Thanks for a reasoned discussion and debate - usually the discussion falls apart and names start getting thrown around. Interesting read.

 

It's hard not to dismiss something when all we can hear is anecdotal "evidence" and a company who claims they have a magical formula but no way of showing how much it really will save and no motivation to have independent testing to prove their product works.

 

Thanks-- you too.

You asked for "links to all failures" in Honda engines. It's kind of a difficult request for me to scour the entire internet for a large number of single links to specific failures. Not willing to do that undoable job, I said that there is certainly plenty of *discussion* about it, and the link I provided is a Google search for "cam failure zddp" on the honda-tech.com website. As you can see, that search turns up nearly 7000 hits! For one website!

Apparently you just looked at the first page of links expecting some kind of proof of failures. Not what I said, not what I provided.

No, I do not have a list of hundreds of single links to individual failures. But looking at the Google hits, would you agree that zddp-related cam failure is a fairly hot topic of discussion on the Honda forums? That was the point...

Do you really want to hang your hat on that Blackstone study? Have you done any searches on that study? How well respected is that lab or their study? If you look you'll find many questions about their accredidation as a lab, the appropiateness of the testing methods they use, and the fact that their results have not been widely duplicated (and, in fact, are outliers).

Again, Tom, that was a link to a Google search for "cam failure zddp" on the CF website-- the search turns up nearly 7000 hits! Look at what I posted-- you said there's no documentation of widespread failure on this forum. I said there is certainly plenty of *discussion* about it here and proved it with that link. In both cases you have misinterpreted the point of the links.

Well, let's review the arguments you've made:

and

[I provided links to both a group of engineers saying and a forum vendor on the cam business that says both he and his entire cohort in the business are seeing a big increase in failures.]

[In subsequest discussion you did offer some "data" but what you provided is not well-respected,]

[You were not able to provide any cars sold today with flat tappets.]

[The 245,000 miles you put on that car was with high zddp oil.]

[In fact, none of that was true; data was provided by that vendor, "several" did not disagree on that thread (only one did-- and only made one post), and my links show that there are examples of c3 owners having discussions of problems or suspicions of problems.]




So-- we have 14,000 links of zddp/cam failure on two tech websites, engineers and people in the cam business saying they are alarmed at what they are seeing, and the only "data" going against that comes only from questionable sources.

Supporting your side, we have your (often contradictory) experiences as documented above.

I have a lot of respect for you, and generally agree with everything you say on this forum. You are quick (and virtually always correct) in calling out BS on this forum and I can't remember the last time I diagreed with one of your BS calls.

However, in this *one* case, I think your argument is weak and that there's a significant chance you're wrong. Basically your only argument is that I cannot complete a task that's impossible to do. So you're basically reduced to a straw-man defense.

However, I have done plenty (and I think enough) to support my point. If you're not convinced that's fine, and I still concede that, despite your weak argument, it is definitely possible that in the end you are right about all this and the experts I've cited are wrong. In fact I *hope* you're right-- I'd love to see it determined conclusively that low zddp is not an issue! But (so far) I'm not convinced by your arguments.

At this point I think I've said all I have to say about low-zinc oil. I hope our discussion will be beneficial to others researching this question, and I'm still interested in any further input you have on this issue (e.g., the oil tests you mentioned that you would do).

Thanks for the time.

 

I definitely won't get into name-calling with Tom; one is well-advised to listen to him rather than argue with him. He knows his stuff and I've learned a lot from him.

So I'm taking a risk here; even though I think I have the better argument, he may well eventually end up kicking my butt on this.

And I'll admit it if he does...

 

Well, there won't be any "kicking butt" in this thread...it's just too much of a grey area.

I can not say that "no cams have failed due to oil". If I believed that, I can't prove it, but I don't believe it. I'm sure some cams have failed b/c of oil, among other things. What I can say is that in my pretty extensive mechanical back ground, I've not seen or had a cam fail due to oil and in fact, I've gotten some pretty fantastic life out of flat tappet cams. I used two examples to support my point (not "prove" a point). As a fleet manager, I have many more examples, but they all support the same point; that I have not had or seen a failure of a flat tappet cam b/c of oil. So I provided just the two examples to support (not "prove") a point (That todays oils are great and flat tappet cams can survive on them). My personal experience is proof of nothing, but to me, it's strong evidence.


