Loss of performance / cam getting wiped
02-11-2015, 05:56 PM
#1
Loss of performance / cam getting wiped
Lately I've noticed that two engines I had to rebuild have had cams that have the lobes were wiped. I looked them over and both had very noticeable cam lobe wear. One lobe was over .3 down and was worn to one side. All the lobes on both cams were really knocked down.
Power of course was really, really down on both engines.
After a complete cylinder head overhaul and having to run lash twice, one of them runs like it should. Idles right, plenty of power at the top. same short block, just the head was done.
The second engine I'm waiting to get back from being bored .020 over and the crank checked. Same thing but this engine is getting a "270" cam.
So I'm kinda curious if when you run lash or get excessive valve train noise if the cam lobes are wiped, or show excessive wear.
What I'm thinking is .gov mandated that zinc be removed from the oil. That's why all the new engines have roller lifters in them. The rollers don't require zinc as a lubricant.
So I put a bottle of STP in with every oil change to get the zinc back.
I'm really curious if I'm the only one noticing, or I'm the one with a problem. Or everyone has it to some degree, and may not have noticed it.
Power of course was really, really down on both engines.
After a complete cylinder head overhaul and having to run lash twice, one of them runs like it should. Idles right, plenty of power at the top. same short block, just the head was done.
The second engine I'm waiting to get back from being bored .020 over and the crank checked. Same thing but this engine is getting a "270" cam.
So I'm kinda curious if when you run lash or get excessive valve train noise if the cam lobes are wiped, or show excessive wear.
What I'm thinking is .gov mandated that zinc be removed from the oil. That's why all the new engines have roller lifters in them. The rollers don't require zinc as a lubricant.
So I put a bottle of STP in with every oil change to get the zinc back.
I'm really curious if I'm the only one noticing, or I'm the one with a problem. Or everyone has it to some degree, and may not have noticed it.
02-11-2015, 07:31 PM
#2
Substandard oil isn't news to me
This is a sore subject with those of us who have older muscle car engines equipped with performance flat tappet cams. It hit the performance flat tappet crowd pretty hard starting in the mid to late 90's. Everyone from the average enthusiast to professional engine builders had trouble with wiped cam lobes when the new government mandated oil hit the market. Alot of people switched to roller cams in their engines not just for the added torque and power but so their cam and lifters would survive as well. Of course Ford and Chevy had moved on to standard hydraulic roller cams in their new cars by then.
To make things even worse they kept changing it taking out even more zink AND Phosphate because they say those ingredients are bad for the environment and it can ruin a catalytic converter. Unfortunately those are two major ingredients in the oils protection package. Engines with higher friction valve trains take the hit first. The more aggressive the cam the worse it will be. It's not just a high valve lift problem either. The faster you open or close the valve the higher the friction because of the angles involved. Stock low lift cams with relatively slow opening and closing ramps will last the longest.
There are still some oils out there with a good ZDDP package but you have to go out of your way to acquire them. Some synthetic oils don't have a good protection package either.
I could point you to a long thread about what oil to use and what to stay away from on chevelles.net/teamchevelle if you want. Bobistheoilguy.com makes light of it too but most of the guys over there are daily driver guys. They're not trying to make old engines with crazy big aggressive cams survive.
This is a sore subject with those of us who have older muscle car engines equipped with performance flat tappet cams. It hit the performance flat tappet crowd pretty hard starting in the mid to late 90's. Everyone from the average enthusiast to professional engine builders had trouble with wiped cam lobes when the new government mandated oil hit the market. Alot of people switched to roller cams in their engines not just for the added torque and power but so their cam and lifters would survive as well. Of course Ford and Chevy had moved on to standard hydraulic roller cams in their new cars by then.
To make things even worse they kept changing it taking out even more zink AND Phosphate because they say those ingredients are bad for the environment and it can ruin a catalytic converter. Unfortunately those are two major ingredients in the oils protection package. Engines with higher friction valve trains take the hit first. The more aggressive the cam the worse it will be. It's not just a high valve lift problem either. The faster you open or close the valve the higher the friction because of the angles involved. Stock low lift cams with relatively slow opening and closing ramps will last the longest.
There are still some oils out there with a good ZDDP package but you have to go out of your way to acquire them. Some synthetic oils don't have a good protection package either.
I could point you to a long thread about what oil to use and what to stay away from on chevelles.net/teamchevelle if you want. Bobistheoilguy.com makes light of it too but most of the guys over there are daily driver guys. They're not trying to make old engines with crazy big aggressive cams survive.
Last edited by Odin; 02-12-2015 at 04:10 AM.
02-11-2015, 08:09 PM
#3
Thanks;
I knew they pulled the zinc out, but I didn't think they trashed it all.
Sure would like the link; thanks!
I was wondering about its effect on a low tension, low stepping engine like the 20r & 22re's of the world. Engine has a 75lb valve spring; tops. Darned lot of them and the rebuilding shops have something around a 6 month waiting list. So if its trashing my cams, what about others who religiously maintain their rigs?
Perhaps everyone just needs to realize that a ZDDP booster has to be added at every oil change even engines this simple.
I knew they pulled the zinc out, but I didn't think they trashed it all.
Sure would like the link; thanks!
