around the pulleys and other moving parts, or perhaps something in the flywheel area.

Also, if you could better describe the noise perhaps others would have comments regarding pre-ignition, crank/rod bearing failure (hope not), exhaust leak, etc.

 

usually we call a knock when the piston is slapping against the side of the cylinder, usually lifters have more of a ticking sound and its very steady almost like a sewing machine steadiness, and it doesnt go away at idle....detonation or knocking happens under load and can be from low octane gas or the timing being off. sounds like pistons slapping to me and has nothing to do with the oil change.

 

Change the oil...now..... you have a flat tappit cam... you need a high Zinc content that most synthetics do not have... You did not list which valvoline synthetic you used... but most do not have the zink you need.... you may really have a FLAT tappit cam now.... this would make lifteres tick....

 

You DO NOT need a high level of zinc in your motor oil for adequate wear protection in high performance engines, not even for flat tappet engines. Contrary to popular belief, the zinc level alone is NOT what determines an oil’s wear protection capability. Zinc does NOT build up a coating on parts like some sort of plating process. Zinc is consumed/sacrificed A LITTLE AT A TIME as needed by the heat and load on mating parts, to help prevent wear as the engine is operated. And it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for more zinc to provide more wear protection, because zinc simply does NOT work that way.

Here are a couple of real world examples of that. 30wt Lucas Break-In Oil has 4483 ppm of zinc, yet that oil ranks dead last in wear protection out of all the oils I’ve tested. Excessively high levels of zinc can “cause” damage rather than “prevent” damage. Plus, we still see wiped flat tappet lobes from time to time, even in motors that were running high zinc oils. More zinc is NOT the answer. More zinc simply lasts longer because it takes longer for it to be depleted. It’s much like the way more gas in your tank takes longer to run out, but more gas does NOT give you more HP.

The thinking that more zinc provides more wear protection is only FOLKLORE that has been repeated a million times, so people just assume it’s true without any proof. But, there is absolutely NO real world test data to back up and validate that thinking. It is merely a MYTH that has been BUSTED by actual real world dynamic motor oil wear testing under load. An oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and additive package “as a whole”, NOT just by how much zinc is present. And newer motor oil anti-wear additive components that have replaced much of the zinc that used to be used, are equal to or better than zinc. There is absolutely NOTHING magical about zinc that makes it the only component worthy of being used.

If someone insists that you must have high levels of zinc for adequate wear protection in high performance engines, no matter WHO they are, and no matter WHAT Company they may represent, ask them to PROVE IT by providing actual REAL WORLD TEST DATA that backs up that claim (and mere links to Internet Oil articles that call for high levels of zinc, is NOT real world test data proof). But, they will NOT be able to prove that old myth, because as mentioned above, zinc simply does NOT work that way. So, you can throw away that useless motor oil zinc level reference chart. It cannot help you choose the best oil for protecting your engine.

You can use the link just below, to take a look at a GM Motor Oil Report which backs up the facts above and matches my own motor oil wear test results. If the link below does not take you directly to the website, then Copy/Paste the link in your browser:

http://www.nonlintec.com/sprite/oil_myths.pdf


I have performed extensive motor oil “Wear Testing” over the past year or so, to measure the “Load carrying capacity/Film strength” of nearly a hundred different motor oils. The results of this dynamic friction testing under load, are used to compare the wear protection capability of the various oils. I’ve done this because I wanted to cut through all the misinformation and misunderstanding that is out there about motor oil, get to the truth, and to find out what the FACTS really are. The resulting oil test data is NOT a theory. It is NOT an opinion. It is the real deal, because it is REAL WORLD TEST DATA, just like engine dyno output data is real world test data.

The motor oil tester I use, is a valuable tool for determining an oil’s operating characteristics, yet it is not testing oil inside an engine, because that is simply impractical on a scale this large. It is somewhat similar to how an engine dyno is a valuable tool for determining an engine’s operating characteristics, yet it is not a test of an engine inside a car going down the track or road.