Jim stated that he feels that cams are failing due to oil. The word "unprecedented" was used earlier in the thread which to me means that failures would abound and be a common and persistent topic of conversation like overheating threads, for example. Since that assertion was made, I asked for back up; proof or at least some pretty substantial evidence of those failures. ("Where are the "unprecedented" failures?) If one is going to make a claim, then they should be able to provide some kind of evidence, if not proof to support the claim. Some links were provided, I haven't seen anything "unprecedented", or even anything conclusive at all. I saw several threads where there was a failure, cause unknown, and a variety of speculation. In each thread, maybe ONE speculation was "lack of ZDDP" in oil. That proves nothing...it's speculation -one guy's "guess".

If anything the Google search results that I took my time to read support my opinion that there is no "epidemic" going on here....I don't see the '84, '85, '86 C4 owners on this forum failing cams at 'unprecedented" rates (or at all), and I didn't see that in the links either. Sure, there was probably a link in there somewhere that would have been a great tool to use to support the case that cams are failing due to oil only...how many pages back does one need to go? A search for something "unprecedented" would IMO return an overwhelmingly convincing cross section, in the first LINK and the first page. Probably the first 3 pages. Relevance diminishes as you scroll down, so if it's not on the first page, I usually don't keep digging. I didn't see anything like that.


So I believe that there isn't an "unprecedented" problem, that good brand name oil combined with good PM is better than "good enough" and I've proven that to myself repeatedly and continue to do so. I fear not, for the future of oil or my flat tappet cams. Jim is worried, and I respect that he is concerned but would hope that he doesn't stress too much about it and just keep up on the car care.

 

Like Jim Rogers I’ve tossed this zinc thing around for a few years and often wondered; would a small amount of hypoid lube – rear axle lube – do the job of adding sufficient anti-wear additives, zinc and otherwise - to do the job? I have no idea what is in hypoid lube but was told years ago that it was loaded with anti-wear and anti-scuff agents.

Any chemists or others out there that might want to chime in regarding this?

Jake -

 

And let me agree-- your experience *is* a piece of evidence and I respect it. Right now I'm a little more swayed by the engineers and cam vendor than you are, but that doesn't mean I'm dismissing your experience. I'm not.

You have real-world experience; I'm a non-professional mechanic passing along stuff I've read on the internet. Although I'm pretty good with this kind of meta-analysis, at the end of the day it's still just me passing along hear-say. So that's a strike against me.

Furthermore, it's clear from my reading of your posts over the last three years that you have more mechanic's knowledge in your little finger than I have in my whole body. So strike two against me.

Will I ultimately strike out? Could be-- we'll have to wait and see. You may have a well-deserved "told you so!" moment coming and if so I'll take it without whining.

In the meantime, your relaying of your experience and thoughts on this issue actually has had a calming effect on me. My worries are now a bit lower (but not gone!), and that would not have been the case had I not respected your experience, so thanks for taking all that time to respond.

 

WHen I do my next oil sample on my boat, I'll post the results here in this thread; it will be fun/interesting to scrutinize, IMO.

 

Great read so far..For what its worth here is some more info for thought, it deals with ZDDP and one of the most modern flat tappet motors

http://www.zr1specialist.com/HAT%20W...5%20Engine.pdf

 

Sounds good-- but I have a suggestion:

As I've said many times, I'm no expert and am passing along information from others that I have found to be convincing. So when you debate me you're actually just debating those other guys by proxy through me.

I think I do a good job, but it's possible that I don't appropriately capture and present their arguments as fully as possible. Also, it's a bit inefficient for you since I can't say anything myself and can only present links to their arguments. In other words, you're just forced into playing "telephone" with them through me, which is always a danger.

So in addition to posting here, I think you should consider joining the bobstheoilguy forum and presenting your data and making your arguments there.

I would enjoy watching you mix it up with those guys, and if you can win the debate with them it would actually mean something (as opposed to debating me who isn't arguing from my own perspective).

It's probably not a good use of your time to directly engage me anymore on this issue since I have nothing more to offer, but you could do us all a lot of good by taking your information and ideas to the place where the oil experts are debating.

Something to consider anyway...

 

Looking at that:

Amsoil AMO ZDDP 1265 ppm 1378 ppm

Mobil 1 High Mileage 1000 ppm 1100 ppm

Difference is 0.1 so are their specs that far apart? What is the point of diminishing returns?

 

Worry about the lack of ZDPP is the last thing on my mind with older engines I have in various vehicles.

Oil of today, is vastly superior than it was even ten years ago. Dino Oil, is more protective Now than the Last generation of synthetics. To say nothing of the protection of modern synthetic oil. Which we should ALL be using in our vettes regardless of it's year.

Lubrication is lubrication, and I think we can all agree today's oil has far more lubrication quality in it than the oils of 1985 and older.

