Engine Flush

[bartell]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Yes and no. If you live in a very cold climate (below 0C) if the oil doesn't circulate quick enough on start up, you are going to cause wear. So like anything, it is a compromise and you will need a lower xW rating for cold climates, but you should try and maximise the hot viscosity.

You can play with it or explain it away for odd cases all you want. I repeat, the simple fact is the lifters are made for 20W50. If someone in -30C temperatures feels like moving to 10W40 I see no harm in that. In any event, it is those who jump into a cold vehicle, start it up and dash off without allowing the oil to warm who have the greatest wear. That practice causes far more wear than you are suggesting from a mildly thicker viscosity in cold weather.

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Again not strictly correct. All oils still have it, around 1200ppm.

Where HAVE you been?!!! Why don't you try something. Try to get a mainsteam oil company in the US to give you their oils' constituents. In the UK (which Australia follows) the news is less grim, some of their stock oils still have as high as 1000ppm (the legal limit)..but that will be brought down as well over the next 18 months

Originally Posted by p76rangie

It was never designed to protect surfaces for 2500 to 3000 miles.

Son, whatever quantity you put in, it will have little or no beneficial effect after 2500-3500 miles and our own analysis indicates you would be safer relying on the lower range.

Originally Posted by p76rangie

What it was designed to do was to protect it if for some reason there is no oil on the contact surfaces. The amount of zinc only determines how long it will protect without oil, not the level of protection it gives.

That is more than a little contrived. What you suggest is that zddp has its happiest effect on cams and lifters and every other metal to metal contact when the oil has drains off after the oil pumps is off. OK! (smile) Let's go for that. Then why would you want to do without it?

Originally Posted by p76rangie

The claims that the reduced levels have caused cam failures has not been scientifically proven and is mainly emotional statements from people who do not like change.

I agree that the some statements at the outset were silly exaggerations and we took them that way. However, in our case, we did extensive research to be sure. Crane, a frequent supplier and a noted cam maker under many names, did extensive tests with and without the additive. In a nutshell, flat tappet engines need it. If you still have your head in the sand, you will learn your lesson the next time you do a cam/lifter change and then quickly become a convert to the new world.

You see, if one follows my advice and believes the tests and I turn out wrong, there is no harm done beyond a 2-3 dollars an oil change or $12 of special cam lube at a cam switch. If they follow your advice and ignore all and you are wrong, they will watch their care become very sad and have to replace their cam and lifters. Not much a deep decision to make there mate! You lose.

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Incorrect again. Since January 2007, diesel oils have also had to comply with reduced zinc levels in the USA.

Fine give me the web addresses of 2-3 US motor diesel oils showing their constituents.

Originally Posted by p76rangie

I am not sure why the same old points keep on getting raised.

Partly because you are not right and it is key that correct information is offered in public forums as much as is possible. The other reason is because you are gratuitously rude to everyone. (Curious about that, is it a manliness thing?) Discussion group bloom if discussion is encouraged rather than ridiculed (especially inaccurately.) lt is never too late to correct a mistake.

In any event, I am a P76 fan, though we have moved far past that. What do you think of the new Coscast LR blocks? Absolutely amazing

James

[p76rangie]

I am really sick of these experts coming on and quoting bullshit.
This is a link to a Mobil site giving the Zinc contents for each of their motor oils. They are not trying to hide it, it took me all of 2 minutes to find it on the internet.
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/...duct_Guide.pdf
For the people that use the right oil, that is a 50 weight, the zinc content is still above 1000 ppm, with 15w50 having 1200ppm and the minimum level is 800ppm. Zinc has not disappeared, only reduced.

And seriously, who would put in a new cam without using cam lube for startup. We are not taking about running in a new cam, we are talking about the normal oil changes for a motor.

What you are saying is that the Zinc somehow disappears out of the oil the longer you leave it in the motor and that after 2500 miles there is none left in the oil. Interesting concept.

[bartell]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

I am really sick of these experts coming on and quoting bullshit.

I am not quoting, I am reading off test results we have had done. They match others in the industry. Can you share your own lab findings with us?

You seem to be unaware that the pre-2005 level of zddp was 1800 ppm. Your web reference indicates they have dropped substantially. Why not simply suggest that people google "zddp"?

You can twist what I write all you want..it is amusing to watch. It does not change facts.

Originally Posted by p76rangie

What you are saying is that the Zinc somehow disappears out of the oil the longer you leave it in the motor and that after 2500 miles there is none left in the oil. Interesting concept.

Yes that is what am saying, (though I recall using the figure of 2500-3500 miles.) That is our findings and they match everyone else's in the industry. Can you post yours for us to examine or are you simply guessing?

