Land Rover and Range Rover Forum banner
1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
With apologies to the OP for the hijack, I don't know why you continue to beat this drum. You continually post comments on this topic with "facts" that never have any attributions to their source, and you fail to address the basic issue that zinc levels have been continually lowered in motor oils concurrent with the adoption of roller lifters.
I do not know why you brought up about zinc levels in oil in this thread. Just because you are destroying your engine with high levels of zinc, you appear to want to convince yourself it is OK by getting others to agree to you. I have previously posted technical articles from the associations that set oil the oil standards and have provided links to the source. You just post links to internet forums. I am not going down this rabbit hole with you again. Stop highjacking threads to push your views. End of this discussion in this thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
You are correct. There is no oil transferring to the intake manifold and therefore oil goes nowhere near the intake gasket. However, the intake gasket is also the gasket for the valley between the cylinder banks. Oil does splash around in this area. You can get leaks at the front and rear of the valley cover. But this is only from oil splashing around underneath. CT90 appears to be referring to these areas rather than the actual gasket between the intake manifold and the heads.
The leak was at the junction where the intake manifold mates to the head. Misalignment of the gasket allowed a leak at the very bottom of the intake port, which allowed oil to be drawn into that port, which caused a plug fouling issue- as well as a vacuum leak.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
I do not know why you brought up about zinc levels in oil in this thread. Just because you are destroying your engine with high levels of zinc, you appear to want to convince yourself it is OK by getting others to agree to you. I have previously posted technical articles from the associations that set oil the oil standards and have provided links to the source. You just post links to internet forums. I am not going down this rabbit hole with you again. Stop highjacking threads to push your views. End of this discussion in this thread.
No, you suggested I Google something.

And if you would spend more time reading what people asked, you would have noticed that the op ASKED about additives, specifically Lucas additive. So, the hijack is on you.

These are the facts-- motor oils contained levels of zinc used as wear-prevention additives approaching 2000PPM for many decades. In 2004, Congress enacted law that required an emissions warranty for all vehicles of 100,000 miles. This was a trigger for the reduction in zinc levels- and not because of any effect of zinc. It was because the compound used, ZDDP, contains phosphorous, which does impact converter life. This fantasy you harbor about zinc damaging internal engine components is absolutely unfounded. Zinc was used for many decades with no such effects at the levels it was blended into motor oils.

The issue with cats is pretty silly- virtually every one of these trucks is at or over 100K. The cats are all about at the end of their lives anyway. And as I posted before, I'd rather replace a cat than do internal engine damage. But beyond that, Rangie's position defies both logic and the facts at hand. The Rover engine was developed in the sixties using technology that dates back to the advent of internal combustion engines. It required an oil to address that design. They started putting catalytic converters behind these engines in the early seventies with those same zinc levels and did so for about 30 years. The only thing that changed was that the one function inside an engine which presented a high-pressure metal-to-metal wear point was re-engineered on virtually every other engine- the cam lobe to lifter interface. The widespread implementation of roller lifters allowed engineers to reduce zinc lubricant additives in these engines. Yet, for another decade, medium and heavy vehicle oils maintained these zinc levels. This is primarily because the manufacturers of these vehicles were looking at purchaser expectations of engine life of approx. 500K for medium and 1MM miles for OTR trucks. Without zinc, these service life expectations would be unrealistic. The same applies for the need for this additive in the Rover engine.

Nothing changed inside of the Rover engine relieving the need for this additive. And no mainstream motor oil manufacturer that I'm aware of is offering a vintage vehicle oil. The specialty oil people do- and those companies all cite their oil to have the levels of zinc/ZDDP that was present back when these engines were being produced.

For the op that might not be aware, some years back people began recommending the use of Shell Rotella T. It had three advantages. Although made for diesels, it was rated for use in gasoline engines, it was heavier, which helped with Rover oiling issues, and it contained a level of zinc comparable to oils utilized when just about everything had flat tappet camshafts. As virtually everyone moved to roller tappet cams, the need for elevated zinc levels was becoming less of an issue for just about everyone except hot rodders and Rover owners, owing to the fact that Rover, for whatever reason opted not to address this issue- either figuring a redesign or more likely, knowing that it wouldn't be their problem in a couple years as the company would be once again under the ownership of others or gone altogether.

