True. And if the motor were a fresh one, perhaps something might be gained. Not sure what the cost vs benefit is but there would be some gain.

 

Okay! I'll start off....

I talked to the Trump camp. They said "Make woodstockdrifter's engine great again!". Then, they followed up with: "Grab all the ***** you can UNTIL that happens!"

Then, I talked to the Clinton camp. They said "Maintain a public/private position on the matter." The public position should strike fear into the OP. The private position should be a chuckle to yourself.

Then, I checked WikiLeaks....They published that zinc is a Communist plot to destroy American from within...by killing catalytic converters from within.

Putin didn't have a comment...as he was out riding his horsey w/o a shirt.

 

-

back on-topic. I've got to add this - a little FYI, and take it for what it's worth. it's a little cut and paste from a GM paper on Debunking the Oil Myth.


The Starburst Oil Myth -- The latest myth promoted by the antique and collector car press says that new Starburst/ API SM engine oils (called Starburst for the shape of the symbol on the container) are bad for older engines because the amount of anti-wear additive in them has been reduced. The anti-wear additive being discussed is zinc dithiophosphate (ZDP).

Before debunking this myth, we need to look at the history of ZDP usage. For over 60 years, ZDP has been used as an additive in engine oils to provide wear protection and oxidation stability.

ZDP was first added to engine oil to control copper/lead bearing corrosion. Oils with a phosphorus level in the 0.03% range passed a corrosion test introduced in 1942.

In the mid-1950s, when the use of high-lift camshafts increased the potential for scuffing and wear, the phosphorus level contributed by ZDP was increased to the 0.08% range.

In addition, the industry developed a battery of oil tests (called sequences), two of which were valve-train scuffing and wear tests.

A higher level of ZDP was good for flat-tappet valve-train scuffing and wear, but it turned out that more was not better. Although break-in scuffing was reduced by using more phosphorus, longer-term wear increased when phosphorus rose above 0.14%. And, at about 0.20% phosphorus, the ZDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.

By the 1970s, increased antioxidancy was needed to protect the oil in high-load engines, which otherwise could thicken to a point where the engine could no longer pump it. Because ZDP was an inexpensive and effective antioxidant, it was used to place the phosphorus level in the 0.10% range.

However, phosphorus is a poison for exhaust catalysts. So, ZDP levels have been reduced over the last 10-15 years. It's now down to a maximum of 0.08% for Starburst oils. This was supported by the introduction of modern ashless antioxidants that contain no phosphorus.

Enough history. Let's get back to the myth that Starburst oils are no good for older engines. The argument put forth is that while these oils work perfectly well in modern, gasoline engines equipped with roller camshafts, they will cause catastrophic wear in older engines equipped with flat-tappet camshafts.

The facts say otherwise.

Backward compatibility was of great importance when the Starburst oil standards were developed by a group from the OEMs, oil companies, and oil additive companies. In addition, multiple oil and additive companies ran no-harm tests on older engines with the new oils; and no problems were uncovered.

The new Starburst specification contains two valve-train wear tests. All Starburst oil formulations must pass these two tests.

- Sequence IVA tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a single overhead camshaft engine with slider finger (not roller) followers.

- Sequence IIIG evaluates cam and lifter wear using a V6 engine with a flat-tappet system, similar to those used in the 1980s.

Those who hold onto the myth are ignoring the fact that the new Starburst oils contain about the same percentage of ZDP as the oils that solved the camshaft scuffing and wear issues back in the 1950s. (True, they do contain less ZDP than the oils that solved the oil thickening issues in the 1960s, but that's because they now contain high levels of ashless antioxidants not commercially available in the 1960s.)
Despite the pains taken in developing special flat-tappet camshaft wear tests that these new oils must pass and the fact that the ZDP level of these new oils is comparable to the level found necessary to protect flat-tappet camshafts in the past, there will still be those who want to believe the myth that new oils will wear out older engines.
Like other myths before it, history teaches us that it will probably take 60 or 70 years for this one to die also.

Special thanks to GM's Techlink
- Thanks to Bob Olree – GM Powertrain Fuels and Lubricants Group

 

How can you say that when he's got 157k? What's he doing wrong?

 

Problem is that it isn't easy to determine. We have a lot of anecdotal "evidence" but no real scientific testing. This is akin to smoking. My grandma quit at 65 after a lot of badgering by her kids but has been smoking since who knows when. She died of something totally unrelated. So was smoking bad? According to her case, no. Unfortunately we really need a large sample to get a proper average instead of that one case. In a large sample, we can say "7 out of 8 smokers died of cancer so we can figure that smoking is an issue" (simplistic but you get the point).