I was wondering about its effect on a low tension, low stepping engine like the 20r & 22re's of the world. Engine has a 75lb valve spring; tops. Darned lot of them and the rebuilding shops have something around a 6 month waiting list. So if its trashing my cams, what about others who religiously maintain their rigs?
Perhaps everyone just needs to realize that a ZDDP booster has to be added at every oil change even engines this simple.
02-12-2015, 01:54 AM
#4
I'll try to find the thread but it's been a while. It was quite long and it kept changing as more and more people commented on it and new formulations were added. People were sending new oil to independent labs having it tested and posting the results. It was a stickie in the performance section and I don't know if it's been updated lately.
A few years later, adding to the crappy degraded oil it became apparent to professions in the performance field that some cam companies were now selling lifters that are made offshore with softer material adding to failure rates.
Right now I believe Crower or original Delphi are the only flat tappet lifters that people trust.
One of the most important things is prelubing the engine and getting a very quick start up. Every revolution the cam makes without it running is pretty much scraping off any protection products causing a dry start condition.
A ZDDP additive isn't really the end all either. Personally I think it's more important to get a good oil from the start.
Last edited by Odin; 02-12-2015 at 08:25 AM.
02-12-2015, 06:39 AM
#5
There was a problem with GM camshafts going flat if the owner changed the oil too soon on a new car. The problem was they stopped hardening the cams, and added a break-in treatment to the oil to let the engine harden the cam while driving around. Customers who changed the oil too soon were having cams go flat because the new oil didn't have the right break-in formula. Might want to check with the camshaft maker to see what the break-in procedure and oil recommendation is. Also, I would not use resurfaced tappets, get a new set as they lose hardening when ground down.
02-12-2015, 08:35 AM
#7
I can't find the oil thread, I think it was deleted because it was getting really, really confusing with all the changing oil formulas and a few (there's always a few) who would cause problems. The main guy who would post the results of his oil after it was tested started a blog about it.
If you want the latest results check his blog because he updates it.
The Blog http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
I'll post a couple of his replies
.
Last edited by Odin; 02-13-2015 at 02:24 AM.
Trending Topics
02-12-2015, 08:36 AM
#8
Originally Posted by BrocLuno View Post
There are two parts to cold engine start. Part one relies on the existing oil film and cushion to protect parts until pumped oil is flowing. Part two is the pumped oil ...
540 RAT goes on about protecting engines during cold start with thinner oils ... But that only counts after the oil is in circulation. During initial start it's film and cushion and that is where many synthetics fall down. They don't maintain the same film as dino oil over prolonged periods of rest. Syn's have a bad drain-off characteristic leaving a very thin film and no cushion.
Clearanced race motors and high mileage engines should not be running thin oils. Engines (like my builds) with extra oil openings that can let galleries drain when sitting should not use thin oils.
15-40 is good all around here in Kalifornia Kollective for either clearanced or high mileage motors. Back east, I'd back it down to 10-30 in the winter for such motors, 15-40 in summer.
If you hear any clacking or other mechanical noise on cold start after sitting, think about switching oils ... Residual film characteristics are just as important as cold flow
As to why use ZDDP Additive (?), well my brand new cam card from Howard's states that failure to use ZDDP WILL result in cam failure and I don't want to jeopardize the warranty! They also say to use Brad Penn oil, or equal ...
So why go against the MFG's recommendation? 540 RAT will not send you a new cam if it fails following his recommendations ... Who you going to pay attention to, the cam maker or some 'Net poster ...
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
540 RAT
You are mistaken on many of your comments above. Cold oil flow is absolutely THE most important thing during cold start-up. With a cold start engine, there is no such thing as a cushion of oil between parts. Liquid oil is NOT compressible, which is what allows hydraulics to work. So, you can never consider liquid oil which is thicker than a film of oil, to be a cushion because cushion implies the oil has “give” to it, which it most certainly does NOT. The only way oil can have “give” to it, is for it to be foamy oil where the air bubbles can be compressed. So, the whole misguided idea of an oil cushion is pure nonsense. When you shut off a hot engine, oil will drain off and squeeze out from between parts, leaving only an oil film, whether the oil is synthetic or conventional. An oil’s remaining film has little to nothing to do with whether or not it is synthetic or conventional. An oil’s film is made up primarily from its additive package which contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components among other things, not simply its base oil. Some oil films may stay in place a little better than others after sitting, but it depends on the particular oil, not if it is synthetic or conventional. And clacking or other mechanical noise on cold start after sitting, has nothing to do with residual oil films. Quicker flow from thinner oil is the best bet here as well, to eliminate or minimize that.
If your engine sits for a long time, then you may want to consider priming it before firing it up, or else using an accumulator which can quickly and easily give a shot of oil to the components. Failing that, running a thinner oil as I describe in my “Viscosity Selection” write-up, is the only way to go. There is absolutely no benefit what so ever to running thicker oil for cold start-up, in fact running thicker oil is the worst thing you can do for your engine during cold start-up. If you don’t understand this, go back and re-read my piece on “Viscosity Selection”, so that you can learn why you are doing the wrong thing.
You are also completely wrong about saying clearanced race motors and high mileage engines should not be running thin oils. That’s a complete crock. Nearly every engine will benefit from running an oil no thicker than some type of multi-viscosity 30wt. Anything thicker than that is worse for providing the best lubrication for your engine. And your 15W40 is definitely too thick compared to a far better multi-viscosity 30wt. You have much to learn about selecting a motor oil.