Rangie: If you want to end the discussion, please feel free to do so now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
These are the facts-- motor oils contained levels of zinc used as wear-prevention additives approaching 2000PPM for many decades.

For the op that might not be aware, some years back people began recommending the use of Shell Rotella T.
No oil had 2000ppm in it. Anything above 1400 has been proved to destroy the motors.
The "people" you mention are forum members who recommended rotella based on it being cheep and having detergent in it to clean out the engine.
You remind me of Donald Trump. He has similar accuracy in his facts.
 

·
Wounded Knee Moderator
Joined
·
1,904 Posts
This is to alleviate a hijacked thread, I want to be convinced one way or the other so annotations would be excellent. Blow my mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
This is to alleviate a hijacked thread, I want to be convinced one way or the other so annotations would be excellent. Blow my mind.
This topic has already been discussed at length in other parts of the this forum. I am not sure why it was brought again here. I suggest people do a search if they want the detail.

READERS PLEASE NOTE: Even though one of my posts is listed first in this topic, I did not start this thread. It was created by the moderator.

I have no wish to discuss a topic that has been well a truely dealt with over the years. I just responded to a post in another thread when the same old stuff was raised again.
 

·
Wounded Knee Moderator
Joined
·
1,904 Posts
Agreed and it's been debated at great length on MANY forums. If possible I wouldn't mind collecting the information in one thread and then it can become a sticky we all can point to in the future. I appreciate the cooperation, we're all here for the right reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Agreed and it's been debated at great length on MANY forums. If possible I wouldn't mind collecting the information in one thread and then it can become a sticky we all can point to in the future. I appreciate the cooperation, we're all here for the right reasons.
Please look at this thread. http://www.landroversonly.com/forums/f40/rotella-oil-usage-warning-135450/
This is the last time it was discussed. I posted references and articles by SAE engineers who set the standards and do all the wear testing on engines. Their statements are a bit more credible that posts made by unknown people on forums.

The reason why I looked into all this years ago was because of what was posted on forums about unfounded statements. It had be worried as I might be destroying my own engines. After a lot of research I found that the allegations were started by the people making the additives and it took off like a wildfire across forums. Everyone stating things as fact just because they read it on another forum. It took a lot to find the real test data and actual scientific results issued by SAE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
Once again, you posted a suggestion that someone might search for an article that supported your position. It contained an excerpted quote from some unattributed source. Since you insist on beating this drum, I tracked down the original paper, which was done by a GM engineer. This paper was written largely from a theoretical viewpoint and for the most part was the opinion of that engineer. A valid and respectable opinion, but, and I'm guessing that person would agree, certainly not the definitive last word on the topic. That paper essentially said that new oil were being formulated to be rearward compatible with flat tappet camshaft engines and everything would be OK. The reality of the situation did not bear out the wishful thinking of the author of that study. That paper, written in 2004, ended up being wishful thinking and shortly after its publication, the realities of reduced zinc became apparent.

In spite of this GM report, history since that time has borne out that the reduction of zinc in motor oils has had a negative impact on flat tappet camshafts, such as found in the Rover engine. One well-respected group, the Automotive Engine Rebuilder's Association addressed this issue shortly after the publication of the GM paper. If you care to read it, it can be found here- http://www.engineprofessional.com/downloads/ep1/EP012008_49-52.pdf It's on the 3rd page, TB 2333R.

After 2004, the only significant part of the automotive manufacturing industry with any connection to the problem was the engine rebuilder segment. The OEM's left the problem in their rear view mirror by eliminating the need for these levels of zinc through product design- the roller cam. The industry based on dealing with their legacy designs was left by the wayside. While efforts were certainly made to make motor oil rearward compatible, this was the last thing on the list of the auto manufacturers and the American petroleum Institute, which works in conjunction with the auto industry and the oil producers to establish engine oil formulations.

Interestingly enough, The same entity that produced the paper that propounded that reduced zinc levels were OK also marketed and sold a product called EOS (engine oil supplement) which was discontinued in 2007. It was a ZDDP additive. They re-introduced the product a few years later as an engine oil enhancer.