Every single oil I test, is subjected to the EXACT SAME test procedure for an accurate back to back comparison with other oils. My tester and test procedure provide very consistent and repeatable results. And rather than rely on only a single test value, each oil is tested multiple times, then those results are averaged. This allows the most accurate and representative final value to be reached for comparison. So, every oil has the exact same opportunity to perform as well as its chemical composition will allow.

As a calibration check, to make sure that the tester stays consistent, I periodically recheck the number one highest ranked oil that achieved that ranking position around a year or so ago. No matter when I recheck it, and no matter what kind of test values any other oils have been generating in between, that number one oil has always retested to within a couple of percent or so of its original highest ranking value. That shows me that the test value generated by any oil is correct, because the tester is still operating exactly the same as it always has. Even though I am not splitting atoms here, I do everything I can to ensure that all the test results are accurate, meaningful and worthy of comparison.

My tester is NOT a “One Armed Bandit” tester that can have its manually operated loading arm manipulated by the operator to provide false data to promote a certain product. I purposely did NOT get one of those testers, because I’m only interested in the facts, NOT propaganda. My tester does NOT even have an arm that is manually operated. On my tester, small individual weights are applied one at a time to gradually increase the applied load, so that the oil is not shock loaded, which could artificially penetrate the oil’s film, and invalidate the results.

I don’t sell oil, and I don’t get paid by any Oil Companies, so I have no vested interest in what oil people buy or use. But, I share my test data on Forums as a courtesy to other like-minded gearheads, for them to make use of for choosing the best possible oil for their needs, if they choose to. This dynamic motor oil wear testing is straight forward and most gearheads are technically knowledgeable. So, they have no trouble understanding the value and significance of this type of motor oil test data, which CANNOT be found ANYWHERE else. I get a good number of PM’s and emails from folks thanking me for my data. A lot of people do appreciate my real world test data and make use of it, and even post copies of it and links to it, all over the Internet. I have far more supporters than detractors.

But, there are usually a few guys who immediately get nasty, insulting, and make incorrect comments and assumptions without even knowing what they are talking about. Though, some of them “think” they are motor oil experts simply because they’ve done some Internet research. Yeah right, if something is on the Internet, it has to be true……..NOT!! But, these people believe everything they read about zinc, and take it at face value even with no supporting test data to back it up. Yet, they do not believe the actual real world test data I provide. And they feel the need to attack my data, even though they have never done any testing themselves, and have absolutely no real world test data of their own to backup what they say. It is almost funny when they do that, because it just points out that they aren’t technically capable of comprehending the significance and value of my real world test data, which is not difficult to grasp.

And you don’t have to be a Rocket Scientist to know that real world testing trumps Internet articles every day of the week. The concept of product performance “lab testing” like I’ve done, is commonly used throughout many, many industries. So, none of the kicking and screaming these guys do, will change the Physics involved, nor change the oil’s chemical formulation that generated the test results. In other words, shooting the messenger will not change the FACTS of the oil test results. And rather than asking questions and learning something, these guys just want to argue, make foolish comments, and embarrass themselves. It is their loss, since they cannot get any meaningful direction from a useless zinc level reference chart. So, they’ll just have to guess which oils provide outstanding wear protection and which oils do not. And we all know how much guessing is worth.

I let the test data show me what’s truly going on, because that is absolute. And my test results mirror the results of that GM Oil Report above. A good number of folks, who understand and appreciate my test data, have asked me to continue posting it, in spite of what the naysayers say. So, I will continue posting it. And if the non-believers don’t like that, they can always close out and go on to the next topic.

Oil film strength testing is the ONLY way to determine an oil’s wear protection capability, because oil film strength is the last line of defense against metal to metal contact and subsequent wear or damage. In order to reach metal to metal contact, 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, since the determining factor between wear and no wear, is an oil’s film strength capability, that makes oil film strength testing the GOLD STANDARD for determining how capable an oil is at preventing wear, and how different oils directly compare to each other.

