Ultimate Motor Oil Thread or Why we hate CJ4/SM oils

[GaryR]

Originally Posted by db_cooper

Porsche makes their own camshafts..I don't think it is a flaw in production or a "zinc" problem..I think the valve(s) ran too tight due to neglected engine maintenance or poor technician skills.

The inside of this engine and the crankshaft bearings are immaculate. As far as the "poor technician skills" I have no idea, the very well regarded shop I purchased it from (Not Dan Jacobs Hairy Dog) bought it in a wrecked Targa to be used in a race car. Why would wear on two cam lobes out of 12 be from "poor technician skills"?

[manbridge 74]

I've yet to open a 911 engine w/o finding a clogged spray bar hole. Which is the main reason why I don't like the oil restrictors as the cam still has a chance to receive lubrication from neighboring holes if there is more oil than needed going to cams.

Also, it should be noted that NASCAR engines keep the entire valve cover full of oil. Not that one should run 911s that way. Just something I found interesting.....

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by manbridge 74

........ Also, it should be noted that NASCAR engines keep the entire valve cover full of oil. Not that one should run 911s that way. Just something I found interesting.....

You mean .... full? That's interesting - but maybe a slight exaggeration. Maybe you mean oil flow is generous. Pretty sure current NASCAR engineers only want sufficient oil volume. Any more is of no benefit and increases frictional losses.

Sherwood

[manbridge 74]

Completely full. They also have a check valve that has to be manually released to allow for oil to drain back before vc can be removed. This according to Hot Rod magazine's analysis of NASCAR tech circa 2010. Possibly due to valve springs being the weakest link in these engines.

[Reiver]

Originally Posted by manbridge 74

Completely full. They also have a check valve that has to be manually released to allow for oil to drain back before vc can be removed. This according to Hot Rod magazine's analysis of NASCAR tech circa 2010. Possibly due to valve springs being the weakest link in these engines.

Learned something there, interesting too.

[db_cooper]

Originally Posted by GaryR

The inside of this engine and the crankshaft bearings are immaculate. As far as the "poor technician skills" I have no idea, the very well regarded shop I purchased it from (Not Dan Jacobs Hairy Dog) bought it in a wrecked Targa to be used in a race car. Why would wear on two cam lobes out of 12 be from "poor technician skills"?

It starts with very poor maintenance..in the engine's history the valves were not adjusted for many miles as the PO(s) did not take care of the car and a couple of valves ran tight for a while (the highly polished heel of the camshaft in the picture shows lifter contact 100% of the time in operation)..damaging the lifters and cam ramps...

PO may have heard some clattering and had the valves adjusted...the damaged camshafts/lifters never quieted down and rattled and the PO or tech ran the clearances tighter to sell the car to some unsuspecting victim rather than spend the money to repair it. If the engine was pretty silent when you purchased it..those two valves may of been set very tight. (I've seen this before)

Like I said..not a quality of lubricant or zinc problem..definitely a poor maintenance problem. If the lubricating oil was to blame..all 12 of the camshaft ramps would show some damage.

The reason you wont see this when aftermarket or reground camshafts are installed..the new 911 owner takes care of the car after making the investment in repairs and maintenance.

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by manbridge 74

Completely full. They also have a check valve that has to be manually released to allow for oil to drain back before vc can be removed. This according to Hot Rod magazine's analysis of NASCAR tech circa 2010. Possibly due to valve springs being the weakest link in these engines.

Couldn't locate the HR Mag article with that content. This is a HR Mag article I found re: Chevy's R07 NASCAR engine.
Chevy Nascar Engine - Nascar's New Chevy - Hot Rod Magazine

They do mention bathing the valve springs in lube oil, but no mention of "filling" the entire valve cover as you state. Maybe I'm not reading the pertinent information you are.