Your chronic aggressivity indicates something deep is amiss. That is a great pity because your style of presentation obscures any expertise you may have. I sincerely suggest you seek help. Until then, you are best placed on an ignore list.

James

[Elemental]

Originally Posted by bartell

I am not quoting, I am reading off test results we have had done. They match others in the industry. Can you share your own lab findings with us?

You seem to be unaware that the pre-2005 level of zddp was 1800 ppm. Your web reference indicates they have dropped substantially. Why not simply suggest that people google "zddp"?

You can twist what I write all you want..it is amusing to watch. It does not change facts.



Yes that is what am saying, (though I recall using the figure of 2500-3500 miles.) That is our findings and they match everyone else's in the industry. Can you post yours for us to examine or are you simply guessing?

Your chronic aggressivity indicates something deep is amiss. That is a great pity because your style of presentation obscures any expertise you may have. I sincerely suggest you seek help. Until then, you are best placed on an ignore list.

James

You are my new best friend! Welcome. Another soldier in the fight agsint misinformation! I feel a little giddy!

[p76rangie]

Originally Posted by bartell

I am not quoting, I am reading off test results we have had done. They match others in the industry. Can you share your own lab findings with us?

You seem to be unaware that the pre-2005 level of zddp was 1800 ppm. Your web reference indicates they have dropped substantially. Why not simply suggest that people google "zddp"?

You can twist what I write all you want..it is amusing to watch. It does not change facts.



Yes that is what am saying, (though I recall using the figure of 2500-3500 miles.) That is our findings and they match everyone else's in the industry. Can you post yours for us to examine or are you simply guessing?

Your chronic aggressivity indicates something deep is amiss. That is a great pity because your style of presentation obscures any expertise you may have. I sincerely suggest you seek help. Until then, you are best placed on an ignore list.

James

I have posted the answers regarding Zinc before. This is why I get feed up with covering the same ground time and time again. and yes I get pissed with people that keep on raising the same old stuff that, after a long debate, has been dealt with already in this thread. I also get pissed with all these experts making generalised statements and never any supporting data to back them up. Then they expect you to supply the support information to back up the counter argument.

Well you stated that:
1) Zinc had been removed from oil.
2) Manufacturers were trying to hide the fact from motorists and do not provide the zinc levels of the oil.

Well your FACTS were proved to be bullshit with the one link I posted to the Mobil website. No wonder Elemental loves you because you both do the exact same thing.

If you read anywhere about the zinc, it is to protect the motor in the cases that there is direct metal to metal contact. In every case people will tell you that such metal to metal contact should not occur, as there is suppose to be oil there. But there are occassions when it can occur on cold start-ups, etc. Particularly on the cam where the lifters and scrapping the oil off the cam face. The level of Zinc in the oil (The PPM eg 1200) does not affect the protection from the occassional dry surface. It determines how long the protection will last.

This is where the debate about the level required in oil. That is, whether it is 800ppm, 1200ppm, or 1800ppm. Of course the higher the level the longer the protection will be, but how long is required for a situation that should not occur at all. When they dropped the levels, there were these people like Elemental and yourself that went around crying that the sky was falling and some people listened to them. So as a marketing requirement, some oil companies (like Mobil 1) increased the levels back up in some of their oils to shut up the doomsday proclaimers. But then people like Elemental recommend oils like Mobil 1 5W40 oil to to people when he should know that it has lower levels of zinc in it. So these sorts of actions show that it is really not as important as they try to make out. They also recommend diesel oils, like Rotella, because it supposedly has high zinc levels. Yet they don't even know that diesel oils are subject to basically the same legal constraints as other oils and they have had their zinc levels reduced also. What these experts profess to know and what is reality are two different things

So if people are worried about the zinc levels, just use the proper oil for the vehicle, eg Mobil 1 15w50 and it will have the extra zinc in it. Not that I have chosen my oil for the zinc levels, but it has 1220 ppm.

So yes I get pissed off when I get another chicken little yelling the sky is falling when it comes to zinc levels.

Now you can post your research that shows that 800ppm will make a rover V8 last any longer than a oil with 1800ppm. And I don't mean just another "expert" like yourselves that state it has an impact. Get proper research that proves it. Surely you have something more substantial that your gut feel, or someone else's gut feel when you post this stuff. You can't post and you won't.

[p76rangie]

Originally Posted by Elemental

You are my new best friend! Welcome. Another soldier in the fight agsint misinformation! I feel a little giddy!

You mean another provider of misinformation like yourself. Just provide the substantiation that you have been requested in prior posts of this thread. Otherwise just get back in your box and keep quiet.