I have 5W30 in my own 540 BBC, which as .003 clearance on the rods and mains. And it held a nice steady 75+ psi on the dyno all the way to redline, using a good Titan gerotor oil pump. It also holds a nice hot idle oil pressure.
Regarding high zinc oils, see my thread on the 10W40 Spectro Motor-Guard High Performance Oil. I show an Engineering Test Data comparison of high zinc oils, where you can see that high zinc oils are not all created equal. And that proves your cam company is out of touch on the realities of high zinc oils. Use high zinc oils at your own risk. Here’s a link:
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=710354
And for the record, 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, ranks 107th out 143 oils on my Wear Protection Ranking List. That means 106 other oils provided better wear protection, which is yet another example of your cam company giving you bad advice on what oil to use. For the actual facts about motor oil, see my link below:
540 RAT
Mechanical Engineer
U.S. Patent Holder
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
To see my entire 140+ motor oil “Wear Protection Ranking List” Blog (with over 65,000 “views” worldwide), along with additional motor oil tech FACTS, which are "proven" by Physics and Chemistry, and exactly matches real world track experience, go to this link:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
There are two parts to cold engine start. Part one relies on the existing oil film and cushion to protect parts until pumped oil is flowing. Part two is the pumped oil ...
540 RAT goes on about protecting engines during cold start with thinner oils ... But that only counts after the oil is in circulation. During initial start it's film and cushion and that is where many synthetics fall down. They don't maintain the same film as dino oil over prolonged periods of rest. Syn's have a bad drain-off characteristic leaving a very thin film and no cushion.
Clearanced race motors and high mileage engines should not be running thin oils. Engines (like my builds) with extra oil openings that can let galleries drain when sitting should not use thin oils.
15-40 is good all around here in Kalifornia Kollective for either clearanced or high mileage motors. Back east, I'd back it down to 10-30 in the winter for such motors, 15-40 in summer.
If you hear any clacking or other mechanical noise on cold start after sitting, think about switching oils ... Residual film characteristics are just as important as cold flow
As to why use ZDDP Additive (?), well my brand new cam card from Howard's states that failure to use ZDDP WILL result in cam failure and I don't want to jeopardize the warranty! They also say to use Brad Penn oil, or equal ...
So why go against the MFG's recommendation? 540 RAT will not send you a new cam if it fails following his recommendations ... Who you going to pay attention to, the cam maker or some 'Net poster ...
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
540 RAT
You are mistaken on many of your comments above. Cold oil flow is absolutely THE most important thing during cold start-up. With a cold start engine, there is no such thing as a cushion of oil between parts. Liquid oil is NOT compressible, which is what allows hydraulics to work. So, you can never consider liquid oil which is thicker than a film of oil, to be a cushion because cushion implies the oil has “give” to it, which it most certainly does NOT. The only way oil can have “give” to it, is for it to be foamy oil where the air bubbles can be compressed. So, the whole misguided idea of an oil cushion is pure nonsense. When you shut off a hot engine, oil will drain off and squeeze out from between parts, leaving only an oil film, whether the oil is synthetic or conventional. An oil’s remaining film has little to nothing to do with whether or not it is synthetic or conventional. An oil’s film is made up primarily from its additive package which contains the extreme pressure anti-wear components among other things, not simply its base oil. Some oil films may stay in place a little better than others after sitting, but it depends on the particular oil, not if it is synthetic or conventional. And clacking or other mechanical noise on cold start after sitting, has nothing to do with residual oil films. Quicker flow from thinner oil is the best bet here as well, to eliminate or minimize that.
If your engine sits for a long time, then you may want to consider priming it before firing it up, or else using an accumulator which can quickly and easily give a shot of oil to the components. Failing that, running a thinner oil as I describe in my “Viscosity Selection” write-up, is the only way to go. There is absolutely no benefit what so ever to running thicker oil for cold start-up, in fact running thicker oil is the worst thing you can do for your engine during cold start-up. If you don’t understand this, go back and re-read my piece on “Viscosity Selection”, so that you can learn why you are doing the wrong thing.
You are also completely wrong about saying clearanced race motors and high mileage engines should not be running thin oils. That’s a complete crock. Nearly every engine will benefit from running an oil no thicker than some type of multi-viscosity 30wt. Anything thicker than that is worse for providing the best lubrication for your engine. And your 15W40 is definitely too thick compared to a far better multi-viscosity 30wt. You have much to learn about selecting a motor oil.
I have 5W30 in my own 540 BBC, which as .003 clearance on the rods and mains. And it held a nice steady 75+ psi on the dyno all the way to redline, using a good Titan gerotor oil pump. It also holds a nice hot idle oil pressure.