Oil film strength capability DIRECTLY APPLIES to flat tappet lobe/lifter interfaces, cam gear/distributor gear interfaces, mechanical fuel pump pushrod tip/cam eccentric interfaces and other highly loaded engine component interfaces.

For those folks who are interested in this real world test data, below is the “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” ranking list from all the real world motor oil “Wear Testing” (dynamic friction testing under load) that I’ve performed so far on new oils, at a representative operational temperature of 230*F. The list includes modern API certified low zinc oils, traditional high zinc High Performance/Racing oils, Diesel oils, low zinc oils with zinc additives added in, and Break-In oils.

Lower ranked oils are not necessarily “bad”, they simply don’t provide as much wear protection capability as higher ranked oils. Each person can decide for themselves, which motor oil provides the wear protection capability they are comfortable with, for any given engine build. The ppm quantities of zinc, phos, moly and in some cases titanium, shown in the list, are directly from the Lab Reports that came back from the Professional Lab “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada. Some oils have more zinc than phos, while other oils have more phos than zinc. It just depends on the particular oil’s formulation. Either way, the numbers are correct and are NOT typos.

NOTE: The higher the psi value, the BETTER the wear protection. And this applies to ANY engine, including High Performance flat tappet engines.


Oil categories for 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




1. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM synthetic = 115,612 psi
I have not been able to find this oil with the latest API SN certification. The bottle says, “No leading synthetic oil provides better wear protection”. For once, a product’s hype turns out to be true.
zinc = 806 ppm
phos = 812 ppm
moly = 66 ppm

2. 10W30 Lucas Racing Only synthetic = 106,505 psi
zinc = 2642 ppm
phos = 3489 ppm
moly = 1764 ppm
NOTE: This oil is suitable for short term racing use only, and is not suitable for street use.

3. 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 105,875 psi
zinc = 801 ppm
phos = 842 ppm
moly = 112 ppm

4. 0W30 Amsoil Signature Series 25,000 miles, API SN synthetic = 105,008 psi
zinc = 824 ppm
phos = 960 ppm
moly = 161 ppm


5. 10W30 Valvoline NSL (Not Street Legal) Conventional Racing Oil = 103,846 psi
zinc = 1669 ppm
phos = 1518 ppm
moly = 784 ppm
NOTE: This oil is suitable for short term racing use only, and is not suitable for street use.

6. 5W50 Motorcraft, API SN synthetic = 103,517 psi
zinc = 606 ppm
phos = 742 ppm
moly = 28 ppm

7. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
zinc = 1472 ppm
phos = 1544 ppm
moly = 3 ppm

8. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle) = 101,139 psi
zinc = 1180 ppm
phos = 1112 ppm
moly = 162 ppm

9. 5W30 Chevron Supreme, API SN conventional = 100,011 psi
This oil only cost $4.29 per quart at an Auto Parts Store when I bought it.
zinc = 1018 ppm
phos = 728 ppm
moly = 161 ppm

10. 5W20 Castrol Edge with Titanium, API SN synthetic = 99,983 psi
zinc = 1042 ppm
phos = 857 ppm
moly = 100 ppm
titanium = 49 ppm

11. 20W50 Castrol GTX ,API SN conventional = 96,514 psi
zinc = 610 ppm
phos = 754 ppm
moly = 94 ppm

12. 30 wt Red Line Race Oil synthetic = 96,470 psi
zinc = 2207 ppm
phos = 2052 ppm
moly = 1235 ppm
NOTE: This oil is suitable for short term racing use only, and is not suitable for street use.

