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

[teenerted1]

Originally Posted by Bart_dood

I stumbled across this engine build online, it is a 996TT engine. If you look at the pic showing the bucket cam follower closely you will notice a few things, one is that is has "ears" on the side that stop it from rotating. You can also notice how little area the camshaft has to operate on the follower. (it is a variocam so it switches between the outer and inner).
Considering how many cam followers are out there that use the same basic principle of operation as ours I really believe any issues seen with degrading cam shafts and followers is due to manufacturing issues when the parts were made, there is no magic in older oils.
http://www.imagineauto.com/996motor/tappets.jpg

Here is the camshaft in place, notice how narrow the lobes are.

http://www.imagineauto.com/996motor/cam%20set.jpg

excuse my ignorance, but how does a modern water cooled engine relate to a 30yr old air-cooled engine that this oil thread is actually addressing?

[Bart_dood]

Originally Posted by HarryD

Bart_dood,

You can believe what you like.

Me, I lean on the experience of others. Check Posts 342 to 346 of this thread.

Post 346 is a direct response to post 342. The way I see it, Mr Weiner has torn down many more engines than I ever will and they have seen a variety of services. Why would he be making these observations? Care to share some details that are unknown to Mr Weiner? These posts state:

So we all panic over anecdotal evidence? with nothing certain about cause and affect?

I don't know what makes engine builders experts on oil additive chemistry?
I have built plenty of engines myself and I have a masters degree in chemistry but I don't pretend to be an expert on lubricant chemistry so I rely on labs to do proper testing in controlled conditions with real data.

Has anyone even commented on the statement I posted a few posts back that levels of ZDDP at 0.2% actually cause faster wear rates due to the compound attacking the grain boundaries in the metal?

"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."

So in effect people seeking out high levels of ZDDP in their oils might be accelerating the problem on their engines!

[Bart_dood]

Originally Posted by teenerted1

excuse my ignorance, but how does a modern water cooled engine relate to a 30yr old air-cooled engine that this oil thread is actually addressing?

How does a tappet know that it is in an air cooled motor or a water cooled one? or for that matter a camshaft?

We are taking about a shear condition at the point of contact between the cam lobe and the cam follower and besides, ALL engines are air cooled, water is merely a thermal medium between the metal parts and the air itself.

[dshepp806]

mmmmmmmmmmm,.

Originally Posted by cnavarro

No, they are single overhead cam (SOHC) - the Porsche 356 and 914 are flat tappet engines. Where the 911 differs from a 'modern' engine is that most new engines, like those in the 997, are dual overhead cam (DOHC), which means they use much smaller valves and more of them, allowing for lighter valves with smaller stems and much, much less valve spring pressure.

While some 911s might have less valve spring pressure than some flat tappet engines (both seat and over the nose), heads that have been rebuilt might have different install heights or aftermarket valve springs that run more pressure. A good example are those springs sold by Jerry Woods or EBS Racing that many people use on even street engines. The way they provide valve control to 8000 rpm is by having much greater spring pressure, thus requiring more Zn and P to protect the rocker pads and cams.

What's the spring tension on that 996TT?

Best,

Doyle

[teenerted1]

Originally Posted by Bart_dood

Has anyone even commented on the statement I posted a few posts back that levels of ZDDP at 0.2% actually cause faster wear rates due to the compound attacking the grain boundaries in the metal?

"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."

So in effect people seeking out high levels of ZDDP in their oils might be accelerating the problem on their engines!

yes this has been addressed in this thread that more ZDDP is not necessarily better. i suggest you reread all the thread again to see what is the consensus

cnavarro's link at the start of all this addresses most of the issues you keep bringing up. and is specifically about oil in AIR COOLED engines.

if you want to debate what is involved in a modern WATER COOLED engine, is suggest you start a new thread.

there is already tooooooo much info in here for people to keep track of what is going on in the original topic.

