Even then... they could tell you how much of each ingredient remains at the end of your oil change cycle, but probably couldnt tell you how much you needed to begin with. Also the way they know if you dont have enough is a high amount metal wear particles in your oil.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 04-17-2014).]
"First, to establish a base line, I started with a1980s vintage "Pennzoil" 10W/40 it contained 547 PPM Phosphorus and 716 PPM Zinc. This was one of the popular oils widely available and used in the 80s. It had adequate ZDDP content for flat tappet engines."
Have info on other 80's oils? Pennzoil in the 80s was had a wax issue and was known to cause engine problems, plug up passages. At least if ever switched to another oil.
Redline and Rotella T are racing and diesel oils.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 04-17-2014).]
Have info on other 80's oils? Pennzoil in the 80s was had a wax issue and was known to cause engine problems, plug up passages. At least if ever switched to another oil.
"Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths. Here are some facts you may want to pass along to customers to help debunk the fiction behind these myths.
The Pennsylvania Crude Myth -- This myth is based on a misapplication of truth. In 1859, the first commercially successful oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania. A myth got started before World War II claiming that the only good oils were those made from pure Pennsylvania crude oil. At the time, only minimal refining was used to make engine oil from crude oil. Under these refining conditions, Pennsylvania crude oil made better engine oil than Texas crude or California crude. Today, with modern refining methods, almost any crude can be made into good engine oil.
Other engine oil myths are based on the notion that the new and the unfamiliar are somehow "bad."
The Detergent Oil Myth -- The next myth to appear is that modern detergent engine oils are bad for older engines. This one got started after World War II, when the government no longer needed all of the available detergent oil for the war effort, and detergent oil hit the market as “heavy-duty” oil.
Many pre-war cars had been driven way past their normal life, their engines were full of sludge and deposits, and the piston rings were completely worn out. Massive piston deposits were the only thing standing between merely high oil consumption and horrendous oil consumption. After a thorough purge by the new detergent oil, increased oil consumption was a possible consequence. If detergent oils had been available to the public during the war, preventing the massive deposit buildup from occurring in the first place, this myth never would have started. Amazingly, there are still a few people today, 60 years later, who believe that they need to use non-detergent oil in their older cars. Apparently, it takes many years for an oil myth to die.
The Synthetic Oil Myth -- Then there is the myth that new engine break-in will not occur with synthetic oils. This one was apparently started by an aircraft engine manufacturer who put out a bulletin that said so. The fact is that Mobil 1 synthetic oil has been the factory-fill for many thousands of engines. Clearly, they have broken in quite well, and that should put this one to rest.
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 compatability was of great importance when the Starburst oil standards were developed by a group of experts 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."
Bob Olree – GM Powertrain Fuels and Lubricants Group
jpeeler what weight of Quaker state defy do you use? Thanks
I just use 5W30.
Edit to add that Blackstone laboratories said this was the first time they had tested Defy, as it was newer at the time. They seemed to think it was doing its job. Everything looked good on my 150,000 mile GT
[This message has been edited by jpeeler (edited 04-17-2014).]
Since it says they welcome inquiries I asked a couple questions to see what their input is too. If I get a reply I will post it.
In part i asked:
"I was hoping you could shed some light on the ZDDP issue for me. I have come to understand that for cars like my 72 Buick Skylark with a stock Buick 350, and my 1988 Pontiac Fiero with stock 2.8, both having “flat tappets”, that most modern car motor oils do not lubricate enough and I need to add ZDDP. Other options are use a Diesel rated motor oil, or even add liquid moly. Is any of this true? Or is it perfectly fine to use any conventional or synthetic that is rated for gasoline engine cars in the proper weight?
How about for breaking in an engine or a new cam?
One more thing.. do synthetics flow that much better? For example if the Fiero calls for 5w30 conventional, can 10w40 synthetic, or even 15w50 synthetic be run safely? "
Low temperature performance of synthetic oils are well know. They remain thinner and more stable at colder temps than conventional oils. Also they remain more stable at hot temps and deal with high temps much better an this is why most Turbo changed engines recommend synthetics as they do not coke up the bearings in the turbo units. But it is a well know trait it flows much easier and efficiently in the cold.
You can see It if you change oil in the winter time as even cold pouring it in it flows better.
Read all of the Mobil site and much of this is covered.
The bottom line is the synthetics oils are much more stable across the temperature range.