Regarding high zinc oils, see my thread on the 10W40 Spectro Motor-Guard High Performance Oil. I show an Engineering Test Data comparison of high zinc oils, where you can see that high zinc oils are not all created equal. And that proves your cam company is out of touch on the realities of high zinc oils. Use high zinc oils at your own risk. Here’s a link:
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=710354
And for the record, 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1, ranks 107th out 143 oils on my Wear Protection Ranking List. That means 106 other oils provided better wear protection, which is yet another example of your cam company giving you bad advice on what oil to use. For the actual facts about motor oil, see my link below:
540 RAT
Mechanical Engineer
U.S. Patent Holder
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
To see my entire 140+ motor oil “Wear Protection Ranking List” Blog (with over 65,000 “views” worldwide), along with additional motor oil tech FACTS, which are "proven" by Physics and Chemistry, and exactly matches real world track experience, go to this link:
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
Last edited by Odin; 02-12-2015 at 08:42 AM.
02-12-2015, 08:45 AM
#9
Originally Posted by Calculated Risk View Post
540 rat, give it s fu#$&ng break.
You are just an internet poster.
You keep trolling sites telling how goodand smart you are, we get it.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________
540 RAT
Dude, I am not just some Internet Poster. I'm a Professional Working Degreed Mechanical Engineer. Mechanical Design Engineering is what I do for a living. And I've been performing Motor Oil Engineering Tests for the past 3 years, to get to the truth about motor oil, because the misinformation out there is mind blowing.
I do not try to tell anyone how smart I am. I only provide my Credentials so that people have an idea where I'm coming from. Because a number of nasty people take cheap shots at me, even though they have never done any testing of their own, and have no idea what they are talking about.
So, what is your problem? Why are you being such a d***? What are your Credentials that make you think you are qualified to pass judgment on me or my Engineering Test Data?
I've done nothing but provide Engineering FACTS about motor oil, so that people can make a more informed decision about what motor oil they'd like to use, based on real information rather than the old high zinc MYTH or false advertising on bottles.
I don't sell motor oil, and I don't charge people to see my Test Data, which is PROVEN to be the real deal by the Physics and Chemistry involved. The Data is not my opinion, nor is it my theory. The Science of the testing provides the FACTUAL answers. And I simply share that Data as a courtesy to other gearheads.
If you'd lighten up, "maybe" you could learn something.
540 RAT
Mechanical Engineer
U.S. Patent Holder
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
The Engineering testing I perform to establish motor oil wear protection capability, is a dynamic friction test under load, similar to how an engine dyno test is a dynamic HP/Torque test under load. Both tests show how their subjects perform in the real world, no matter what their spec sheets say. To see my entire 140+ motor oil “Wear Protection Ranking List” Blog, along with additional motor oil tech FACTS, which are "proven" by Physics and Chemistry, and exactly match real world track and street experience, go to the link below.
This Blog now has over 70,000 views worldwide. Of course simply listing the number of views by itself, is not intended to indicate validation of the test data (validation is shown throughout the Blog). But, indicating the number of views does show that an enormous number of people worldwide recognize the value, understand the importance, and make use of the motor oil test data FACTS included here, that cannot be found anywhere else. And as a result, they are posting and sharing links to this Blog, all over the world.
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
540 rat, give it s fu#$&ng break.
You are just an internet poster.
You keep trolling sites telling how goodand smart you are, we get it.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________
540 RAT
Dude, I am not just some Internet Poster. I'm a Professional Working Degreed Mechanical Engineer. Mechanical Design Engineering is what I do for a living. And I've been performing Motor Oil Engineering Tests for the past 3 years, to get to the truth about motor oil, because the misinformation out there is mind blowing.
I do not try to tell anyone how smart I am. I only provide my Credentials so that people have an idea where I'm coming from. Because a number of nasty people take cheap shots at me, even though they have never done any testing of their own, and have no idea what they are talking about.
So, what is your problem? Why are you being such a d***? What are your Credentials that make you think you are qualified to pass judgment on me or my Engineering Test Data?
I've done nothing but provide Engineering FACTS about motor oil, so that people can make a more informed decision about what motor oil they'd like to use, based on real information rather than the old high zinc MYTH or false advertising on bottles.
I don't sell motor oil, and I don't charge people to see my Test Data, which is PROVEN to be the real deal by the Physics and Chemistry involved. The Data is not my opinion, nor is it my theory. The Science of the testing provides the FACTUAL answers. And I simply share that Data as a courtesy to other gearheads.
If you'd lighten up, "maybe" you could learn something.
540 RAT
Mechanical Engineer
U.S. Patent Holder
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
Member ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers)
The Engineering testing I perform to establish motor oil wear protection capability, is a dynamic friction test under load, similar to how an engine dyno test is a dynamic HP/Torque test under load. Both tests show how their subjects perform in the real world, no matter what their spec sheets say. To see my entire 140+ motor oil “Wear Protection Ranking List” Blog, along with additional motor oil tech FACTS, which are "proven" by Physics and Chemistry, and exactly match real world track and street experience, go to the link below.
This Blog now has over 70,000 views worldwide. Of course simply listing the number of views by itself, is not intended to indicate validation of the test data (validation is shown throughout the Blog). But, indicating the number of views does show that an enormous number of people worldwide recognize the value, understand the importance, and make use of the motor oil test data FACTS included here, that cannot be found anywhere else. And as a result, they are posting and sharing links to this Blog, all over the world.
http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
02-12-2015, 08:49 AM
#10
^ We had an engineer bring his car to us for oil changes, he always asked to see the old drained oil filter and only held it then gave it back for disposal. I finally asked him why, he said when the engine has wear problems the filter gets really heavy from metal particles.