[p76rangie]

Just to post some independent views:

This is a quote from an engineering company dealing with older Porsche engines. It attacks the idea that oil changes should be conducted around the 2500 to 3000 mile mark.

"Failure to use the right oil, use proper filtration, or observe proper changing intervals can affect the performance of even the best motor oil. This also includes changing the oil too often (needlessly bad for the environment and your wallet) or not often enough.  Against conventional wisdom, engine wear decreases as oil ages to a certain extent, which means that changing your oil more frequently actually causes engine wear; these findings were substantiated by studies conducted by the auto manufacturers and petroleum companies, leading to drain intervals increased from 3,000mi/3 months to 5,000-7,500mi/6 months in most domestic vehicles, using mostly non-synthetic oils."

This following article was produced by SAE, you know the people that actually set the oil standards. You should note that the current grade oils must prove that they do not affect wear on flat tappet cams to get the SAE rating. But read an article from the experts on the current oil standards rather than from the chicken littles of this world.

"How about some real facts about Zinc levels from a SAE paper titled "How Much ZDP is Enough?". It is SAE document #2004-01-2986 if you care to locate it and read in greater detail.

Engine Oil Mythology

Myths are ill-founded beliefs held uncritically by interested groups. Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths.

All of these myths have a common theme; newer oils are bad. And this brings us to the latest myth – new “Starburst”/ API SM engine oils are bad for older cars because the amount of anti-wear additive in them has been reduced. This one has gotten big play in the antique and collector car press lately. The anti-wear additive being discussed is zinc dithiophosphate (ZDP).

Before debunking this myth we need to look at the history of ZDP usage in engine oil.

ZDP has been used for over 60 years as an additive in engine oils to provide wear protection and oxidation stability. Unfortunately, ZDP contains phosphorus, and phosphorus is a poison for automotive catalysts. For this reason ZDP levels have been reduced by about 35% over the last 10-15 years down to a maximum of 0.08% for “Starburst”/API SM oils.

Zinc dithiophosphate was first added to engine oil to control copper/lead bearing corrosion. Starting in 1942, a Chevrolet Stovebolt engine with aftermarket copper/lead insert-bearing connecting rods was used for the standard engine oil qualification test. The insert-bearings were weighed before and after test to evaluate weight loss due to corrosion. The phosphorus levels of oils that passed the test were in the 0.03% range.

In the mid-1950’s, Oldsmobile got into a horsepower war between its Rocket engine and the Chrysler Hemi. Both companies went to high-lift camshafts and both got into camshaft scuffing and wear problems very fast. There were three solutions: 1) better camshaft and lifter metallurgy, 2) phosphating the camshaft, and 3) increasing the phosphorus level from ZDP up to the 0.08% range. In addition, the industry developed a battery of oil tests (“Sequences”), two of which were valve-train scuffing/wear tests.

Knowing that this higher level of ZDP was good for flat-tappet valve-train scuffing and wear, some oil companies, thinking that they were offering the customer additional protection dumped even more into the oil. It was soon learned, however, that, while going above about 0.14% phosphorus might decrease break-in scuffing, longer-term wear increased. Further, at about 0.20% phosphorus, the ZDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.

In the 1970’s, the ZDP level was pushed up to the 0.10% phosphorus range because it was a cheap and effective antioxidant. The increased antioxidancy was needed to protect the oil in Cadillacs pulling Airstream trailers from thickening to a point where the engine could no longer pump it. Recently, the need for this higher level of ZDP to protect the oil from thickening has been greatly reduced with the introduction of modern ashless antioxidants that contain no phosphorus.

Enough history. Getting back to the myth that “Starburst/API SM oils are no good for older cars, the argument put forth by the myth believers 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 “Starburst”/API SM oil standards were developed by a group of OEM, oil additive company, and oil company experts. When developing any new engine oil standard, the issue of “backward compatibility” is always of great importance. Indeed, the group of experts spent a lot of time researching this issue. In addition, multiple oil and additive companies ran “no harm” tests on older cars with the new oils; no problems were uncovered.

Beyond the “no-harm” testing, the new “Starburst”/API SM specification contains two valve-train wear tests. One is the Sequence IVA, which tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a 2.4L Nissan single overhead camshaft engine with slider finger followers. The wear limits for this test were tightened from those of the previous oil specification, even though the old spec had a higher, 0.10%, phosphorous limit. The second test is the Sequence IIIG, which evaluates cam and lifter wear. For this test, a current-production, GM Powertrain 3.8L engine with the valve train replaced with a flat-tappet system, similar to those used in the 1980’s, is used. The only reason for using this older valve-train design is to ensure that older engines are protected. All “Starburst”/API SM oil formulations must pass these two tests.