13. 0W20 Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy, API SN synthetic = 96,364 psi
zinc = 742 ppm
phos = 677 ppm
moly = 81 ppm

14. 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, API SN synthetic = 95,920 psi
zinc = 877 ppm
phos = 921 ppm
moly = 72 ppm

15. 5W30 Castrol Edge with Titanium, API SN synthetic = 95,717 psi
zinc = 818 ppm
phos = 883 ppm
moly = 90 ppm
titanium = 44 ppm

16. 10W30 Joe Gibbs XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil synthetic = 95,543 psi
zinc = 743 ppm
phos = 802 ppm
moly = 1125 ppm
NOTE: This oil is suitable for short term racing use only, and is not suitable for street use.

17. 5W20 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional = 95,543 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
NOTE: Oil numbers 16 and 17 were tested weeks apart, but due to the similarities in their wear scar sizes, their averages ended up the same.

18. 5W30 Castrol GTX ,API SN conventional = 95,392 psi
zinc = 830 ppm
phos = 791 ppm
moly = 1 ppm

19. 10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil synthetic = 95,360 psi
zinc = 1431 ppm
phos = 1441 ppm
moly = 52 ppm

20. 5W30 Valvoline SynPower, API SN synthetic = 94,942 psi
zinc = 969 ppm
phos = 761 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

21. 5W30 Valvoline Premium Conventional, API SN = 94,744 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

22. 5W20 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 94,663 psi
zinc = 764 ppm
phos = 698 ppm
moly = 76 ppm

23. 5W20 Valvoline SynPower, API SN synthetic = 94,460 psi
zinc = 1045 ppm
phos = 742 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

24. 5W30 Lucas, API SN conventional = 92,073 psi
zinc = 992 ppm
phos = 760 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

25. 5W30 O'Reilly (house brand), API SN conventional = 91,433 psi
This oil only cost $3.99 per quart at an Auto Parts Store when I bought it.
zinc = 863 ppm
phos = 816 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

26. 5W30 Maxima RS530 Synthetic Racing Oil = 91,162 psi
zinc = 2162 ppm
phos = 2294 ppm
moly = 181 ppm

27. 5W30 Red Line, API SN synthetic = 91,028 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

28. 5W20 Royal Purple API SN synthetic = 90,434 psi
zinc = 964 ppm
phos = 892 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

29. 10W30 Quaker State Defy, API SL semi-synthetic = 90,226 psi
zinc = 1221 ppm
phos = 955 ppm
moly = 99 ppm

30. 10W60 Castrol TWS Motorsport, API SJ conventional = 90,163 psi
This oil is manufactured in Europe and is sold in the US for BMW models M3, M5, M6, Z4M, and Z8.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

31. 5W20 Valvoline Premium Conventional, API SN = 90,144 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

32. 30 wt Castrol Heavy Duty, API SM conventional = 88,089 psi
zinc = 907 ppm
phos = 829 ppm
moly = 56 ppm

33. 20W50 LAT Synthetic Racing Oil, API SM = 87,930 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

34. 10W30 Joe Gibbs HR4 Hotrod Oil synthetic = 86,270 psi
zinc = 1247 ppm
phos = 1137 ppm
moly = 24 ppm

35. 5W20 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM synthetic = 86,034 psi
I have not been able to find this oil with the latest API SN certification.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

36. 15W40 RED LINE Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4/CI-4 PLUS/CI-4/CF/CH-4/CF-4/SM/SL/SH/EO-O = 85,663 psi
zinc = 1615 ppm
phos = 1551 ppm
moly = 173 ppm

37. 5W30 Royal Purple API SN synthetic = 84,009 psi
zinc = 942 ppm
phos = 817 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

38. 20W50 Royal Purple API SN synthetic = 83,487 psi
zinc = 588 ppm
phos = 697 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

39. 20W50 Kendall GT-1 High Performance with liquid titanium, API SN conventional = 83,365 psi
zinc = 991 ppm
phos = 1253 ppm
moly = 57 ppm
titanium = 84 ppm

40. 5W30 Mobil 1 Extended Performance 15,000 mile, API SN synthetic = 83,263 psi
zinc = 890 ppm
phos = 819 ppm
moly = 104 ppm