02-12-2015, 08:54 AM
#11
Originally Posted by Stokerboats View Post
I don't think I'm lucky, I think I properly broke the cam in and used what has worked for decades save for the RP. My next engine, the 565 is getting Brad Penn Grade1 as per Isky's and per Jason Petiis' recommendation. I don't think they sell it simply because they get a deal on it but moreso because they have seen better results with their ft cams. I am running Amzoil Signature series 5w30 in my Silverado. I have run the OEM installed OIl, then the RP and then as per your test, the Penzoil Ultra SM rated 5w30 which changed to a less effective SN and now the Amzoil. I have always felt best with the RP in there. I recieve literature from Amzoil here and there and they speak of wear testing but also of several other testing measures which led me to think that wear testing is likely only one piece of the puzzle. I don't drive a train so I am surely no Engineer. What I have noticed though with the Amzoil is that my combined mpg is down from the RP and the Penzoil Ultra by about 1 mpg and change. I noticed that right away but I'm not throwing away expensive oil until it is done.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________________
Jan 12th, 15, 5:51 PM
540 RAT
Dan, you know I wish you the best with your new engine. But, you are not making the best choice if you blindly accept what Isky says about Brad Penn being the best oil to use. But, since you will be running a roller cam, you will most likely be OK, even with a low performing oil. But, would you really want to run low performing oil in your brand new engine?
I like a lot of Isky products, and I even ponied up the big bucks for their EZ-Roll EZX bushing lifters for my 540 BBC. But, with all due respect, they are completely clueless when it comes to the motor oil they “think” is best. If you challenge them to provide actual test data “proof” that Brad Penn is the best oil, they will not be able to do it because it is simply not true.
The insert I saw from Isky about motor oil, said they favored Brad Penn because it came from Pennsylvania crude. That remark alone proves they have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to motor oil. The base oil has little to nothing to do with an oil’s ability to prevent wear, because the extreme pressure anti-wear components are in the additive package, not the base oil.
I feel bad for Brad Penn because I think they are good folks who mean well. But, like so many other small-name Oil Companies, their motor oil products often do not perform very well when put to the test against a wide range of other oils on the market. I have to believe it is because the small-name oil Companies just do not have the resources to formulate oils that truly perform well.
That Isky insert on motor oil also mentioned that Valvoline VR1 is OK, but that they favor Brad Penn over the Valvoline. Jeez, what in the world do they base that nonsense on? I have performed Engineering tests on both oils, and this is how they performed:
• 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
zinc = 1472 ppm
phosphorus = 1544 ppm
moly = 3 ppm
This Valvoline oil ranked 16th out of 143 oils tested.
• 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 semi-synthetic = 71,206 psi
zinc = 1557 ppm
phos = 1651 ppm
moly = 3 ppm
This Brad Penn oil ranked 107th out of 143 oils tested, meaning 106 other oils provided better wear protection.
The Wear Protection reference categories are:
• Over 105,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection
• 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection
• 75,000 to 90,000 psi = GOOD wear protection
• 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODEST wear protection
• Below 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE wear protection
As you can see, the Valvoline VR1 provided a whopping 45% better wear protection capability, and ranks 91 places higher. Do you still think Isky knows what they are talking about when it comes to motor oil? If you use a poor performing oil that they recommend, they may give you another cam if yours fails, but would you really want to go through all that? Since you have to buy motor oil anyway, wouldn’t you really rather buy an oil that actually proves itself in Engineering tests, and protects your engine far better?
And if that is not enough info, consider the following:
An oval track dirt racer (his class is extremely competitive, so he asked that his name be left out) on the SpeedTalk Forum runs a 7200 rpm, solid flat tappet, 358ci Small Block Chevy motor, with valve spring pressures of about 160 on the seat and 400 open, that are shimmed to .060” from coil bind. The rules and the combination of parts, were causing him to experience repeated cam failures while using high zinc, semi-synthetic 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 motor oil. Lab Report Data from testing performed by Professional Lab, “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada, showed that this oil contains 1557 ppm zinc, 1651 ppm phosphorus, and 3 ppm moly. In spite of this being a high zinc oil, that most folks would “assume” provides excellent wear protection, he experienced wiped lobe cam failure about every 22 to 25 races.
A race consists of one 8 lap (a lap is typically 3/8 mile) heat race and one 20 lap feature race, plus any caution laps. If you add it all up, 25 races only total about 281 miles at the point of cam failure. So, that is a perfect example of what I’ve been saying all along about high zinc levels being absolutely NO GUARANTEE of adequate wear protection. And my test data on this 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 motor oil, shows that it produces a wear protection capability of only 71,206 psi, which puts it in the MODEST wear protection category, and it ranks a very disappointing 107th out of 143 oils tested so far. That means of course that there are 106 different oils I’ve tested that provide better wear protection.
So, my test data ACCURATELY PREDICTED EXACTLY what he experienced during racing. And that is, that this oil does not provide high enough wear protection capability to provide a sufficient margin of safety for this engine’s operating conditions. Looking at my “Wear Protection Ranking List” and choosing a much higher ranked oil, would have prevented all those cam failures. Repeatedly suffering cam failures in motors with so little time on them, may have been considered by some folks to be a normal consumption of parts back in the ‘60’s or ‘70’s. But, in the 21st Century that we live in now, by any measure, that is for sure premature failure. We no longer have to accept that as the cost of doing business, because we can do far better now.