[Flieger]

Early cars have air-oil cooled engines. Oil does a significant amount of the cooling in "air cooled" Porsche engines. Furthermore, the temperatures are higher and vary over a greater range than modern, water cooled cars. Oil is working harder in early engines.

There are significant differences. I believe a separate thread is called for.

JMHO

[HarryD]

Originally Posted by Bart_dood

So we all panic over anecdotal evidence? with nothing certain about cause and affect?

I don't know what makes engine builders experts on oil additive chemistry?
I have built plenty of engines myself and I have a masters degree in chemistry but I don't pretend to be an expert on lubricant chemistry so I rely on labs to do proper testing in controlled conditions with real data.

Has anyone even commented on the statement I posted a few posts back that levels of ZDDP at 0.2% actually cause faster wear rates due to the compound attacking the grain boundaries in the metal?

"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."

So in effect people seeking out high levels of ZDDP in their oils might be accelerating the problem on their engines!

Bart_dood,

If you read this thread you will note that the target P and Zn is 1400 to 1500 ppm and that level needs to be adjusted based on the levels of detergents present as well.

Again, you can do what you want but folks like Steve and Charles have seen the effects first hand and were able to find a causal link. Their findings are also consistent with the data published by SAE over the years.

[cnavarro]

Originally Posted by trentwat

Charles, such irony in your comments...If you look in the Advertiser index in Panorama, Mobil is not listed. Interestingly, your company is...While Mobil may have a relationship with Porsche, it is not abundantly clear what their relationship is with the PCA...All that said, the Panorama Article references some of your efforts, so it can't be all that bad/incorrect, right?

I stand corrected. They were an advertiser at some point - the ad more or less just reinforced the fact that Mobil 1 is the factory fill and recommended oil by Porsche.

I was cited, yes, but I was never contacted nor did I ever discuss these issues with the author. Another concerned individual well versed in the topic did speak to him and the author still referred to products no longer in production (reformulated) and products we know not to work anymore (documented failures). Yes, it's good we have the topic out in the open and being discussed, but if it is going to do any good we need the right people talking about it and sharing the right information.

I think having an article citing the observations and experiences of the many engine builders who have experienced these problems would really be valuable.

If you haven't read the article, it does suggest Swepco & Rotella products for "mineral" based oil options. There is also a reference to an update in Valvoline VR-1 / 20w50 to address zinc concerns.

Vic Skirmants, a very well known 356 engine builder, had numerous failures running VR-1. He has since switched to Schaeffers. The only Valvoline products I would recommend would be their 4 Stroke Motorcycle 20w50 and their true Racing oils, available in a non-synthetic or full syn 20w50.

The CI-4 Rotella T recommended in the article does not even exist - it's been replaced by the new CJ-4 version.

[cnavarro]

Originally Posted by dshepp806

mmmmmmmmmmm,.



What's the spring tension on that 996TT?

Best,

Doyle

Don't have a foggiest clue - maybe Stephen from Imagine Auto can clue us in, since by the photos posted he's been lucky enough to grace one of those bulletproof motors :-)

[cnavarro]

Originally Posted by Bart_dood

So we all panic over anecdotal evidence? with nothing certain about cause and affect?

I don't know what makes engine builders experts on oil additive chemistry?
I have built plenty of engines myself and I have a masters degree in chemistry but I don't pretend to be an expert on lubricant chemistry so I rely on labs to do proper testing in controlled conditions with real data.

Has anyone even commented on the statement I posted a few posts back that levels of ZDDP at 0.2% actually cause faster wear rates due to the compound attacking the grain boundaries in the metal?

"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."

So in effect people seeking out high levels of ZDDP in their oils might be accelerating the problem on their engines!

Again, just throwing Zn and P percentages without knowing the formulation of the oil isn't useful. That's why just throwing in raw zddp is dangerous. Yes, it can cause more wear. But, there are plenty of excellent "racing" oils that are formulated with more than .2% Zn and P that perform extremely well. But we are not talking about those oils - the oils were talking about at most have 1700-1800 ppm, and most are in the 1450-1500 ppm. Some might even work just fine with 1000-1200 ppm, but they have to essentially be non-detergent to perform every bit as well as a fully detergent oil with 1450 ppm would provide.