Better yet you show me a current automobile owners manual the states a recommended oil additive. There are none. They all have their recommended oils and that is it. If there was a needed addititve that would supersede the oil the automaker would recommend it with them on the line for a 100,000 warranty.
Read this in the link too.
And so to engine additives
Your engine is designed to be lubricated by oil, formulated by big petro companies and full of additives that perform anti-wear, heat transfer, lubrication and detergent functions. That doesn't stop dozens of companies formulating extra additives and selling them as pour-in-the-engine and pour-in-the-tank solutions for problems you may or may not have. In the bad old days, these were known as snake oil - back when putting Teflon® in your engine seemed like a good idea. (Here's a famous old snakeoil article.) In my opinion (and that doesn't mean I'm right) a large number of additives are placebos to put minds at rest. It's not often you'll find properly independent lab analysis of the products that will support their claims. I have a page dedicated to this topic that covers, primarily, the endless lawsuits for false advertising against many manufacturers. Does this mean the product didn't work at all, or it didn't work as the advertising had promised? Hard to tell but head over to my additives page if you're interested.
The fact is if you are using a proper oil it should have all you need in it to properly maintain your engine. Now in cases where you have bad seals or guides or even rings these additives may help slow the death of your engine but it will not repair it or stop the death.
Again show me a Auto MFG that recommend putting in a oil additive in a modern day car in their owners manual or service manual and I will change my view.
The other issue and I think it is on the Mobil site or the oil Bible is that you have to use care as some additives do not always mix well with some oil formulas and some of todays modern car sensors.
Since it says they welcome inquiries I asked a couple questions to see what their input is too. If I get a reply I will post it.
In part i asked:
"I was hoping you could shed some light on the ZDDP issue for me. I have come to understand that for cars like my 72 Buick Skylark with a stock Buick 350, and my 1988 Pontiac Fiero with stock 2.8, both having “flat tappets”, that most modern car motor oils do not lubricate enough and I need to add ZDDP. Other options are use a Diesel rated motor oil, or even add liquid moly. Is any of this true? Or is it perfectly fine to use any conventional or synthetic that is rated for gasoline engine cars in the proper weight?
How about for breaking in an engine or a new cam?
One more thing.. do synthetics flow that much better? For example if the Fiero calls for 5w30 conventional, can 10w40 synthetic, or even 15w50 synthetic be run safely? "
What many forget is the lighter oil is in the engines today for extra MPG. They have tightened up the tolerances to make it so they can run lighter oils. Generally you can run this heavier synthetic oils with no harm. They have enough range to still start easy cold and hold up better under higher temps and harder use.
I bought a car once that had nothing but straight 30 weight in it. My uncle for some reason only used Gulf 30 weight. I bought the car with 70,000 miles [1970 Mote Carlo] and drove it to 125,000 miles. I never had an issue with it and continued the oil as he used it since he gave it to me free. I think he wanted me to keep on the same oil and that is why he gave it to me. I sold the car almost 30 years ago to buy my Fiero and it is still on the road and still on the same rebuilt engine.
Now I would not recommend doing straight 30 weight but I think it shows that even with harsh un recommended weights it will not damage the engine as long as you change it regularly.
Note I did lose a starter at -25 one winter day. Not a big surprise since it was already dragging when it went out. The oil just made it hard to crank but I never had a lifter tick or piston slap. Today the car still runs like a top with near 200,000.
The heavier part of this oil really comes into play at operating temps and does nothing to hurt the engine. I would gladly take the higher Zinc and Phosphorus over worry about viscosity.
Now if this was a conventional oil and a winter car I would think about backing off a little but then again you trade that off of the zinc and phosphorus that you would lose and be more a threat of any damage.
Low temperature performance of synthetic oils are well know. They remain thinner and more stable at colder temps than conventional oils. Also they remain more stable at hot temps and deal with high temps much better an this is why most Turbo changed engines recommend synthetics as they do not coke up the bearings in the turbo units. But it is a well know trait it flows much easier and efficiently in the cold.
You can see It if you change oil in the winter time as even cold pouring it in it flows better.
Read all of the Mobil site and much of this is covered.
The bottom line is the synthetics oils are much more stable across the temperature range.
Yes but all synthetics dont flow the same cold as they do hot. Unless the specified "weight" is such. This is what I thought you were saying.
Better yet you show me a current automobile owners manual the states a recommended oil additive. ... The fact is if you are using a proper oil it should have all you need in it to properly maintain your engine.