So, he switched to the super micro polished billet lifters from PPPC and the cam life went up to 40 races, which was an improvement since he could now go 450 miles between failures. But, that was still clearly unacceptable. Then 2 years ago he started using “Oil Extreme Concentrate” as an additive to the 10W30 Brad Penn, and he’s never lost a lobe on a cam since. Adding the “Oil Extreme Concentrate” completely eliminated his premature wiped lobe cam failures. Now the motor has now gone 70+ Races without issue, and is still doing fine. This “Oil Extreme Concentrate” is one additive that actually works as advertised, and makes low ranked oils far better than they were to begin with. And that is PRECISELY WHAT MY MOTOR OIL TEST DATA PREDICTED as well.
Here’s how. I also added “Oil Extreme Concentrate” to 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 semi-synthetic, as part of my motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” research. And with 2.0 OZ of “Oil Extreme Concentrate” added per qt, which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability shot up by a BREATH TAKING 56%, to an amazing 111,061psi, which puts it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category, and now ranks it a jaw dropping 6th out of 143 oils tested so far. So, it moved up a whopping 101 ranking positions, just by adding the “Oil Extreme Concentrate”. So, my test data exactly matched this entire race track experience. Validation of test data doesn’t get any better than this.
Do you still question the value of my test data? Decide for yourself, but the engine you save may be your own.
I don't think I'm lucky, I think I properly broke the cam in and used what has worked for decades save for the RP. My next engine, the 565 is getting Brad Penn Grade1 as per Isky's and per Jason Petiis' recommendation. I don't think they sell it simply because they get a deal on it but moreso because they have seen better results with their ft cams. I am running Amzoil Signature series 5w30 in my Silverado. I have run the OEM installed OIl, then the RP and then as per your test, the Penzoil Ultra SM rated 5w30 which changed to a less effective SN and now the Amzoil. I have always felt best with the RP in there. I recieve literature from Amzoil here and there and they speak of wear testing but also of several other testing measures which led me to think that wear testing is likely only one piece of the puzzle. I don't drive a train so I am surely no Engineer. What I have noticed though with the Amzoil is that my combined mpg is down from the RP and the Penzoil Ultra by about 1 mpg and change. I noticed that right away but I'm not throwing away expensive oil until it is done.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________________
Jan 12th, 15, 5:51 PM
540 RAT
Dan, you know I wish you the best with your new engine. But, you are not making the best choice if you blindly accept what Isky says about Brad Penn being the best oil to use. But, since you will be running a roller cam, you will most likely be OK, even with a low performing oil. But, would you really want to run low performing oil in your brand new engine?
I like a lot of Isky products, and I even ponied up the big bucks for their EZ-Roll EZX bushing lifters for my 540 BBC. But, with all due respect, they are completely clueless when it comes to the motor oil they “think” is best. If you challenge them to provide actual test data “proof” that Brad Penn is the best oil, they will not be able to do it because it is simply not true.
The insert I saw from Isky about motor oil, said they favored Brad Penn because it came from Pennsylvania crude. That remark alone proves they have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to motor oil. The base oil has little to nothing to do with an oil’s ability to prevent wear, because the extreme pressure anti-wear components are in the additive package, not the base oil.
I feel bad for Brad Penn because I think they are good folks who mean well. But, like so many other small-name Oil Companies, their motor oil products often do not perform very well when put to the test against a wide range of other oils on the market. I have to believe it is because the small-name oil Companies just do not have the resources to formulate oils that truly perform well.
That Isky insert on motor oil also mentioned that Valvoline VR1 is OK, but that they favor Brad Penn over the Valvoline. Jeez, what in the world do they base that nonsense on? I have performed Engineering tests on both oils, and this is how they performed:
• 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
zinc = 1472 ppm
phosphorus = 1544 ppm
moly = 3 ppm
This Valvoline oil ranked 16th out of 143 oils tested.
• 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 semi-synthetic = 71,206 psi
zinc = 1557 ppm
phos = 1651 ppm
moly = 3 ppm
This Brad Penn oil ranked 107th out of 143 oils tested, meaning 106 other oils provided better wear protection.
The Wear Protection reference categories are:
• Over 105,000 psi = INCREDIBLE wear protection
• 90,000 to 105,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection
• 75,000 to 90,000 psi = GOOD wear protection
• 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODEST wear protection
• Below 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE wear protection
As you can see, the Valvoline VR1 provided a whopping 45% better wear protection capability, and ranks 91 places higher. Do you still think Isky knows what they are talking about when it comes to motor oil? If you use a poor performing oil that they recommend, they may give you another cam if yours fails, but would you really want to go through all that? Since you have to buy motor oil anyway, wouldn’t you really rather buy an oil that actually proves itself in Engineering tests, and protects your engine far better?
And if that is not enough info, consider the following:
An oval track dirt racer (his class is extremely competitive, so he asked that his name be left out) on the SpeedTalk Forum runs a 7200 rpm, solid flat tappet, 358ci Small Block Chevy motor, with valve spring pressures of about 160 on the seat and 400 open, that are shimmed to .060” from coil bind. The rules and the combination of parts, were causing him to experience repeated cam failures while using high zinc, semi-synthetic 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 motor oil. Lab Report Data from testing performed by Professional Lab, “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada, showed that this oil contains 1557 ppm zinc, 1651 ppm phosphorus, and 3 ppm moly. In spite of this being a high zinc oil, that most folks would “assume” provides excellent wear protection, he experienced wiped lobe cam failure about every 22 to 25 races.
