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

[WERK I]

Originally Posted by cnavarro

I have a copy of the Butler VOA that shows the trace of insolubles as do I have similar VOAs for Mobil 1, Motul, and other oils with similar insolubles or particle counts. To say any of these oils are dirty is hogwash. The American Refining Group's refinery, blending and packaging operations are ISO 9001:2000 certified and the Bradford refinery itself was the first in the United States to carry the ISO 9002 certification. If there's one thing for certain, most every quality oil is made in a facility that requires that it's product meet certain requirements and as far as insolubles go, I don't think it's something we have to worry about.

Let's not confuse ISO with quality. ISO has more to do with process than product quality. Don't get me wrong, if you improve process, generally you improve the quality of the product. But if you have an inferior product, being ISO9xxx does not resolve the problem of an inferior product. If a product is spec'd with x parts per billion of contaminants, it is still x parts per billion after the facility being ISO certified.

[charnett]

Charles and Anybody Else Who Wishes to Respond:

My previously attempted post was rejected, so I hope this is not redundant. I'm hoping you can tolerate a few more questions:

A. Re: 1989 911 with 98k miles, and consuming oil due to worn valve guides:

I've been running Kendall GT1 "SL" API rating, and am ready to switch, but don't want to fool with additives. Sounds like 2 good choices are the Brad Penn Racing 20/50 and Swepco 306.

1. For the sake of engine longevitiy, over performance, do you recommend one over the other? Would Swepco be preferred for an engine with worn valve guides, consuming 1 Qt every 300 miles, given the lack of synthetic? Are the detergent ingredients for Swepco, evidently formulated for diesel application, problematic for the high rpms? If Swepco is preferred under circumstances, then would be 20/50 weight be favored over the 10/40, for use in temperate Northern California Coastal Areas?

2. I'm intrigued by your experience with Castrol TWS 10w/60, but don't see any follow-up about whether it could be used favorably in the 911 3.2 engine. The reason is that you indicated it resolved your oil consumption problems. Would it be a better alternative for my situation of consuming 1 Qt oil every 300 miles? Somewhere in the string, I see it can be had for as little as $10 or much as $17 a quart, and am willing to pay that price, if it will help my consumption problem.

B. Re: 1929 Ford w/ performance 283 - slightly stepped up cam - (1966 Small Block) and 50k miles on engine:

1. I've been running Quaker Peak Performance 10/40, and have 4 gallons, enough for 4 more changes lying arround. The API rating is "SL," which Quaker's tech guy says has 1100 ppm zinc and phosphorus. Am I OK with this, or should I use one of the Comp or Crane or other additives?

2. If I switch, would the Bradd Penn Racing 10/40 be a good choice?

Thanks very much for all of your insights?

[HarryD]

Originally Posted by charnett

Charles and Anybody Else Who Wishes to Respond:

My previously attempted post was rejected, so I hope this is not redundant. I'm hoping you can tolerate a few more questions:

A. Re: 1989 911 with 98k miles, and consuming oil due to worn valve guides:

I've been running Kendall GT1 "SL" API rating, and am ready to switch, but don't want to fool with additives. Sounds like 2 good choices are the Brad Penn Racing 20/50 and Swepco 306.

1. For the sake of engine longevitiy, over performance, do you recommend one over the other? Would Swepco be preferred for an engine with worn valve guides, consuming 1 Qt every 300 miles, given the lack of synthetic? Are the detergent ingredients for Swepco, evidently formulated for diesel application, problematic for the high rpms? If Swepco is preferred under circumstances, then would be 20/50 weight be favored over the 10/40, for use in temperate Northern California Coastal Areas?

At a consumption of 1 qt/300 miles, you need to get your valves addressed now! The cost of a dropped valve is very high (think damaged case and pistons) and you are are risk as I type. My car was at the same place as yours when I had my valves redone. FWIW, all 12 valves needed to be replaced due to excessive wear.

2. I'm intrigued by your experience with Castrol TWS 10w/60, but don't see any follow-up about whether it could be used favorably in the 911 3.2 engine. The reason is that you indicated it resolved your oil consumption problems. Would it be a better alternative for my situation of consuming 1 Qt oil every 300 miles? Somewhere in the string, I see it can be had for as little as $10 or much as $17 a quart, and am willing to pay that price, if it will help my consumption problem.