41. 0W20 Castrol Edge with Titanium, API SN synthetic = 82,867 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

42. 5W30 LAT Synthetic Racing Oil, API SM = 81,800 psi
zinc = 1784 ppm
phos = 1539 ppm
moly = 598 ppm

43. 15W40 ROYAL PURPLE Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4 /SM, CI-4 PLUS, CH-4, CI-4 = 76,997 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

44. 5W30 Lucas API SM synthetic = 76,584 psi
zinc = 1134 ppm
phos = 666 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

45. 5W30 GM's AC Delco dexos 1 API SN semi-synthetic = 76,501 psi
zinc = 878 ppm
phos = 758 ppm
moly = 72 ppm

46. 5W50 Castrol Edge with Syntec API SN, synthetic, formerly Castrol Syntec, black bottle = 75,409 psi
zinc = 1252 ppm
phos = 1197 ppm
moly = 71 ppm

47. 5W30 Royal Purple XPR (Extreme Performance Racing) synthetic = 74,860 psi
zinc = 1421 ppm
phos = 1338 ppm
moly = 204 ppm
NOTE: This particular bottle of oil was just opened, but was out of a 3 ½ year old case.

48. 5W40 MOBIL 1 TURBO DIESEL TRUCK synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4 and ACEA E7 = 74,312 psi
zinc = 1211 ppm
phos = 1168 ppm
moly = 2 ppm

49. 15W40 CHEVRON DELO 400LE Diesel Oil, conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CF-4,CF/SM, = 73,520 psi
zinc = 1519 ppm
phos = 1139 ppm
moly = 80 ppm

50. 15W40 MOBIL DELVAC 1300 SUPER Diesel Oil conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4/SM, SL = 73,300 psi
zinc = 1297 ppm
phos = 1944 ppm
moly = 46 ppm

51. 15W40 Farm Rated Heavy Duty Performance Diesel Oil conventional CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF/SL, SJ = 73,176 psi
zinc = 1325ppm
phos = 1234 ppm
moly = 2 ppm

52. 15W40 SHELL ROTELLA T Diesel Oil conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CF-4,CF/SM = 72,022 psi
zinc = 1454 ppm
phos = 1062 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

53. Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 Nitro 70 Racing Oil semi-synthetic = 72,003 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

54. 0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 semi-synthetic = 71,377 psi
zinc = 1621 ppm
phos = 1437 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

55. 15W40 “OLD” SHELL ROTELLA T Diesel Oil conventional, API CI-4 PLUS, CI-4, CH-4,CG-4,CF-4,CF,SL, SJ, SH = 71,214 psi
zinc = 1171 ppm
phos = 1186 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

56. 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 semi-synthetic = 71,206 psi
zinc = 1557 ppm
phos = 1651 ppm
moly = 3 ppm

57. 15W40 VALVOLINE PREMIUM BLUE HEAVY DUTY DIESEL Oil conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SM = 70,869 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

58. 15W50 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 70,235 psi
zinc = 1,133 ppm
phos = 1,168 ppm
moly = 83 ppm

59. 5W40 CHEVRON DELO 400LE Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, SL, SM = 69,631 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

60. 30wt Edelbrock Break-In Oil conventional = 69,160 psi
zinc = 1545 ppm
phos = 1465 ppm
moly = 4 ppm

61. 5W30 Motorcraft, API SN synthetic = 68,782 psi
zinc = 796 ppm
phos = 830 ppm
moly = 75 ppm

62. 10W40 Edelbrock synthetic = 68,603 psi
zinc = 1193 ppm
phos = 1146 ppm
moly = 121 ppm
This oil is manufactured for Edelbrock by Torco.