A race consists of one 8 lap (a lap is typically 3/8 mile) heat race and one 20 lap feature race, plus any caution laps. If you add it all up, 25 races only total about 281 miles at the point of cam failure. So, that is a perfect example of what I’ve been saying all along about high zinc levels being absolutely NO GUARANTEE of adequate wear protection. And my test data on this 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 motor oil, shows that it produces a wear protection capability of only 71,206 psi, which puts it in the MODEST wear protection category, and it ranks a very disappointing 107th out of 143 oils tested so far. That means of course that there are 106 different oils I’ve tested that provide better wear protection.
So, my test data ACCURATELY PREDICTED EXACTLY what he experienced during racing. And that is, that this oil does not provide high enough wear protection capability to provide a sufficient margin of safety for this engine’s operating conditions. Looking at my “Wear Protection Ranking List” and choosing a much higher ranked oil, would have prevented all those cam failures. Repeatedly suffering cam failures in motors with so little time on them, may have been considered by some folks to be a normal consumption of parts back in the ‘60’s or ‘70’s. But, in the 21st Century that we live in now, by any measure, that is for sure premature failure. We no longer have to accept that as the cost of doing business, because we can do far better now.
So, he switched to the super micro polished billet lifters from PPPC and the cam life went up to 40 races, which was an improvement since he could now go 450 miles between failures. But, that was still clearly unacceptable. Then 2 years ago he started using “Oil Extreme Concentrate” as an additive to the 10W30 Brad Penn, and he’s never lost a lobe on a cam since. Adding the “Oil Extreme Concentrate” completely eliminated his premature wiped lobe cam failures. Now the motor has now gone 70+ Races without issue, and is still doing fine. This “Oil Extreme Concentrate” is one additive that actually works as advertised, and makes low ranked oils far better than they were to begin with. And that is PRECISELY WHAT MY MOTOR OIL TEST DATA PREDICTED as well.
Here’s how. I also added “Oil Extreme Concentrate” to 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 semi-synthetic, as part of my motor oil “Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load” research. And with 2.0 OZ of “Oil Extreme Concentrate” added per qt, which is the amount intended for racing, its wear protection capability shot up by a BREATH TAKING 56%, to an amazing 111,061psi, which puts it in the INCREDIBLE wear protection category, and now ranks it a jaw dropping 6th out of 143 oils tested so far. So, it moved up a whopping 101 ranking positions, just by adding the “Oil Extreme Concentrate”. So, my test data exactly matched this entire race track experience. Validation of test data doesn’t get any better than this.
Do you still question the value of my test data? Decide for yourself, but the engine you save may be your own.
Last edited by Odin; 02-12-2015 at 09:45 AM.
02-12-2015, 08:56 AM
#12
And oil does make a big difference. In the 70s a Baja 500 participant made it to the finish line with a broken oil pump. He was using Bel-Ray racing oil, we used to use it at a motorcycle performance place I worked at, very good oil.
02-12-2015, 09:12 AM
#13
@Odin, what do you think about the old Slick50 formula? Not the stuff they make now, but the original formula. I used to use it in my toy and it would run really quiet, smooth, cooler, and an extra 50 miles per tank of fuel mileage.
02-12-2015, 09:29 AM
#14
^ We had an engineer bring his car to us for oil changes, he always asked to see the old drained oil filter and only held it then gave it back for disposal. I finally asked him why, he said when the engine has wear problems the filter gets really heavy from metal particles.
Slick 50
The old formula was still in production when I started really getting into the performance stuff but I never used it. I didn't have the money to drop on the stuff and it was really a questionable product in my mind. One of my friends used it in several of his engines even though it cost about $50 a bottle. He liked it and I think he claimed it lowered his running temps and saved one of his engines, and THAT DUDE WAS HARD ON STUFF!!!
He abruptly stopped using it when he tried the new formula though.
Last edited by Odin; 02-12-2015 at 01:33 PM.
02-12-2015, 09:38 AM
#15
Originally Posted by Stokerboats View Post
Ran RP 10w30 in my engine for several years with my sft cam with 4oz zddp plus at oil changes. Pulled the intake this past fall and sft is like new still. Very pleased with that oil.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
Jan 5th, 15, 1:27 PM
540 RAT
You were lucky that your oil still had enough wear protection capability left after adding the ZDDPlus. Putting in an aftermarket zinc additive does exactly the opposite of what people think. Here are some Engineering test results, that shows what really happens when you add aftermarket zinc to your oil:
• “ZDDPlus” added to Royal Purple 20W50, API SN, synthetic = 63,595 psi
zinc = 2436 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2053 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was significant 24% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Most major Oil Companies say to NEVER add anything to their oils, because adding anything will upset the carefully balanced additive package, and ruin the oil’s chemical composition. And that is precisely what we see here. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.
• “ZDDPlus” added to O’Reilly (house brand) 5W30, API SN, conventional = 56,728 psi
zinc = 2711 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2172 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was a shocking 38% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.