 

WTF-??? you have to go back to my original post. NOWHERE did I make any claim or submit anything as scientific fact or testing - one way or another. some of you are reading way too much into this -

 

Ever heard of people never changing their timing belt? But a car might have 157k on the original timing belt, but hey, what are they doing wrong?

 

lmao

 

that's right, put a spin on it. what exactly is your point, and what does a timing belt have to do with the subject at hand? getting back on track. one - i DON'T add additives to my engine oil - you do. somehow, you think i'm doing something wrong, and you seem to have some psychic ability to predict a future engine failure. now, if you want to dump extra stuff into you engine and pay for fancy-schmancy oil analysis, that's your business - I could care less. people shouldn't make statements without some sort of factual data. now, this time I really done here - have a good one....

 

What they're doing wrong is not following the OEM's service intervals outlined in the owners manual. I don't see the comparison AT ALL.

Timing belt has a very specific interval -you can find it right in the owners manual in the glove box.

Show me where, in the owners manual, it states "ZDP", or "zinc" additive requirements or service requirements for a Corvette. Now, I already know that you're not going to show me that, because there is no such requirement established by the OEM for any C4 Corvette....which is totally different than the established requirement for belt changing by every OEM that uses a belt.

You're making **** up here. Or at the very least, blowing something way out of proportion.


.

 

Oil analysis is part of the equation . What we don't know is what the actual requirements are. Is there a published spec somewhere ?

 

The published spec for oil for your vehicle is right in the owners manual.

For those who feel that the issue needs to be explored more deeply, here is a FANTASTIC read on the subject. I highly recommend spending the time to read it, and all the hyperlinks contained w/in. Someone spent a lot of time (and some money too) to put together a pretty comprehensive analysis of the topic. I doubt that you'll find a better researched report, post on "forums".

 

What does a timing belt have to do with the subject at hand? You mean the subject of people incorrectly maintaining their engines? What a stupid question.

You OF ALL PEOPLE should know BETTER. Secondly, do you really expect me to find anything related to ZDDP additives in an owners manual that came out in 1985 when the regulations didn't start until the 1990s? I mean, is this a serious request? Really?

 

I do know better. Which is why you won't find me dumping potions into various orifices of my car. My current "high mileage" car (truck) has 290,000 miles on it...yet performs like new. I wonder what I'm "doing wrong"...

I already told you that I don't expect you to find anything related to ZDDP additives in an owners manual. It's not in there. They don't want you to add things to the oil.

You claiming that the reduction in "Z" didn't happen until the 90's so you wouldn't see that recommendation...but it was already stated earlier in the thread that later oils are backward compatible.

In another post, a different thread was referenced that stated the amount of "ZDDP" necessary, and the testing that was used to determine that. The amount was 800 ppm and any decent oil available today has that. Some have more. Did you read the link that I provided for you?

Timing belt service ≠ Adding chemicals to your oil.


.

 

- let me get this right. so now you're implying i'm incorrectly maintaining my engine? i'd "challenge" you on this my friend, but somehow I don't think you would be much of a challenge!

 

Before anyone squawks about taking about diesel, this is an example

When they tested diesel fuel snake oils, I saw THIS article.

On page 10 and 11 we can see that if you go with the fuel from the pump, you have so much wear vs if you go higher, you have that much.

So, for fuel, I don't dump the snake oils in because the extra protection they give nets me so little it doesn't cover the cost of the snake oil.

 

Unless someone was going to pay for any potential damage, why would anybody think I would care what their opinion was on what I may or may not use in my engine?

 

Would you believe my 78 pinto owners book called for a quart of ford dz whatever it was that turned out to be a zinkdiakyldithiophosphate additive?

 

Wow! *I* can't believe it. But there it is; 1978 and a specific OEM recommendation.

Was that w/every oil change, I'm guessing? 3 qts OEM spec oil + 1 qt of the Ford "DZ"?

Anyone care to have a look in their '85 manuals?

 

My cam is more aggressive than stock, and I was unaware of this zddp issue with modern oils.

Using the High Mileage oil would be a simple solution, but I note it has an increase in detergents and a seal softener of some sort added. No cat, so that isn't a consideration.

https://mobiloil.com/en/motor-oils/m...1-high-mileage

Wonder how big a concern those would be?