63. 5W40 SHELL ROTELLA T6 Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, SM, SL = 67,804 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

64. 15W40 LUCAS MAGNUM Diesel Oil, conventional, API CI-4,CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SL = 66,476 psi
zinc = 1441 ppm
phos = 1234 ppm
moly = 76 ppm

65. 15W40 CASTROL GTX DIESEL Oil conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4/SN = 66,323 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

66. 10W30 Royal Purple HPS (High Performance Street) synthetic = 66,211 psi
zinc = 1774 ppm
phos = 1347 ppm
moly = 189 ppm

67. 10W40 Valvoline 4 Stroke Motorcycle Oil, API SJ conventional = 65,553 psi
zinc = 1154 ppm
phos = 1075 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

68. 5W30 Klotz Estorlin Racing Oil, API SL synthetic = 64,175 psi
zinc = 1765 ppm
phos = 2468 ppm
moly = 339 ppm

69. “ZDDPlus” added to Royal Purple 20W50, API SN, synthetic = 63,595 psi
zinc = 2436 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2053 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
moly = 2 ppm (up 2 ppm)

The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 24% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Most major Oil Companies say to NEVER add anything to their oils, because adding anything will upset the carefully balanced additive package, and ruin the oil’s chemical composition. And that is precisely what we see here. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised. Buyer beware.

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

71. 10W30 Lucas Hot Rod & Classic Hi-Performance Oil, conventional = 62,538 psi
zinc = 2116 ppm
phos = 1855 ppm
moly = 871 ppm

72. 0W20 Klotz Estorlin Racing Oil, API SL synthetic = 60,941 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

73. 10W30 Comp Cams Muscle Car & Street Rod Oil, synthetic blend = 60,413 psi
zinc = 1673 ppm
phos = 1114 ppm
moly = 67 ppm
This oil is manufactured for Comp Cams by Endure.

74. 10W40 Torco TR-1 Racing Oil with MPZ conventional = 59,905 psi
zinc = 1456 ppm
phos = 1150 ppm
moly = 227 ppm

75. Summit Racing 10W40 Premium Racing Oil, API SL = 59,483 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

76. 10W40 Edelbrock conventional = 59,120 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil is manufactured for Edelbrock by Torco.

77. 0W20 LAT Synthetic Racing Oil, API SM = 57,228 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD


78. “ZDDPlus” added to O’Reilly (house brand) 5W30, API SN, conventional = 56,728 psi
zinc = 2711 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2172 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
moly = 2 ppm (up 2 ppm)

The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 38% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised. Buyer beware.


79. “ZDDPlus” added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 56,243 psi
zinc = 2955 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2114 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
moly = 76 ppm (up 2 ppm)

The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 12% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised. Buyer beware.

80. “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Royal Purple 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 54,044 psi
zinc = 1515 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1334 ppm (up 517 ppm)
moly = 15 ppm (up 15 ppm)

The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was a whopping 36% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised. Buyer beware.

81. 10W30 Comp Cams Break-In Oil conventional = 51,749 psi
zinc = 3004 ppm
phos = 2613 ppm
moly = 180 ppm

82. “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Lucas 5W30, API SN, conventional = 51,545 psi
zinc = 1565 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1277 ppm (up 517 ppm)
moly = 15 ppm (up 15 ppm)

The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was a “breath taking” 44% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised. Buyer beware.

83. “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 50,202 psi
zinc = 1680 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1275 ppm (up 517 ppm)
moly = 89 ppm (up 15 ppm)

The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 22% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised. Buyer beware.

84. 30wt Lucas Break-In Oil conventional = 49,455 psi
zinc = 4483 ppm
phos = 3660 ppm
moly = 3 ppm

540 RAT
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

 

Here's what's in synthetic 15W50 Mobil 1, API SN
zinc = 1,133 ppm
phos = 1,168 ppm
moly = 83 ppm

This oil only ranked 58th out of 84 new oils I've tested for wear protection capability. This Mobil 1 oil provided the lowest level of wear protection of any Mobil 1 oil I've tested. There are many, many oils available that are better than this oil for wear protection.