• “ZDDPlus” added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 56,243 psi
zinc = 2955 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2114 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 12% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.
• “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Royal Purple 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 54,044 psi
zinc = 1515 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1334 ppm (up 517 ppm)
The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was a whopping 36% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.
• “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Lucas 5W30, API SN, conventional = 51,545 psi
zinc = 1565 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1277 ppm (up 517 ppm)
The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was a “breath taking” 44% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.
• “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 50,202 psi
zinc = 1680 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1275 ppm (up 517 ppm)
The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 22% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.
As you can see, adding aftermarket zinc additives is equal to playing Russian Roulette with your engine. High levels of zinc are absolutely NOT needed. That whole idea is nothing more than an old Wives Tale, that does NOT stand up the Engineering evaluation. For more details, see the link below.
540 RAT
Ran RP 10w30 in my engine for several years with my sft cam with 4oz zddp plus at oil changes. Pulled the intake this past fall and sft is like new still. Very pleased with that oil.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
Jan 5th, 15, 1:27 PM
540 RAT
You were lucky that your oil still had enough wear protection capability left after adding the ZDDPlus. Putting in an aftermarket zinc additive does exactly the opposite of what people think. Here are some Engineering test results, that shows what really happens when you add aftermarket zinc to your oil:
• “ZDDPlus” added to Royal Purple 20W50, API SN, synthetic = 63,595 psi
zinc = 2436 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2053 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was significant 24% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Most major Oil Companies say to NEVER add anything to their oils, because adding anything will upset the carefully balanced additive package, and ruin the oil’s chemical composition. And that is precisely what we see here. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.
• “ZDDPlus” added to O’Reilly (house brand) 5W30, API SN, conventional = 56,728 psi
zinc = 2711 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2172 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was a shocking 38% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.
• “ZDDPlus” added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 56,243 psi
zinc = 2955 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2114 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 12% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.
• “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Royal Purple 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 54,044 psi
zinc = 1515 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1334 ppm (up 517 ppm)
The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was a whopping 36% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.
• “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Lucas 5W30, API SN, conventional = 51,545 psi
zinc = 1565 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1277 ppm (up 517 ppm)
The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was a “breath taking” 44% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.
• “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 50,202 psi
zinc = 1680 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1275 ppm (up 517 ppm)
The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 22% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised.
As you can see, adding aftermarket zinc additives is equal to playing Russian Roulette with your engine. High levels of zinc are absolutely NOT needed. That whole idea is nothing more than an old Wives Tale, that does NOT stand up the Engineering evaluation. For more details, see the link below.
540 RAT
Last edited by Odin; 02-12-2015 at 09:40 AM.
02-12-2015, 03:28 PM
#16
Thank you for finding that blog for us Odin; that's what I was looking for.
Now to twist my son's arm to get some of that Motul oil for the trucks.
He also seems to like the Prolong brand of additive, since it takes up a good piece at the top of his list.
I was surprised at 540rat test results but it goes with what I see on my engines. The short blocks are all fine and lasted a long time. Each one well north of 100k, and even some other engines in other threads where the abused engine piston / crank wear is actually nominal, but the top of the engine is worn very badly.
I'm not alone in being anal retentive about maintenance, so this is a really important topic. I don't like swapping cams because the oil let me down; so his list does make some sense on the face of it. I like to drive my truck, not fixing it due to lubrication failure.
The next two sided question is how many people use the oils in the top thirty on his list and have no issues, vs those who use un-tested off list oils or oils in bottom 100 on his list that experience some loss of performance or have noticed their engine performance IS fading.
Now to twist my son's arm to get some of that Motul oil for the trucks.
He also seems to like the Prolong brand of additive, since it takes up a good piece at the top of his list.
I was surprised at 540rat test results but it goes with what I see on my engines. The short blocks are all fine and lasted a long time. Each one well north of 100k, and even some other engines in other threads where the abused engine piston / crank wear is actually nominal, but the top of the engine is worn very badly.
I'm not alone in being anal retentive about maintenance, so this is a really important topic. I don't like swapping cams because the oil let me down; so his list does make some sense on the face of it. I like to drive my truck, not fixing it due to lubrication failure.
The next two sided question is how many people use the oils in the top thirty on his list and have no issues, vs those who use un-tested off list oils or oils in bottom 100 on his list that experience some loss of performance or have noticed their engine performance IS fading.
Last edited by skypilot; 02-12-2015 at 03:29 PM.
02-12-2015, 04:31 PM
#18
I hate to say it and I'd like to be proven wrong but I think you're average poster on this site probably dumps whatever's available into their engines without a second thought. Hey, I got a great deal on it at Walmart along with a Supertech oil filter!
The long timer's and actual mechanics on this site probably take a different approach.
The long timer's and actual mechanics on this site probably take a different approach.
Last edited by Odin; 02-12-2015 at 04:44 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
kawazx636
Pre 84 Trucks
21
07-03-2023 03:03 AM
FS[PacNorWest]: 1987 4Runner SAS, 22RE, 5Spd, Dual Cases, etc
toyotasaurus
Vehicles - Trailers (Complete)
0
09-24-2015 03:30 PM
sonorn67
84-85 Trucks & 4Runners
3
09-19-2015 05:39 PM