As you mentioned, NASCAR teams are concerned with valve spring cooling due to continuous high RPM operation (~9K rpm). The R07 engine (as well as Ford and Mopar) has oil squirters built into the each valve cover (possible with a dry sump pump). The large volume of oil draining into into the crankcase requires shielding the cam to reduce further windage loss. I haven't located any information on filling the entire space under the valve cover with oil nor a manual drain back valve to keep oil in the valve cover. Got a link? Valve train movement (mainly rockers) in submerged oil sounds counterproductive for accurate valve timing.

oil
link to flooding lube for valve springs:
332-428 Ford FE Engine Forum: Latest NASCAR theory on flooding the valve springs
Roush Racing's New 822HP Nascar Engine
http://www.stevesnovasite.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-198836.html

Sherwood

[tuchan]

Very long thread, unsure if this has been posted but- worth a read for those interested...

Engine Oil

[HarryD]

Originally Posted by tuchan

Very long thread, unsure if this has been posted but- worth a read for those interested...

Engine Oil

Good article but, unfortunately dated. Many of the newer SM SN etc oils are not good for our older cars.

[BeeMaster]

Does any one use brad penn penn-grade 1 sae 30 high performance oil for aircooled engines?

[Trackrash]

It seems as though many oils have just recently been reformulated. Many oil manufactures now will not post their ZDDP levels!?
I ran across this thread. An SAE engineer states that ZDDP levels are not what matters.
He claims to do his own testing. Here is part of the thread.

: Zinc Myth and Test Data on a Dozen more Oils
540 RAT
May 6th, 13, 7:03 PM
I have “Wear Test” data on a dozen more oils. Here’s how they all rank in terms of “wear protection capability”, just among themselves:

1. 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum, API SN synthetic = 99,949 psi
This oil is the next step “below” Pennzoil’s Ultra.

2. 5W30 Havoline, API SN conventional = 95,098 psi
Havoline used to be Texaco’s oil brand, but since Chevron took them over, it is now a Chevron brand. It appears that this oil may be a re-bottled version of 5W30 Chevron Supreme oil.

3. 10W60 Castrol TWS Motorsport, API SJ conventional = 90,163 psi
This oil is manufactured in Europe and is sold in the US for BMW models M3, M5, M6, Z4M, and Z8. This is a somewhat odd multi-viscosity, so the interest here was to get some insight as to why BMW calls for this oil in some of their models.

4. 5W30 Havoline, API SN synthetic = 89,406 psi
Havoline used to be Texaco’s oil brand, but since Chevron took them over, it is now a Chevron brand

5. 5W30 Valvoline Nextgen 50% Recycled Oil, API SN conventional = 87,563 psi
The interest here was to see just how good recycled oil might be.

6. 5W30 Castrol Edge w/Syntec, API SN (formerly Castrol Syntec) black bottle, synthetic = 85,179 psi
The Castrol Edge w/Syntec line of oil, falls well below the capability of the Castrol Edge w/Titanium line, which is Castrol’s top of the line oil.

7. 5W30 Peak, API SN synthetic = 80,716 psi
I was curious to see how their oil line shaped up.

8. 5W30 Edelbrock "Cat-Safe", API SM synthetic = 78,609 psi
This oil is made for Edelbrock by Torco

9. 5W30 Pennzoil, API SN yellow bottle, conventional = 76,989 psi

10. 10W40 Chevron Supreme, API SN conventional = 76,806 psi

11. 5W30 Peak, API SN conventional = 73,690 psi

12. 10W40 Summit Racing Premium Racing Oil, API SL conventional = 59,483 psi
This oil is made for Summit by I.L.C.
The bottle makes some bold claims, such as:

* Double the zinc for superior flat tappet cam protection.

* The additive package contains 1800 ppm ZDDP, providing levels of protection unattainable from conventional motor oil. Provides excellent protection from metal to metal contact.

Problem is, this oil fell FAR SHORT of living up to that inflated boasting. These claims were obviously created by the Marketing Department with no regard for what this oil can actually do. This oil ranked a pathetic 85th out of the 94 new oils I’ve tested so far. And once again, the supposed high levels of zinc DID NOT help this oil perform very well. Buyer beware. Motor oils are among the worst products for false advertising.