As I have stated before, people should do their own homework. I've done mine and I've been using a zinc additive in every engine I have assembled since the 70's, and that's quite a few engines. Granted, the roller cam engines don't need the zinc and I don't add it after break in. But in every flat tappet engine, they get zinc additive at every oil change.

If you really want an education in motor oils, visit https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php These guys are hardcore motor oil enthusiasts.


And Rangie, to your comment about the levels of zinc in motor oil...

The XPR oils contain in excess of 1,900 ppm of ZDDP anti-wear additive.
Thanks for considering Royal Purple and have a great day.

Best Regards, Christopher Barker

Tech Services Royal Purple, Inc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
There is no convincing you CT090. You post an article about what oil to use when breaking in a new cam. No where does it suggest leaving that oil in the motor, just for the very short break in period for the cam (10 to 15 minutes).

I think you have your timing wrong. You state that SAE put out the papers on Zinc and then these supposed issues started with the new oil. You will find that the opposite occurred. Due to the myths being circulated about the new oils, SAE put out the articles to address the false facts in them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
The AERA is first and foremost concerned with cam break-in, since this was at the time where many of the problems were occurring. If you read the article, they did touch upon the ongoing need for zinc compounds in motor oil.

Your second assertion is misleading. The zinc article you originally mentioned was not an SAE paper, authored by and set forth as SAE endorsed doctrine. It was a GM study merely distributed via SAE. And that article was published in 2004, concurrent with the moment zinc was being reduced in oils. The AERA piece was published in '08.

Aside from the paper you mentioned, I can't find another single mention of zinc being detrimental. The net of the GM article merely suggests it's unnecessary, but many within the industry, via their experience have found otherwise. The oil forums, the hot rod guys who all have to live with flat tappets, the oil manufacturers, the cam manufacturers- there's an overwhelmingly favorable opinion out there that zind is the way to keep these cams alive.

Close to home, we have many members using high-zinc Rotella and I don't know about you, but I don't see many threads about dead catalysts. In my own experience, I have replaced one set of cats on my own vehicles in the last 30 years--a BMW E39 with 220K on it. And I average 40K miles a year. I bought a new Tahoe in '94 and drove it 425K. It got synthetic oil changes every 10K with a zinc additive. I rebuilt the trans five separate times, but never had as much as the rocker covers off of it. And sold it with the stock cats still underneath it.

You are also wrong about my ability to be convinced. I'm convinced by information acquired from industry professionals that I know and who's opinions I value. I'm convinced by the opinions of others in the performance engine building community who have generously shared their approaches, philosophies, techniques and successes with me, and I'm convinced by my own 40+ years experience in the automotive industry. As I have said repeatedly, do your own research and do what you feel is right for you. I'm merely putting forth the information I used to come up with my own thoughts on the topic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
You write such long replies. Rotella had around 1100 to 1200 ppm zinc. I have said that the oil I run has 1100ppm zinc, not that the zinc content had any influence over what I chose. It has mainly been shown that once you go past 1400ppm you start causing damage to you motor. Once you add a zinc additive to oil that already has zinc in it (all engine oils) you will put it has past the safety limit of 1400 ppm. I have previously provided the SAE reference number relating to technical documents they issue.

I am not attempting to convince you of anything. It was this blindly reposting things as fact, that were only gathered from other forums, that started this whole myth about zinc in the first place. I just do not want others to read what you are posting as being fact. I want them to go off and do their won research until they are convinced one way or the other. It after reading the available material out there, they decide that they should use a zinc additive, then that is fine. I am just saying that do not believe anything to read on forums. Always fact check the information first. This obviously includes anything I post.

The internet is a dangerous place, no matter how extreme your views are on something, you will always find something on the internet to support those views. In regard to motor vehicles, people should do a search on "waterless Coolant" and see all the articles saying that it is the best stuff since sliced bread. In reality it is the worst stuff you could use to try and cool anything. So be careful with your research and check a lot of different sites so that you can get both sides of the story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Please post the text of these articles so that we all might read what you have based your assertions upon. Please include all attributions and references, especially to the specific testing which has shown these results.
I have posted it all before. Anyone that is interested can find it. They can take the documents for what they are worth.