I doubt a thicker oil would help much.

[Steve@Rennsport]

Harry is right,...I would not be driving the car at all if your oil consumption really is 300 miles/qt.

I would do a leakdown to confirm that its the guides as well as pulling the valve covers to check the side-to-side movement in the valve assemblies.

Just remember, at that level of oil consumption, you have coated everything inside the engine with a thick layer of carbon and the propensity for detonation simply skyrockets. Ignore this problem and you'll buy a LOT more parts than simply a set of valves, guides, and seals.

Thicker oil will not do anything for you; fixing the engine properly is the only solution. The good part is that at 98K, you have a LOT of life left on the engine IF you take care of this now.

[charnett]

Harry/Steve:

Thank you. I've been figuring I could age the problem a bit longer before doing a valve job. I bought the car which was brokered through Bauer Porsche Repair in Oakland last Spring. When I discovered the poblem after the purchase, the shop professed to have lost its print-out of the leakdown and compression. So I had an independent one done by a very reliable mechanic, which showed highest cylinder loss at 8% and all of the rest at less, with compression at 165-180. This coupled with smoke on start up and when letting off throttle down hill, appears to point to guides/seals. At time of valve adjustment, I did not do an end-play or dial indicator test re the guides. With acceptable compression and leakdown, I figured I could age the problem awhile, before a tear down, at least until now.

Chris

[HarryD]

I was over at the Early S Registry BBS and saw this post (http://www.early911sregistry.org/forum/showthread.php?p=147431#post147431:

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.

However, later in the thread, one reads this...

There are no test reports we know of which conclude that any low ZDDP oil is compatible with older, high spring pressure flat-tappet high-performance engines.

There is on the other hand, research that concludes that the minimum ZDDP requirement is directly related to the lifter foot pressure. In one SAE paper it is reported that: “at a ZDP level corresponding to 0.02% phosphorus, scuffing occurred at 200 pounds lifter load, while it required 240 and 480 pounds lifter load for oils containing 0.04 and 0.06% phosphorus, respectively, to initiate scuffing. At 0.08% phosphorus concentration, no scuffing occurred up to 600 pounds lifter load, the test hardware limit. Scuffing occurred at 350 pounds lifter load with no ZDP (0% phosphorus).”

The older engines and high-performance engines we are concerned about may have lifter foot pressures several times that of a low-performance engine such as those used in the Sequence III tests, and their wear characteristics are not predicted by common Sequence III testing methodology. An additional factor is the dynamic load at the lifter foot. Sequence III engines run at 3600 RPM maximum during the test. Most high-performance TR engines are regularly run to 6000 RPM. The inertial contribution to the lifter foot pressure increases as the square of the increase in RPM. This means that the inertial load at 6000 RPM is 2.67 times it’s value at 3600 RPM.

I responded as follows:

This can be very good news but I an skeptical. I did a quick Google search for the original article and all I can find is are a bunch of forums reprinting the article.

Where is the orginal article?

Is it being quoted out of context?

Even this article says that while no issue was noted at 0.08%, lower levels appear to be detrimental. Since the Zn and P get consumed over time, how often do I need to change my oil to maintain adequate protection?

I think we need to see the actual article that all the other forums cite with this quote.

Perhaps those of you who are more savvy with the API Publications can tell me (us) what this means.

[WERK I]

I often wonder based on the usage of our engines, if it all doesn't boil down to the number of startups and frequency of said startups is contributing to premature lobe wear. If scuffing, scuffing, "spalling" occurs on an engine that has been dormant for several days, there must be less adverse effects to an engine that sees startups on a daily basis. Certainly additives or lack of proper additives contributes, but what happens to load bearing surfaces when the oil film is marginal at best?

[cnavarro]

Regardless of how often you start your engine, all engines have metal to metal contact and unless you're not starting it up for months at a time, I really don't think the engine is going to start up dry.

Right from my web site, first paragraph (you can look up the definitions in the SAE or even google):

"The purpose of proper lubrication is to provide a physical barrier (oil film) that separates moving parts reducing wear and friction, but there are many surfaces within an engine that operate with metal-to-metal contact, again popular belief, that are very highly dependant on a strong and robust anti-wear film. The top piston ring operating in sliding contact with the bore operates in a mixed lubrication regime consisting of both boundary (metal-to-metal direct contact) as well as hydrodynamic (oil film between moving surfaces) lubrication. The majority of non-corrosive wear occurs where boundary lubrication exists, especially at cam lobes, tappets, cam follower/buckets, and rockers."