Now let’s consider that claim of 1800ppm ZDDP. Is that 1800ppm the TOTAL if you add the zinc and the phos individually? Or is that 1800ppm of zinc AND 1800ppm of phos? Or is it something else? When people throw around ZDDP values, do they even know what they are saying? I will be Lab Testing this oil soon to see just what is really in it, and to see how that claim of 1800ppm ZDDP compares to reality. I’ll post my findings when they are available, so stay tuned for that.

This Summit oil and the Castrol 10W60 oil have appeared in recent posts of my motor oil wear protection ranking list, but they have not appeared in any write-up until now. Below is some motor oil tech info, info on my testing, and my latest complete motor oil ranking list, which now includes the 12 oils above.

You DO NOT need a high level of zinc in your motor oil for adequate wear protection in high performance engines, not even for flat tappet engines. Contrary to popular belief, the zinc level alone is NOT what determines an oil’s wear protection capability. Zinc does NOT build up a coating on parts like some sort of plating process. Zinc is consumed/sacrificed A LITTLE AT A TIME as needed by the heat and load on mating parts, to help prevent wear as the engine is operated. And it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for more zinc to provide more wear protection, because zinc simply does NOT work that way. More zinc simply lasts longer because it takes longer for a larger quantity of it to be depleted. It’s much like the way more gas in your tank takes longer to run out, but more gas in your tank does NOT give you more HP.

The thinking that more zinc provides more wear protection is only FOLKLORE that has been repeated so many times that most people just ASSUME it’s true without any proof. And repeating wrong information a million times will NOT magically make it become true. Among those who just assume it is true, includes people at Cam Companies, and even people at some of the smaller Oil Companies who apparently don’t bother to perform any wear protection testing, since their oils often fall WAY SHORT of their own outlandish hype. The fact is, there is absolutely NO real world test data proof to back up the incorrect urban legend that more zinc is needed for more protection. That is merely a MYTH that has been BUSTED by actual real world dynamic motor oil wear testing under load. An oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and additive package “as a whole”, NOT just by how much zinc is present. And newer motor oil anti-wear additive components that have replaced a good percentage of the zinc that used to be used, are equal to or better than zinc. There is absolutely NOTHING magical about zinc that makes it the only component worthy of being used.

If someone insists that you must have high levels of zinc for adequate wear protection in high performance engines, no matter WHO they are, and no matter WHAT Company they may represent, ask them to PROVE IT by providing actual REAL WORLD TEST DATA that backs up that claim (and mere links to Internet Oil articles that call for high levels of zinc, is NOT real world test data proof). But, they will NOT be able to prove that old myth, because as mentioned above, zinc simply does NOT work that way. Some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc oils provide very poor wear protection. So, you can throw away that useless motor oil zinc level reference chart. Because it cannot help you choose the best oil for protecting your engine. If you rely on zinc levels alone, to choose what you "think" is the best oil, you can very easily shoot yourself in the foot, and NOT end up with the wear protection you think you have.

You can use the link just below, to take a look at a GM Motor Oil Report titled, “Oil Myths from GM Techlink”, which backs up the facts above and matches my own motor oil wear test results. If the link below does not take you directly to the website, then Copy/Paste the link in your browser:

http://www.nonlintec.com/sprite/oil_myths.pdf

This GM Oil Report is meaningful regardless of how stiff the valve springs were in their test engines. Because they were looking at wear protection capability DIFFERENCES between various levels of zinc/phos, and their finding that “more was NOT better” (the same thing I found in my testing), applies to wear protection in any engine, no matter what the spring pressures are.

I have performed extensive motor oil “Wear Testing” over the past year or so, to measure the “Load carrying capacity/Film strength” of nearly a hundred different motor oils. The results of this dynamic friction testing under load, are used to compare the wear protection capability of the various oils. I’ve done this because I wanted to cut through all the misinformation and misunderstanding that is out there about motor oil, get to the truth, and to find out what the FACTS really are. The resulting oil test data is NOT a theory. It is NOT an opinion. It is the real deal, because it is REAL WORLD TEST DATA, just like engine dyno output data is real world test data.