Plus, 50 weight hot viscosity is WAY TOO THICK to be ideal.

Consider THE BENEFITS OF USING THINNER OIL:

• Thinner oil flows quicker at cold start-up to begin lubricating critical engine components much more quickly than thicker oil can. Most engine wear takes place during cold start-up before oil flow can reach all the components. So, quicker flowing thinner oil will help reduce start-up engine wear, which is actually reducing wear overall.

• Thinner oil also flows more at normal operating temperatures. And oil FLOW is lubrication, but oil pressure is NOT lubrication. Oil pressure is only a measurement of resistance to flow. Running thicker oil just to up the oil pressure is the wrong thing to do, because that only reduces oil flow/lubrication. Oil pressure in and of itself, is NOT what we are after.

• The old rule of thumb that we should have at least 10 psi for every 1,000 rpm is perfectly fine. Running thicker oil to achieve more pressure than that, will simply reduce oil flow for no good reason. It is best to run the thinnest oil we can, that will still maintain at least the rule of thumb oil pressure. And one of the benefits of running a high volume oil pump, is that it will allow us to enjoy all the benefits of running thinner oil, while still maintaining enough oil pressure. A high volume oil pump/thinner oil combo is preferred over running a standard volume oil pump/thicker oil combo. Because oil “flow” is our goal for ideal oiling, NOT simply high oil pressure.

• Oil flow is what carries heat away from internal engine components. Those engine components are DIRECTLY oil cooled, but only INdirectly water cooled. And better flowing thinner oil will keep critical engine components cooler because it carries heat away faster. If you run thicker oil than needed, you will be driving up engine component temps.

• Thinner oil will typically increase HP because of less viscous drag and reduced pumping losses, compared to thicker oils. That is why very serious Race efforts will generally use watery thin oils in their engines. But, an exception to this increase in HP would be in high rpm hydraulic lifter engines, where thinner oil can allow the lifters to bleed-off at higher rpm. In everyday street vehicles, where fuel consumption is a consideration, thinner oils will also typically increase fuel economy. The majority of new cars sold in the U.S. now call for 5W20 specifically for increased fuel economy. And now Diesel trucks are increasingly calling for 5W30, also for fuel economy improvement.

• With the exception of high rpm hydraulic lifter engines, almost no engine should ever need to run oil thicker than a multi-viscosity 30 weight. The lower the first number cold viscosity rating, the better the cold flow. For example, 0W30 flows WAY better cold than 20W50. And 0W30 flows WAY better cold than straight 30wt, which is horrible for cold start-up flow and should be avoided at all cost. And the lower the second number hot viscosity rating, the better the hot flow. For example, 0W30 flows WAY better hot than 20W50.

• Thicker oil DOES NOT automatically provide better wear protection than thinner oils. Extensive “dynamic wear testing under load” of dozens and dozens of motor oils, has shown that the base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, is what determines an oil’s wear protection capability, NOT its viscosity. For example, some 5W20 oils have proven to provide OUTSTANDING wear protection, while some 15W50 oils have only been able to provide MODEST wear protection. So, do not run thicker oil under the false assumption that it can provide better wear protection for our engines.

• BOTTOM LINE: Thinner oils are better for most engine lubrication needs.

540 RAT
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

 

540 RAT thks thats an interesting write up. i didnt realize the mobil1 15-50 tested so poorly i will never mention that one again...

I have always like the VR1 street use racing oils and your tests show its good stuff.


is there a lower threshold for film strenght for roller rockers like in our daily drivers?

thks bob

 

Good Information guys... I never bought into the zinc info either...
Used amsoil and mobil 1 both synthetic for many many years with no issues...That's my real world data...
J

 

A long, drawn out post repeated over and over and over does not make it correct. The "wear testing" is actually a 30 second film strength test done with new oil. This in no way actually tests the extreme pressure additives effectiveness since the test never approaches the pressures seen with even a stock very mild flat tappet cam. Do not trust a film strength test on new oil to guarantee that your flat tappet cam does not need higher levels of ZDDP than a roller cam. Any cam manufacturer will contradict this flawed assumption.