Determining the grey area where a given oil with a certain amount of Zn and P and level of detergency for a given type of engine is a difficult task. Oils with lower detergency or lower levels of multiple detergents require less Zn and P to provide the same level of protection. That is why one oil with 1100-1200ppm of Zn and P might perform better than one with 1300-1400ppm of the same additives. Most modern oils are formulated with Ca detergents because of their high thermal stability, hence better TBN retention and longer drain intervals. The only problem is that the Ca inhibits the receptors on metal surfaces in metal to metal contact from Zn and P forming robust AW films. Oils with other detergents, like Na and Mg have less Ca, which allows for a better AW film to form but those detergents are depleted faster. That's the last thing a manufacturer wants when they are trying extend drain intervals to lessen maintainence costs and appear more environmentally concious.

As referred to by the GM article, the purpose of the various ILSAC GF sequences, most of which IMHO are worthless when comparing to older engines, are to determine the performance of lubricants in these newer engines. Obsolete test sequences for engine types no longer produced are not tested for. And even if one did say they are representative, the allowable total wear limits are rediculously high, some up to 10 times that allowed in the European ACEA A3/B3 specifications. Starburst oils also are formulated for their fuel saving properties, which in turn must limit their film strengths to levels well below what Porsche requires even for a new Porsche, let alone an old one or a new performance engine.

To me, an ideal oil for a modern engine would be an API SJ rated with ACEA A3/B3 approval, at least for a Porsche approved oil. And yes, they do exist. Same goes for the VW approved oils. Motul makes one that I use in my new cars. You just would have to change your oil more often, that's all.

What I will say is that for a modern dohc engine with tiny little valves and very light springs that an API SM or CJ-4 oils are probably just fine just like Mobil 1 is probably ok (I'd prefer a 5w40 over a 0w40 for stronger HTHS viscosity) in a new Porsche. Just consider that a stock 996 engine's valve springs are 135# over the nose, when performance springs start at 200# and go past 300# over the nose, as just one of the many reasons of why you should not lump new and old Porsches together in their lubrication requirements.

For reference, a Crown Vic, which is a popular fleet car and used for countless oil tests over the years, has somewhere around 165# over the nose spring pressure. Small increases in spring pressures net significant increases in wear rates unless anti-wear additives are boosted or EP additives like moly are used in conjunction with AW additives to form more robust tribofilms, hence the use of Moly in SM and CJ-4 oils to supplement the additional boron that has been used in place of Zn and P. The API has proven to me that an SM oil is fine for a fleet car, but not my Porsche (or other peformance engines). Likewise I think there is adequate proof that an ACEA A3/B3 oil is fine for a new Porsche (or other new performance engines).

[Steve@Rennsport]

Dave:

Based on what I've witnessed, I don't think this issue is confined to infrequently driven cars or daily drivers.

This has been going on for several years and the results are finally becoming clear. Changes in lubricant formulations don't always manifest themselves in a few months with the exception of certain kinds of race engines.

In the specific context of street cars, insufficient ZDDP is a long-term problem and it might take some time to see all the effects from the use of SM-rated oils. For those of us working in this industry, its becoming more obvious and that why we make certain specific recommendations in the best interests of our clientel. Many trade magazines have broached this subject in detail so this is not confined to Porsche cars.

Without a doubt, one is free to use whatever products they like and thats an entirely good thing.

[drauz]

"...multiple oil and additive companies ran no-harm tests on older engines with the new oils; and no problems were uncovered."

Great News! How 'bout a look-see at those reports and methodology, eh? Would help clear things up considerably. And if they are "commercial confidential" or unavailable (dog ate homework, etc), then what might one safely assume?

[HarryD]

Originally Posted by drauz

"...multiple oil and additive companies ran no-harm tests on older engines with the new oils; and no problems were uncovered."

Great News! How 'bout a look-see at those reports and methodology, eh? Would help clear things up considerably. And if they are "commercial confidential" or unavailable (dog ate homework, etc), then what might one safely assume?

Ah yup... Exactly, Where's the beef?