The motor oil tester I use, is a valuable tool for determining an oil’s operating characteristics, yet it is not testing oil inside an engine, because that is simply impractical on a scale this large. It is somewhat similar to how an engine dyno is a valuable tool for determining an engine’s operating characteristics, yet it is not a test of an engine inside a car going down the track or road.

Every single oil I test, is subjected to the EXACT SAME test procedure for an accurate back to back comparison with other oils. My tester and test procedure provide very consistent and repeatable results. And yet, rather than rely on only a single test value, I test each oil multiple times, then those results are averaged. This allows the most accurate and representative final value to be reached for comparison. So, every oil has the exact same opportunity to perform as well as its chemical composition will allow.
.
.
.
.
.

540 RAT
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)

The rest is here. Zinc Myth and Test Data on a Dozen more Oils [Archive] - Chevelle Tech

[Storage Man]

Originally Posted by Trackrash

It seems as though many oils have just recently been reformulated. Many oil manufactures now will not post their ZDDP levels!?
I ran across this thread. An SAE engineer states that ZDDP levels are not what matters.
He claims to do his own testing. Here is part of the thread.

The rest is here. Zinc Myth and Test Data on a Dozen more Oils [Archive] - Chevelle Tech

I read this post and I believe they were selling Oil treatment in the end....

[wachuko]

I am dizzy after all the reading... so at the end of all this... what oil should I be using on my 1981-1991 Porsche 911s???

I am running out of the old stock of boxes of Mobil 1 15-50 (before they changed the formula)... need to start buying and can't figure out what to get...

[rfuerst911sc]

Originally Posted by wachuko

I am dizzy after all the reading... so at the end of all this... what oil should I be using on my 1981-1991 Porsche 911s???

I am running out of the old stock of boxes of Mobil 1 15-50 (before they changed the formula)... need to start buying and can't figure out what to get...

If you want to buy over the counter use valvoline vr1 and change it every 2k due to limited additive package. Next step up is brad penn generally have to order over the net but you might find locally. Next step up would be joe gibbs racing driven oils. I base the driven recommendation on an oil education i recently received by jake raby , lake speed jr. And charles navarro at a recent pca open house. Just a wealth of knowledge shared based on thousands of engines, hundreds of hours of dyno time and actual road mile testing. After i run out of my current stash of oil i will go brad penn or joe gibbs exclusively.

[jpahemi]

Has anyone seen or tried Porsche's newly introduced line of motor oils? I recently saw an ad in the recent Excellence Magazine. Seems as if Porsche is looking to expand their "Classic" Line by offering specifically blended oils for two specific engine groups. The red can is a mineral base targeted for the 2.0-2.7 liter engines, and the silver can is a synthetic/synthetic blend for the 3.0 & up engines.
I don't have much info on it, other than what I read in the ad.
'Just curious if anyone has any additional feedback....

Regards,

JP
NY.

[bcgreen]

Originally Posted by jpahemi

Has anyone seen or tried Porsche's newly introduced line of motor oils? I recently saw an ad in the recent Excellence Magazine. Seems as if Porsche is looking to expand their "Classic" Line by offering specifically blended oils for two specific engine groups. The red can is a mineral base targeted for the 2.0-2.7 liter engines, and the silver can is a synthetic/synthetic blend for the 3.0 & up engines.
I don't have much info on it, other than what I read in the ad.
'Just curious if anyone has any additional feedback....

Regards,

JP
NY.

Like anything with Porsche on it, its going to cost an arm & a leg.

[1990C4S]

$13.65 per liter online.

[KNS]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

$13.65 per liter online.

I'm curious to know who's going to actually step up and purchase ten quarts at that price. After the souvenir hunters have bought their token can - then what?

[bkreigsr]

still cheaper than the Joe Gibbs that a lot of people have signed on for, based on the recommendations on this thread.

[tchanson]

Originally Posted by bkreigsr

still cheaper than the Joe Gibbs that a lot of people have signed on for, based on the recommendations on this thread.

No its not.

Joe Gibbs Driven DT50 15W50 is available at $10.99 a quart .

I doesn't come in a pretty can, however.