 

The amsoil is a group IV basestock, is available with plenty of ZDDP and tests well on the above film strength test. Good choice if you are willing to spend an extra $20 or so a year on your car.

 

kind of like the democrats, tell a story long enough and people start to believe it. as to the o.p's question the L-82 had floating wrist pins. but i think you may have a cam issue.

 

I have used Mobil 1 15W-50 with Zinc/phosphorous (1,200/1,300 ppm) for years in my L-82 with no issues and it is SPECIFICALLY recommended for older flat tappet cammed engines by Mobil-now why would Mobil make that recommendation? My 1978 owners manual also SPECIFICALLY recommends a 20W-50 oil for temperatures over 32 degrees ambient-Now why would GM make that recommendation in 1978?

Mobil 1 15W-50 only is a terrific synthetic oil to use in our older flat tappet cammed engines offering good flow at cold temperatures (15W) and excellent high temperature protection (50) PLUS as 63MAKO says, the correct amount of ZDDP. Good luck running dino or synthetic oil in a flat tappet cammed engine with low ZDDP but high film strength-not me-no Thanks!

 

Reminds me of the Shell Rotella diesel oil crowd that insist that diesel oil is the best oil for a gasoline powered engine!

 

I was told use a high zinc oil for break-in only since there will be higher metal to metal friction. After that use conventional because the molecules in synthetic oil are smaller, thus it is "runnier" and doesn't stick on metal as well. Supposedly synthetic oils are made for roller cams. Just heresay.

 

... this will get deep......

my flat tappet AMC .48 lift 360 CJ5 runs mobile 15-50..... 15,000 miles... changed intake manifold gasket.... cam looks brand fraken new....not going to claim that im an oil expert ..... but it sure has been proven to me.... and im sticking with my original statement... just going with high ZDDP instead of saying just zinc, as zinc is just part of it... but same idea... this will go on forever... peace..

 

my engine rebuilder has been rebuilding engines forever. when he did mine he told me to never use synthetic oil because its to slippery and the lifters don't turn as well. so I simply use Valvoline VR-1 10w30.
and I agree with 63 mako

 

Agree, kind of getting tired of seeing the same post over and over and over and over. We get it already. Al

 

Nonsense. Would you rather run a 40w (higher film strength) oil without wear additives (ZDDP, etc) or a 30w with?

Also, how can one ignore all the anecdotal evidence from the hundreds (or thousands) who have suffered wiped lobes since EPA mandated reduction of wear additives in engine oil?

 

great thread .another thing to consider ,is correct spring pressure.I read about this at ls1tech,they run roller cams only..too much spring pressure can cause excessive wear.where can we get the better oils at ?

 

One thing I've learned over the years is to listen to all and try to make the best decision out of what I've learned from them. One thing I've learned is because someone has been doing something for 50 years doesn't make them an expert. All it makes them is someone who's been doing the same thing for 50 years. They may have been doing it wrong the entire time and things have CHANGED during the 50 years !!!
I was one who went by 3 months or 3000 miles on oil changes. Most of the time I changed my oil with only 1000-1500 miles on it. That may have been right for the oil of 40 years ago with the engines of 40 years ago, but not now. I been to countless oem classes over the years as a mechanic and asked almost all of the instructors about oil and which is best.
I now use Amsoil in all my vehicles and change the oil every 6 months. This is from my Harley's to my wives Maxima and it works great from me. Benefit to it all, I've cut everything in half. Buy half as much (work's out to about the same cost), change it half as often and have to dispose of half of what I had before. I've had no problems and my bike's run cooler to boot.
With the company I work for we have to keep up to date and what's going on with today's vehicles and we have over 45,000 vehicles to take care of so it changes daily....my 2 cents !!