Ok so you are referring to the automobile owners manual, but the manual from 1984 doesnt know what the approved oil formula is in 2014, or what is or isnt in the ingredients. Thus it doesnt know if the new oil is proper.
Ok so you are referring to the automobile owners manual, but the manual from 1984 doesnt know what the approved oil formula is in 2014, or what is or isnt in the ingredients. Thus it doesnt know if the new oil is proper.
GM did not recommend any oil additives then nor any year since.
My point is additives in general.
Most oil companies also do not recommend additives of any kind beyond break in of an engine or cam with flat tappets.
My point is why dump anything in the oil if you are using the proper oil and do not have any issues.
Yes but all synthetics dont flow the same cold as they do hot. Unless the specified "weight" is such. This is what I thought you were saying.
Then you have to beware of what kind of synthetic you are using.
The blended crap is a waste of money as you either use synthetic or you do not. Blended is cheaper but it is like someone pissing you your Coke.
The fact is cold or warm the flow in a full synthetic will be nearly the save viscosity unlike a similar weight natural oil that will be thick at start up if it is very cold.
Case in point the take a natural and synthetic 10w30 and at the same temp the synthetic will pour much thinner and faster than the natural oil. This is why at start up it flows faster and it starts easier. Also synthetics natural flow caricature is for a easier faster flow as it is the nature of it's molecules. This is why they are tightening up the tolerance of todays engines to take advantage of its ability to cut resistance.
This adds MPG. Now that we also have more turbo engines it also holds up better and does not carbon or coke the oil line to the turbo like they used to on Natural oil.
My view based on what I have read from MFG auto and oil is to use in a older flat tappet cam engine a oil with the proper zinc and oil content and do not dump in zinc additive unless you are breaking in a flat tappet cam.
To be honest this may really be like the removal of lead where all the older engines would die soon as some claimed. When in truth if you did not run them ultra hard like high RPM racing most have never seen damage or it took a lot of miles before they did.
To this point I have never seen a cam fail due to the lack of zinc.
[This message has been edited by hyperv6 (edited 04-18-2014).]
I found an interesting oil story in my new Performance and Hot Rod Business magazine. .
This is a trade publication for people in the performance aftermarket so I do not think you will find it on a news stand but you may find the story on line at some point? It is called the Truth About Oil Part one.
Anyways much of the story is pretty much common sense and basic to this point. But it addresses Zinc and Zinc additives.
It covers that there are over 50 types of Zinc used in oils and not all of them work the same. Many are Fast Burn that are used for breaking in engines and cams. It is used up fast as it is soft to better embed into metals.
It states ZDDP and ZDP are not compatible. A additive might improve a brand of oil but clash with the Zinc Additive in another totally destroying the existing additive package of the oil.
Unless you are a chemist and under stand the results of mixing the Zincs together is chemical roulette. If you think you need an additive you have just admitted you have the wrong oil. You are better using the correct oil for your needs than blending your own oil is never good unless you are a chemist in petroleum engineering. Oil additives are never the correct decision over having the right oil.
I had read this else where and it may have been on the Mobil site. I do know most oil companies do not recommend mixing things as they can not always predict the out come of the home made blend. It is kind of like mixing your own whiskey as if you do not know what you are doing you can mess it up pretty fast.
The next issue will cover older muscle cars and synthetic oils.
It is the May issue if you can locate it on line. Free magazines are just a perk from work and it helps keep us up on things.
I've used synthetic oil with my car ever since I got it (121,000 miles.) I now have 130,000 and it seems to run just fine. I use Mobile 1 high mileage.
I've used synthetic oil with my car ever since I got it (121,000 miles.) I now have 130,000 and it seems to run just fine. I use Mobile 1 high mileage.
"high mileage" Will help keep the seals swelled up due to added "seal conditioner" to help prevent leaks better than other synthetics. Synthetics are great, but if you have a leak waiting to happen synthetics will get it to happen faster than dino oils. The only way to find out is give it a shot.
I haven't had a lot of Fiero oiling experience but the 2.8 in my old 89 Cutlass REALLY liked Valvoline NextGen 5w30. She made it up to 330k with 6k mile oil change intervals, and that was AFTER a blown head gasket at 190k when I got it. I still use NextGen in the 99 Regal L67 and it also has no problems at 220k.
So yes, I'm a Valvoline NextGen fan. It has proven itself time and time again.