In addition to the protection offered by these two valve-train wear tests and the “no-harm” testing, a review of the knowledge gained over the years in developing previous categories also indicates that no problem should be expected. For example, the new “Starburst”/API SM oils contain about the same percentage of ZDP as the oils that solved the camshaft scuffing and wear issues back in the 1950’s. They do contain less ZDP than the oils that solved the oil thickening issues in the 1960’s, but that is because they now contain high levels of ashless antioxidants, which were not commercially available in the 1960’s.

The oil’s ZDP level is only one factor in determining the life of an older camshaft or a new aftermarket camshaft. Most of the anecdotal reports of camshaft failures attributed to the newer oils appear to be with aftermarket camshafts. Breaking in extremely aggressive aftermarket camshafts has always been a problem. The legendary Smokey Yunick wrote that his solution to the problem was to buy multiple camshafts and simply try them in a slave engine until he found one that survived break-in without scuffing.

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 take about 75 years for this one to die also. "

[bartell]

Your habits of manipulative misquoting constantly delivered in apparently uncontrollable rage indicate something very sad. Have you considered a laxative?

James

"The Lady doth protest too much, methinks." Hamlet Act 3, scene 2

[p76rangie]

Originally Posted by bartell

Your habits of manipulative misquoting constantly delivered in apparently uncontrollable rage indicate something very sad. Have you considered a laxative?

James

"The Lady doth protest too much, methinks." Hamlet Act 3, scene 2

Why is that the people that post mis-information get into name calling when they are proved wrong.
I do not need a laxative with the stuff that some people post on this site.

Stop posting bullshit and I will not have to prove you wrong time and time again.

One final point on ZDP. The higher detergents in Diesel oils have been shown to wash away the ZDP deposits in the engine. So even though the diesel oil may have a slightly higher content, it does not protect as well.

[Jupiter Rover]

so based on that article p76rangie, you are saying that it does not matter what oil we use according to ZDP amount because newer oils are the same as 1950's oils.. but with ash-less antioxidants, so to speak

but either way it has to to pass ACEA A3/B3 A3/B4 or C3 ratings? and be at least a 15w-xx and a xw-50?


it's late, im trying to keep up.

[Jupiter Rover]

Originally Posted by p76rangie

Why is that the people that post mis-information get into name calling when they are proved wrong.
I do not need a laxative with the stuff that some people post on this site.

Stop posting bullshit and I will not have to prove you wrong time and time again.

One final point on ZDP. The higher detergents in Diesel oils have been shown to wash away the ZDP deposits in the engine. So even though the diesel oil may have a slightly higher content, it does not protect as well.

did it not say in the article that you do not want Too much ZDP (b/c of the phosphorous), or else it would cause wear and cause the cam to "spall". you need the right amount..
is that right?

[p76rangie]

Originally Posted by Jupiter Rover

did it not say in the article that you do not want Too much ZDP (b/c of the phosphorous), or else it would cause wear and cause the cam to "spall". you need the right amount..
is that right?

What they were saying is that above 1400ppm may be alright for running in a new cam, but will actually shorten the life of the cam if you keep on using it.

Back when motors went to high lift cams, they found that 800ppm was enough to prevent cam damage.

So by default, they are suggesting that between 800ppm and 1400ppm are safe to use in the old type cam motors.

But what they are also stating is that any oil has to be tested on old cam type motors, to prove they have no ill effect, to get the SAE rating. So any oil with a SAE rating should be OK to use.

But based on the oils you have available in the US, it would seem that Mobil 1 15W50 is a good bet. It has the higher shear protection, being a 50 oil. It will flow in very cold wheather with the 15W rating. It also has a ZDP content of 1200ppm. Finally, it is a reputable brand.

But I am sure that there are similar oils in other brands, I just don't have the time or interest to find them. You cannot get the oil I use in the US.

[Jupiter Rover]

yeah i know we cant get penrite, i got a good idea of what oil i need between you and ele. thanks.

[p76rangie]

Originally Posted by Jupiter Rover

so based on that article p76rangie, you are saying that it does not matter what oil we use according to ZDP amount because newer oils are the same as 1950's oils.. but with ash-less antioxidants, so to speak

The article was not written by me, I only copied and pasted it on this forum. The article was written due to the spread of the myth about newer oils being bad for old motors. It was written by SAE and they should know what is required of oil and the reasons for various changes over the years as they are the ones that set the standards.

So you can simply weigh up the opinion of the SAE against Elemental and other experts. Then you can make up your own mind what to use. But I would leave the diesel oils for diesel engines.

[Jupiter Rover]

what do you think about the ACEA ratings from elemental? and i know it was written by the SAE, i knew it was a article not written by you. no offense.