Kendall GT-1 20W-50 Oil Analysis

[gtc]

Just thought I'd throw this out there. I know there are a few of us that still use Kendall GT-1.
Interesting to note that Kendall publishes higher Z and P content - 1190 ppm Zinc, 1080 ppm Phosphorus. I intend to test some other oils to see where the error lies.

VOA:


UOA:

[cgarr]

Sounds like they want to sell more oil, Thats good!

GT-1 High Performance Motor Oil is formulated to provide
excellent wear protection, to minimize the formation of sludge
and varnish, and to resist viscosity and thermal breakdown, even
in severe service. It also protects against rust and bearing
corrosion, and has good foam resistance. The SAE 20W-50
viscosity grade is fortified with additional zinc
dialkyldithiophosphate (ZDDP) additive to provide enhanced
wear protection and oxidation resistance for use in the most
demanding applications. It is particularly recommended for use in
turbocharged engines and in high-performance engines with
flat-tappet camshafts, especially during the critical break-in
period.

[Vino]

Is this sample with 5154 miles on the oil???
This is regarding the second test...UOA.

I don't think it gets better than that HAHA!

Please clarify if I read something incorrectly, otherwise I think that is one of the best UOA's I have ever seen for an oil with over 5k on it.

[gtc]

Yes, the second sheet shows the used oil with 5154 miles on it.

Do you know what a 'bad' reading would be for our engines? I trust our oil analysis lab to give accurate results, but I'm not certain if they could alert me to a problem, if one arose. For instance, there are no total base number or % fuel content measurements, two things that Blackstone often refers to in their condition report.

[Peter Zimmermann]

Is TBN measurable in used oil, or is it something listed by the manufacturer that we have to accept? GT-1 20W/50 has a TBN of 7.8, which is reasonable, while Porsche lubricants have a TBN above 10 - most likely because of their extended (15K mile +) drain intervals.

Regarding fuel contamination, I'm not sure that's much of a problem these days like it was back when MFI cars were pounding along the freeway (I think about half the oil left in their engines was gas after 3K miles)! If your car passes bi-annual smog tests it's probably OK.

The Zn & P numbers that you state are correct, at least they were in early '08. Because ZDDP is a family of chemicals I guess that it's possible that Kendall was able to lower their numbers somewhat. Kendall's Zn & P numbers for GT-1 10W/40, and their syn blend oils, are lower at 850 Zn & 770 P. The GT-1 is not ILSAC GF-4, and that's good for us!

[gtc]

Pete, thank you for your input.
According to wikipedia, "TBN is measured in milligrams of potassium hydroxide per gram," and it is an alkaline compound that neutralizes acids created in the combustion process. Also, "When the TBN is measured at 2mg KOH/g or less the lubricant is considered inadequate for engine protection." So perhaps this is what we should look at to see if oil needs changing, as opposed to suddenly high metal or soot content, which might indicate abnormal mechanical wear.

[brads911sc]

As a user of the GT1, it might be helpful for Charles and Harry to weigh in as a comparison to their findings both new and at 5k on VR1, Swepco, etc etc that they say is acceptable on their ultimate oil thread. If this is consistent, I would like to see it listed as "acceptable" on the post 1 of the Ultimate Oil thread.

Thanks

[HarryD]

I remain skeptical of vendor claims as the facts often do not seem to support them. However, based on this data and the Manufacturers spec sheet, it looks like we may have another ok oil.

[88-diamondblue]

Harry,

As on the first page of the "ultimate Oil Thread" you state that SAE says we need around 1400-1500ppm of zinc and phosphorus for the levels for protection. The amounts seem low for the GT-1 oil to have the amount of protection that one would be looking for. From the VOA to the UOA we see the zinc # go down as it is doing it's job to protect the engine.

Why would not starting with a higher number provide better and longer protection for the engine. Not looking at adding suppliment to an oil to bring it up but with oils that already have the 1400-1500ppm or more formulated with their additive package.
In looking for more information for VOA numbers I came accross a VOA of the original Kendall GT-1 green oil and zinc and phosphourus were above 1600ppm. Sorry I didn't book mark the page so i would need to do a search to find it again.

I question whether this oil has enough Z & PH to do the best job. Just seem a little low on the number with out adding EOS or another product to increase the Z&P. I also know there is more to it than just the numbers, it what is packaged with.

Beside being American means bigger numbers are better, right

Harry, just wanted your opinion on the levels in GT_1. Are they safe at this level and would you use this without adding EOS?

[HarryD]

Originally Posted by 88-diamondblue

Harry,

As on the first page of the "ultimate Oil Thread" you state that SAE says we need around 1400-1500ppm of zinc and phosphorus for the levels for protection. The amounts seem low for the GT-1 oil to have the amount of protection that one would be looking for. From the VOA to the UOA we see the zinc # go down as it is doing it's job to protect the engine.