You are not going to find bench or lab tests that are as useful or indicative of a lubricant's performance as real world testing and the observations made by engine builders. Yes, we have made our own spintrons to do controlled testing and did so over four years ago - that's what led us to the conclusion it was the oils in the first place. You don't have to be a chemical engineer to educate yourself as to the background and research available in the subject (99% of which is not available on the internet). It also helps to be married to a chemical engineer.

Ignoring the preponderance of proof for our aircooled engines specifically would be unwise, but it's a free world. Use what you please in your Porsche.

[trentwat]

Charles, there is a reference at the end of the Panorama article that takes you to a Valvoline Marketing blast from this past Summer...

http://www.valvoline.com/downloads/2008-003a.pdf

Here's a snippet:

"Valvoline Racing VR1: 75% higher zinc than SM engine oil with a balanced additive package designed to work in both racing and street-legal applications. This product will protect older style push-rod and flat tappet engines. Valvoline provides this product in both multi and mono"

What is the SM Engine reference? The obvious question would be 75% higher than what?

In the same flier, they do provide more technical, raw data. Would you please help translate? My car currently has this oil from a recent oil change. The shop I used, a known one in Atlanta, said that this is what they have used for the last 20 years.

Boutique oils sound cool, but costly. If the same protection can be had for less, I'm all for it.

With regard to the Panorama article, if the author didn't use credible information, then that is quite a shame. I was actually excited to see article in the mag having already seen this thread. Has anyone tried to reach the author for comment since the publication?

[cnavarro]

600 to 800 ppm, leaving it quite vague, for what a SM-rated oil would have and 75% more could mean a little more than 1000ppm to 1400ppm. From a sample run about the time that we saw the bottles carrying a "new ashless anti-wear technology", it had a little over 1000ppm and added boron. That's not to say it hasn't been changed since, just like Mobil 1 has changed a few times since the "re-introduction" of the 15w50.

[brads911sc]

No offense to the experts... but "low quality but technically ok". So after reading 50 pages of data and posts about how bad just about everything but BP is... we are still ok with Castrol GTX 20w50... Thank god.
note sarcasm here...

--------------------------------------------
"The Castrol GTX 20w50 still has SG levels of Zn and P, so yes, technically it's ok, but that's not everything when considering an oil. GTX is a very low quality oil, and as such, doesn't perform that well regardless of Zn and P. For very short drain intervals and pleasure driving, it's probably ok. There are better choices though. At least the HM holds it's viscosity a bit better than the regular GTX.
__________________
Charles Navarro
LN Engineering
http://www.LNengineering.com
Aircooled Precision Performance
"

[cnavarro]

Yes, you won't have a failure running GTX, but that's not to say you're not going to have more wear than using another oil.

Somewhere in this thread I posted the results we had from over-the-road comparisons in the same engine and over the same mileage of GTX compared to Brad Penn and a bunch of other synthetic motorcycle oils, and the GTX did horribly.

There are many other oils other than Brad Penn that work too (contained within this thread).

Nothing will be as cheap (price-wise) as GTX, sorry. That's why the Brad Penn is so popular - price point.

I do get calls from people who own 20 or 30 cars and they tell me they only drive some 50-100 miles per year - in that case, changing oil in that many cars could get very expensive, and as often as it should be changed and so little the use, probably GTX at the end of the day will be just fine in a scenario like that.