I would like someone to tell me the last time they had an engine failure that was related to the actual oil itself, not engine failures do to pump...but the actual oil being the culprit.
Every car, and every bike engine I've pulled apart in my stable over the years, has looked almost brand new inside, with mobil 1 synthetic.

 

Until we get some real science behind it, all we have is suspicion and wild guessing of what is behind it. Just because my motor failed due to oil might not mean the oil is bad. Bad batch could be an issue. Kinda why I always ask why the manufacturer is so scared of any independent testing of their products.

 

 

Thanks for the suggestion. I have thought about BITOG forums many times, and your post caused me to re-think it again, but the answer for me on that is "no". Why? BITOG is forum of nothing but debate, with no proof of anything (front what little I have read on it). The ante is upped repeatedly with expert over experts quoted and cited -which is good, generally, but there is no final proof of anything on there. I've read on that site and gotten myself up in a tizzy about the oil I'm running in my cars and my fleet at work -fear creeps in...."maybe the oil I'm using is or will cause damage!"

Then I step back and look at my own results both personal and fleet, and I'm reminded that there IS no problem! My vehicles go well past 200k miles. How far should they go? My diesel engines at work cruise right past 10, 12, 13,000 hours performing great still. How long is "long enough"? We generally trade them at 6-8k hours. Our gas trucks at work, the bodies/interiors fall apart around the engines. I've had two gas engine failure in 20+ years: one was due to being run out of oil, the other was a L31 Vortec -intake manifold gasket leaking coolant into the oil.

So I doubt that I'd convince anyone of anything over on BITOG, and I might even get "sucked into the fear talk" myself....but in reality, good PM and brand name products has proven to be better than good enough.

 

OK-- Fair enough.

You're right-- I don't think anyone ever changes their minds in internet debates and going around in circles can drive you nuts. So I don't blame you.

 

If I had a flat tappet engine, right now I'd be running Rotella T or Delo.

 

That could be a big mistake.

Diesel oils (SAE "C"-rated) have high amounts of primary zddp. That's fine for diesels (because they usually run at temp with few cold starts and diesels are generally less dependent on zddp levels), but gas engines need secondary zddp. Secondary zddp is a superior lubricant in gas engines to primary zddp.

Secondary zddp is the best, but it's also more labile, so most gas engine oils have a mix of primary and secondary that splits the difference.

Rotella T has a dual C/S rating, but no way I'd run it unless I knew the primary secondary zddp combination.

There is plenty of controversy online surrounding Rotella. Seems to have a cult following-- some are devoted to it, most say don't use it in a gas engine.

Shell does not recommend even the dual rated to be used in a gas engine/catalytic converter combination.

Thanks for the recommendation, but I think I'll pass...

 

For older flat tappet engines you need at least 12ppm (parts per million) of zinc to prevent any damage to flat tappet engines. This was mandated by EPA so they could cut down on carbon exhaust emissions. The problem with the zinc is that it wipes out catalytic convertors and can do it in a hurry. If you have a flat tappet engine and you don't use zinc, you can wipe out an engine in a hurry. Having more than 12ppm will not hurt your engine. Amsoil used to have their oil with 12ppm however they have lowered that due to our loving, keep us safe from ourselves government. The first fatality will be the camshaft and bearings and it won't take long to waste it. If changing out your cam, lube the hell out of it and then use ZDDP for your initial start up and maybe one oil change. Then you can change over to a synthetic oil that is compatible with your engine. I have 2 Model A Fords with NEW engines in them and I use straight Valvoline 30 weight as it is still above 12ppm (just barely) and I use a bottle of ZDDP at every oil change. I believe it is a 6 oz. bottle. I live in Maricopa County, Az and we have to smog any vehicle that is built after 1967!!! We have some of the most stringent smog laws in the U.S. I went through inspection with my 72 GMC truck and the first thing the inspector said "it won't pass". I told him to put it on the damn dyno before he made any decisions. It passed! There used to be a web site on Google about zinc and it's presence in oil however I have forgotten exactly what it is. Google zinc in oil and it should come up and give you the necessary info. EPA is forcing the oil companies to refine their oil more in the future and forcing people to get rid of our hot rods. Watch out the next 5 years. Sorry for my tirade but when we get on this subject there is a lot of speculation and the EPA pisses me off!
Tommy

 

Hey all-- I did some research over the weekend on this issue and started a new thread presenting the results.

The results are fairly definitive; here's a little hint:

Congratulations, Tom-- the scientific evidence proves that you actually can believe your own lyin' eyes!