Why would not starting with a higher number provide better and longer protection for the engine. Not looking at adding suppliment to an oil to bring it up but with oils that already have the 1400-1500ppm or more formulated with their additive package.
In looking for more information for VOA numbers I came accross a VOA of the original Kendall GT-1 green oil and zinc and phosphourus were above 1600ppm. Sorry I didn't book mark the page so i would need to do a search to find it again.

I question whether this oil has enough Z & PH to do the best job. Just seem a little low on the number with out adding EOS or another product to increase the Z&P. I also know there is more to it than just the numbers, it what is packaged with.

Beside being American means bigger numbers are better, right

Harry, just wanted your opinion on the levels in GT_1. Are they safe at this level and would you use this without adding EOS?

Actually, I just am summarizing what I see as I move around. Charles has a much stronger technical backgorund in this than I.

As time has moved forward, it appears that many of the motor oil suppliers have increased the level of ZDDP in their 20W50 product offerings. The problem is that without actual data, you are hard pressed to know which ones will continue to provide the minimum to meet the API specifications and which are "moving up".

While the new formula for Kendall looks promising, our friends at Brad Penn and SWEPCO have always provided a high quality product.

Your call.

[S2GART]

Where is everyone getting the ZDDP info for any given oil? I just checked the Shell website for info on their Rotella 15W-40 oil which is what I run in all my cars except the Volvo. The MSDS sheet is for safety/handling. Their "tech data" for one was date 2006 and didn't list any real tech data.

[Peter Zimmermann]

Don't know about Shell, Kendall provides a customer service number, a tech hot line, and an e-mail address. I've contacted them, they are very open and informative. Check an oil bottle to see if there is an 800 number on it - there should be.

[84 911 WideBody]

Let me say I have little to no background info in this subject and I cut and pasted this from another forum. It brings up and interesting question. Has anyone seen a fail cam that they without a doubt can contribute to lack of ZDP/ZDDP?

here is the article:

(Bob, who is now retired, was one of GM's Top lubrication engineers)

Engine Oil Mythology
Bob Olree
GMPT – Fuels & Lubes

Myths are ill-founded beliefs held uncritically by interested groups. Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths. One was that the only good oils were oils made from “Pure Pennsylvania Crude Oil.” This one got started before the Second World War when engine oil was crude oil with very minimal refining, and crude oil from Pennsylvania made better engine oil than Texas or California crude. With modern refining, almost any crude can be made into good engine oil.

The next myth was that “modern” detergent engine oils were bad for older engines. This one got started after the Second World War, when the government no longer needed all the detergent oil for the war effort, and it hit the market as Heavy-Duty oil. These new detergent oils gave the pre-war cars, which had been driven way past their normal life and were full of sludge and deposits, a massive enema. In some cases bad things happened such as increased oil consumption – the piston rings were completely worn out and the massive piston deposits were the only thing standing between merely high and horrendous oil consumption. If detergent oils had been available to the public during the war, 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 about 75 years for an oil myth to die.

Then there is the myth that new engines will not break-in on synthetic oils. Apparently there was an aircraft engine manufacturer who once put out a bulletin to this effect. Clearly the thousands and thousands of cars filled with Mobil 1 as factory-fill, which have broke-in quite well, should have put this one to rest. However this one is only 40 years old, so it has another 35 years to live.

All of these myths have a common theme; newer oils are bad. And this brings us to the latest myth – new “Starburst”/ API SM engine oils are bad for older cars because the amount of anti-wear additive in them has been reduced. This one has gotten big play in the antique and collector car press lately. The anti-wear additive being discussed is zinc dithiophosphate (ZDP).

Before debunking this myth we need to look at the history of ZDP usage in engine oil.

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 0.08% for “Starburst”/API SM oils.

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 was a battery of industry wide “Sequence” oil tests. Two of theses tests 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 “Starburst/API SM oils 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.


The “Starburst”/API SM oil standards were developed by a group of OEM, oil additive company, and oil company experts. When developing any new engine oil standard the issue of “backward compatibility” always comes up, and indeed the group of experts spent a lot of time researching this issue. Various oil and additive companies ran “no harm” tests on older cars with the new oils. No problems were uncovered.

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 engines are protected. All “Starburst”/API SM oil formulations must pass these 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. The new “Starburst”/API SM 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.

The oil’s ZDP level 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 that “new oils will wear out older engines.” Like other myths before it, history teaches us that it will take about 75 years for this one to die also.