[brads911sc]

I have no vested interest in GTX. I personally agree that its low quality oil... my point is that 18 months ago... the research "showed" that basically BP and Swepco where the only ones that were ok. Post after post stating how bad everything else was... Now it turns out that the SM "rules" dont even apply to 20x50 which most of us use... that others oils have all of the proper additives, etc. So was all the switching from GT1, VR1, etc etc all just for the purpose of marketing hype? It seems to me that the experts want it both ways... when shown data... VR1 is ok. GT1 is ok, even Castrol GTX is ok... yet that is NOT how this post started... I personally use Kendall GT1. According to Pete and other experts, and according to kendall it has the right amounts of the right additives. Ill actually never switch to a Syn, Semi Syn oil...so BP and Swepco are out for me. The SM rules dont apply to 20w50 versions of GT1... yet there are DIRECT posts asking about GT1 and there were many who said it wasnt good... certainly its better than GTX?
I dont mean to pick a fight with you Charles. I respect your work...but when you read 50 pages of posts and in some GTX is presented as the worst thing ever, and in another its presented at technically "ok"... I, along with others get confused... we just want a straight answer... thats all...

[cnavarro]

I believe I had clarified the post you had quoted before, but if not, my last post should have.

SM rated or not or whether an oil has to conform to the SM standard, many oils were reformulated. That is a fact. That is why the thread is named "Ultimate Motor Oil Thread" OR "Why we hate CJ4/SM oils" and the discussion pertains to these formulations.

This thread is well over a year old and some of the posts I have made on the topic might go back as early as 2005. There certainly have been many developments and I for one haven't stopped doing research on the topic and there continues to be changes. Having a set of "safe" oils that have stood the test of time unreformulated that are predicable and proven based on testing on various levels (lab, bench, real-world) are what I fall back on.

I again apologize if this means that oils cannot be easy purchased at your FLAPS or those oils that can be found locally cost upwards of $10/qt.

[HarryD]

Originally Posted by cnavarro

I believe I had clarified the post you had quoted before, but if not, my last post should have.

SM rated or not or whether an oil has to conform to the SM standard, many oils were reformulated. That is a fact. That is why the thread is named "Ultimate Motor Oil Thread" OR "Why we hate CJ4/SM oils" and the discussion pertains to these formulations.

This thread is well over a year old and some of the posts I have made on the topic might go back as early as 2005. There certainly have been many developments and I for one haven't stopped doing research on the topic and there continues to be changes. Having a set of "safe" oils that have stood the test of time unreformulated that are predicable and proven based on testing on various levels (lab, bench, real-world) are what I fall back on.

I again apologize if this means that oils cannot be easy purchased at your FLAPS or those oils that can be found locally cost upwards of $10/qt.

Charles, for all of your hard work and reseacrh there is no need to apologize to anyone.

As I recall, one of the issues we discussed early on was the fact that the oil companies were not 100% straight with us. This was very obvious when we attempted to determine the changes to formulations and their web sites were long on marketing hype and short on technical data.

Much of the data they presented was either out of date or did not agree with the testing we saw here and elsewhere.

Unfortunately this lead to a loss of trust. As a result, we converged on the outfits that gave us straight talk that was backed up by the facts. Among this group was Redline, Royal Purple, SWEPCO, BP and a few others. The major oil companies seemed to be more interested in marketing to the masses and ignored our specialzed needs.

[Paulporsche]

Mobil says their latest Mobil1 Extended Performance 15W50 is for older engines w/ flat tappets, like our cars.

[cnavarro]

We don't need an extended performance oil with extra detergent for long drains. Just stick to M1 T-Win 20w50 or 4T Racing 10w40 if you prefer a mobil product and you'll be just fine.

[mmn710]

I started another tread about my problem, sorry to sound paranoid but like I said in the other tread. I have a 3.2 and The old owner from what he told me would use Mobil 1 synthetic oil for the car. Now I was told to use straight 40 conventional oil. So for my last oil change I did.

Was that a dumb move, because I know its not good to change from synthetic to regular oil. Also if it was an ok move should I stick with the oil or go back to synthetic.

One more question is, if staying with the conventional oil is better should I stick with the straight 40 or switch to something like 20W50. I live on Long Island so the temps get down to 30s here.

Thanks.