[dshepp806]

Z & P for me...lots.

Best,

[acapella8]

subscribing to this oil thread.

[JohnJL]

For what its worth I run Mobil 1 in the 3L race engine and change every 1000kms. It does not leak a drop.

I changed over from dino oil to Motul 8100 syn (non SM) from the motorcycle shop in the 2.7. The engine seems very happy, runs a bit cooler, exhibits no warning signs or noises and did not develop any leaks.

I have not conducted any real scientific analysis but was guided by this forum...

[CharlesJones]

Hi all,

This has been a terrific thread and a fascinating read but I'm still a little unclear when trying to draw a practical conclusion or summary from it.

Am I correct in thinking that whilst Bradd Penn and Swepco are considered to be the best oils, the most important thing we need to do is just avoid SM and CJ-4 oils?

The reason I ask is that Brad Penn and Swepco aren't readily available here in Ireland, nor in the UK I believe, and so I'm wondering if I'm okay to continue using the best quality oil I can find, just so long as isn't API SM or CJ-4. If any of you guys can just clairfy this single point for me I'd be very grateful.

Many thanks.

[David E. Clark]

Charles,

I think that your general conclusion is correct with the caveat that some oils are better designed for early flat tappet engines than others are. Take a look at the very first post in this long thread. Harry D has a more-or-less up to date listing of the "recommended" oils. Since you may not have the same availablilty as we do in North America, I would recommend you consider Penrite oils. They are available in the UK - in fact, I think they are based there - and have an excellent reputation for oils designed for flat tappet engines.

[HarryD]

Originally Posted by CharlesJones

Hi all,

This has been a terrific thread and a fascinating read but I'm still a little unclear when trying to draw a practical conclusion or summary from it.

Am I correct in thinking that whilst Bradd Penn and Swepco are considered to be the best oils, the most important thing we need to do is just avoid SM and CJ-4 oils?

The reason I ask is that Brad Penn and Swepco aren't readily available here in Ireland, nor in the UK I believe, and so I'm wondering if I'm okay to continue using the best quality oil I can find, just so long as isn't API SM or CJ-4. If any of you guys can just clairfy this single point for me I'd be very grateful.

Many thanks.

Greetings across the pond. One of the best places I have ever been is to Ireland.

Anyway, you may be best served looking to a "speciality shop" that caters to the racing crowd. Look for an oil with a SG or SJ rating.THe SL's may be ok but you will need to have some data on the TBN, Zn and P to be sure.

[CharlesJones]

Thanks for your advice guys - that's very helpful indeed, and much appreciated.

I'll try and stick with an SG or SJ like Harry suggests. And thanks for the tip about Penrite oils, David - I've just checked out their website and I think the fact they seem quite forthcoming with information about what's in their oils says something about them. I'll pop them an email and see if they have a dealer in Ireland somewhere.

Kind regards.

[cnavarro]

I'm down at Aircooled Technology this week working on a bunch of joint R&D projects, and we decided to do more oil testing.

I'll post the full results once I've had a chance to digest them and write something up, but in today's engine, a 2056cc type 4, making 165hp @ 6000 rpm, Brad Penn was the winner on HP, but Swepco 306 was the winner on torque. We tested quite a few diesel oils too, and some oil additives.

One additive, claiming extra HP, actually made the engine loose 6 HP from peak.

Also, we tried a wide range of viscosities, from 0w20 to 20w50. We saw no difference in HP from thin to heavy oils, which we're wondering if this can be attributed to the fact that all the bearings were coated by Calico Coatings in this engine.

They will have an F-Production 914 engine on the dyno later next week and we plan on repeating the tests on it too, but so far, HP differences in oils seem to vary greatly depending on the engine. I guess it's not as black and white when it comes to HP gains as we also previously thought.

[cnavarro]

Well, we posted a little video of our oil testing that we were doing at Aircooled Technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYV8OD8Ohlg&feature=user

The one thing for sure I can tell you, after doing this whole procedure now with two engines, the latter one didn't make as big a difference as this one was blueprinted to all h*ll and had all the bearings coated by Calico.

The guy in the video is my friend Jake Raby, who owns Aircooled Technology. I hate being in front of the camera (I'm actually operating it).

Video was our first stab at doing some video work with their new HD camera and iMovie.