I am not going to tell people what they should believe. I only wish to convince people that there are always two sides to a story and they should take into account both. I have only given them things that they should look into further. It is up to them to make up their own minds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
I have posted it all before.
If you did, please post a link to it.

In our previous discussion you made a number of claims and then suggested we all Google "Engine Oil Myths" to view the source of your facts. When challenged, you posted this- http://www.landroversonly.com/forums/731362-post12.html (a link to the specific post of yours, not the entire thread as previously linked) which is clearly someone else's comments about studies they have read.

Any time any of your "facts" are challenged, you sidestep the issue. Any time one of your assertions is disproven, you simply choose to ignore that part of the discussion. So far, all we have is your opinion. That's OK- you're certainly entitled to it. But for anyone to put any credence in it, one would expect some qualification for that opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
For those that really like reading things on the internet, here are a few links. You will notice that any articles you find that discuss "issues" with the newer ZDDP levels relate to only to the break in period of the motor or hot rod and racing motors that have high lift cams. If you are not starting your motor up for the first time after a rebuild, and you car does not shake at idle due to a lumpy cam, then any of the "issues" that people raise will never affect you.

http://www.drivenracingoil.com/news/dro/training-center/articles/zinc-in-motor-oil/
http://www.penriteoil.com.au/images/PENR0138_Penrite_Zinc Tech Bulletin.pdf
Too Much Zinc In Your Oil? | MotorWeek
http://tikobv.nl/m/ZDDP.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
Once again, when challenged to back up any of your statements, you duck the issue and attempt obfuscation.

This is what people really need to know:

The zinc levels in passenger car motor oils has been reduced dramatically and in some instances removed entirely. The zinc has been lowered (or removed) because of environmental issues- if we can lower or even eliminate metals and metal oxide emissions into our environment, that's better for all of us. Inside of an internal combustion engine, the flat tappet cam/lifter interface is unique. It had the highest level of metal to metal pressure by far. In order to accommodate the need to reduce the use of zinc, automakers began employing roller lifters. They didn't do this because they wanted to- they cost dramatically more to manufacture and are one of but a multitude of reasons how environmental issues have driven upward the cost of automobiles far in excess of economic inflation. This aside, the Rover in your driveway still has a flat tappet camshaft in it. All of the physics involved are still present. It was one of the very last vehicles sold to employ this technology and relative to the whole of the auto industry, there an incredibly small number of them manufactured and just a small percentage of them remain on the road. The oil producing industry has no reason to maintain a backward-compatible oil for such a tiny portion vehicles still on the road. Thus, a specialty lubricants industry exists, primarily for enthusiasts, whether that be the racing community or the vintage car community- the latter which shares this camshaft lubrication issue.

I'm all for the debate, and certainly open to learning something new or having my mind changed. But this isn't a debate. A debate requires the participants to directly respond to each other, and that isn't happening here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
The Facts Are:

1) Any credible source of any issue with Zinc levels in current oils has only been from engine rebuilders and people fitting very high lift cams. This has only been related to the initial break-in time of the motor.
2) High lift cams are notoriously difficult to break in without destroying them at the best of times.
3) Engine rebuilders also strongly state that you should never use synthetic oil during the break in period. By CT090's logic, you should not be using synthetic oil in our engines.
4) The limits of ZDDP in oil only applies to 0W-xx, 5W-xx, and 10W-xx oils. Some Rover V8 owners in very cold climates may be using 10W-xx oils, but largely the limits apply to oils you should not be using in your rover V8's anyway.
5) Anything above 800ppm has been proven fine for your rover V8 engines
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
The Facts Are:

1) Any credible source of any issue with Zinc levels in current oils has only been from engine rebuilders and people fitting very high lift cams. This has only been related to the initial break-in time of the motor.
2) High lift cams are notoriously difficult to break in without destroying them at the best of times.
3) Engine rebuilders also strongly state that you should never use synthetic oil during the break in period. By CT090's logic, you should not be using synthetic oil in our engines.
4) The limits of ZDDP in oil only applies to 0W-xx, 5W-xx, and 10W-xx oils. Some Rover V8 owners in very cold climates may be using 10W-xx oils, but largely the limits apply to oils you should not be using in your rover V8's anyway.
5) Anything above 800ppm has been proven fine for your rover V8 engines
I'm done being polite. Your ignorance is astounding. Your statements are evidence that you have little clue of which you speak.