February 13, 2007

[HarryD]

Originally Posted by S2GART

Where is everyone getting the ZDDP info for any given oil? I just checked the Shell website for info on their Rotella 15W-40 oil which is what I run in all my cars except the Volvo. The MSDS sheet is for safety/handling. Their "tech data" for one was date 2006 and didn't list any real tech data.

Pete,

This is exactly the issue. The Motor oil manufacturers are not forthcoming with current data and they change formulations without much if any notification. The API grades are no longer protective of older cars which complicates this issue.

I wish it was simple....

[HarryD]

Originally Posted by 84 911 WideBody

Let me say I have little to no background info in this subject and I cut and pasted this from another forum. It brings up and interesting question. Has anyone seen a fail cam that they without a doubt can contribute to lack of ZDP/ZDDP?

here is the article:

(Bob, who is now retired, was one of GM's Top lubrication engineers)

Engine Oil Mythology
Bob Olree
GMPT – Fuels & Lubes

<<>>

Widebody,

Yes, I have seen this post as well but while much seems to be factual, I have concerns based on the information Charles Navarro and others have provided about the specifics of the needs of our cars.

The bottom line for me is that I have only one engine and I will use the experience of those that have seen many more to help me make my choices.

I am sure Mr. Olree is a fine fellow, but I do not know him like I know people like Charles and Steve. Since GM does not make hi performance, flat 6 engines with non-roller tappets, I am not sure how their requirements fit with Mr. Olree's information.

An earlier post provided this and my thoughts are:

Originally Posted by HarryD

Hi performance engines (such as our 911's), have extremely high pressures at the tappets; Reliable engine builders, who see more damaged engines in one week than most of us will see in a lifetime, have reported that they have seen wear in components that they previously never saw prior to the introduction of lower ZDDP oils; the introduction of lower ZDDP oils follows the widespread adoption of roller tappets; SAE has done much research on this topic and has recommended hi P and Zn for flat tappet engines that are used in high performance applications, and SAE has suggested that significantly lower levels are needed for roller tappets.

Trust me there is much more to the story.

Also, bear in mind the source of the comments you posted. To GM, the demise of cars older than mid-80's presents no hardship to them. After all, selling new cars is what they need to do. If an older car goes off the road, they have a chance to sell a new one to someone. If you think they care about older cars, go try to buy a part for a 60's or 70's chevy from the dealer. Chances are the parts are not even in their catalog.

And of course there is the Ultimate Oil Thread where you can see how the debate evolved.

[88-diamondblue]

Thanks Harry for commenting. Oil used to be so simple

[hahnmgh63]

In response to Widebody and others, I would also have to agree that Mr. Olree is a company man and that quoting past factual information mixed with newer info that has, according to him a factual basis, does not make it correct when many other oil companies and engine manufacturers disagree. I do agree that some reduction in ZDDP is ok as pretty much all oil manufacturers have increased the amount of Molybdenum in their oils to counter/partially counter the reduction of ZDDP as an anti-wear additive. You can see the Moly "Mo" content in Graham's oil sample above. If you are unaware of the properties of Moly, you can Wikipedia it and also check out Lubro Moly's (German Company) website at http://www.liqui-moly.de/liquimoly/web.nsf/id/pa_eng_home.html

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by 88-diamondblue

Thanks Harry for commenting. Oil used to be so simple

Here is the simple bottom line I use --
Good Oils to Use:

Brad Penn
Valv. VR-1 Racing Oil
Swepco

After that, it is just a question of which one is less hideously expensive and easy to obtain.

also...
Probably OK Oils to Use:
- my stock of "old" Mobil One - IIRC, it is the SL rated stuff
- maybe a newer Mobile One formulation

[84 911 WideBody]

Originally Posted by 88-diamondblue

Thanks Harry for commenting. Oil used to be so simple

lol, Isn't that the truth

Thanks for your comments. I am a Brad Penn user, for all the same reasons we all do. I have read through the "Ultimate Oil Thread". I have talked to many professional hi performance Engine builders and the funny thing is you will never get the same response.

[Peter Zimmermann]

Originally Posted by HarryD

Pete,

This is exactly the issue. The Motor oil manufacturers are not forthcoming with current data and they change formulations without much if any notification. The API grades are no longer protective of older cars which complicates this issue.

I wish it was simple....

Oh, so true! I made the decision, a while back, to stick with Kendall GT-1 20W/50 (in my '82 SC fitted with new cams about five years ago). That decision was based on a number of factors, but the most important was that; (1) The TBN number is satisfactory for my 5K oil change interval, (2) It's low Sulphated Ash (SA) level shows that the oil has quality anti-wear chemicals used in combo with a well-balanced amount of Zn & P, (3) The 20W/50 viscosity is perfect for the climate where I live, and (4) The oil is not ILSAC GF-4 approved - which is good for our P-cars because of the fear of the oil becoming too thin at high temperatures.