-You failed to even read the text of the links you posted, of which go into some depth on zinc additives and go far beyond breakin.

-High lift solid-lifter cams are no more difficult to break in than any other cam. Every cam manufacturer includes instructions that explain that only the outer spring be used during break-in. With modern assembly lubricants its a no-brainer. If you had any experience in this area at all, you'd know this.

-The no-synthetic thing is an old myth long retired by anyone that knew anything. Legitimate, respected engine builders have known that for years.

-You have no clue as to the present zinc content in motor oils, except for what I have posted on this site. Nor have you offered any proof that you have any knowledge of such.

-As above, you have no idea if the oil in use has 800PPM. And maybe 800PPM is OK. But when these engines were built, the oils specified for use in them had zinc levels in the 1500PPM range. Why would you not want to use what the engine was designed for?

Lastly, you still haven't posted any of the research you keep preaching about. Leads me to believe you don't have it and have never read it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
This is one last fact check before I finish with this thread. The Rover V8 was designed in the 60's based on the old buick V8. Back in the 60's they were only running 800ppm zinc due to the aggressive cams being introduced. No such cam was ever put into a rover V8. Therefore, anyone that suggests using oil that was used at the time the rover V8 was developed should only be using a oil with 800ppm zinc or below.

Here is the detail history.
"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 800ppm
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 the standard oil test. The insert bearings were weighed before and after test for weight loss due to corrosion. The phosphorus levels of oils that passed the test were in the 0.03% range.
In the mid 1950s Oldsmobile got in a horsepower war with its Rocket engine against 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. Better camshaft and lifter metallurgy, phosphating the camshaft, and increasing the phosphorus level from ZDP up to the 0.08% range. Another outcome 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 dumped even more in thinking that they were offering the customer even more protection. However it was soon learned that while going above something like 0.14% phosphorus might decrease break-in scuffing, it increased longer term wear. At about 0.20% phosphorus the ZDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.
Later in the 1970s, the ZDP level was pushed up to the 0.10% phosphorus range as it was a cheap and effective antioxidant, and increased antioxidancy was needed to protect the oil in Cadillacs pulling Airstream trailers from thickening to the point of not pumping. Recently, the need for this higher level of ZDP for protecting the oil from thickening has been greatly reduced with the introduction of more modern ashless antioxidants that contain no phosphorus.
Enough history, now getting back to the myth that 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.
Developed by a group of OEM, oil additive company, and oil company experts, the new specification contains two valve-train wear tests. One is the Sequence IVA Test which tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a 2.4L Nissan single overhead camshaft engine with slider finger followers. The wear limits were tightened from the previous oil specification which contained a phosphorus limit of 0.10%. The second is the Sequence IIIG Test which evaluates cam and lifter wear. A current production GM Powertrain 3.8L engine with the valve train replaced with a flat tappet system similar to those used in the 1980s is used. The only reason that this test engine uses this older valve train design is to insure that older two tests.
In addition to the protection offered by these two valvetrain wear tests and the new testing which was conducted on the formulations containing lower levels of ZDP, a review of the knowledge gained over the years in developing previous categories also indicates that no problem should be expected. oils contain about the same percentage of ZDP as the oils that solved the camshaft scuffing and wear issues back in the 1950s. They do contain less ZDP than the oils that solved the oil thickening issues in the 1960s, but that is because they now contain high levels of ashless antioxidants that were not commercially available in the 1960s.
Zinc content 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 problem. The legendary Smokey Yunick wrote that his solution to the problem was to buy multiple camshafts and simply try breaking them in 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 Like other myths before it, history teaches us that it will take about 75 years for this one to die also."


This has gone beyond a joke now. May your motor live long and prosper.
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top