Slant Six Forum
https://slantsix.org/forum/

Oil Related Engine Failure(s)
https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37437		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  MI6 [ Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Oil Related Engine Failure(s)
Been reading about the reduction in ZDDP in motor oils of late and was wondering if anyone has suffered either a catastrophic failure or found excessive wear in their engine? Especially cam and/or lifter wear.

I have three vehicles with flat tappet engines and don't use any type of additive and so far (about 7500 mi on one) haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary, but then, I haven't taken any of them apart.
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
See here, here, and here. Me, I like a good on-shelf brand* of synthetic 5w-40 oil in a reasonably tight (non-leaky/non-oil-burner) slant-6.

*-"on shelf brand" means no exotic overpriced boutique oils like Amsoil, etc.
Author:  magicdart [ Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:34 pm ]
Post subject:  motor oils
Ive been using this fancy motor oil in my charger.
Currently doing a new slant six motor project.
Check out Quantum Blue products-
bndautomotive.com It's about $50 per oil chg
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Looks to me like yet another site full of handwaving and blather with zero science to back it up. Here's just one paragraph from the site:

"The EPA claims that zinc hurts emission control components namely the catalytic converter. We find this funny since most all vehicles since 1975 have had catalytic converters and emission control components. The more sophisticated emission components have been around since the early 80's. EXCEPT for a few of those brand new engines 07/08, they are virtually the same and have been for many years. What it comes down to is a desire to speed up the destruction of our vehicles so we will go out and replace them with new ones. Once again, they are going ahead and penalizing the rest of us for a few new models. (We also blend oils for new models also!) "

There's so much ignorance and faulty logic in just these seven sentences — with a dash of paranoid delusion and redundancy just for fun — that it's difficult to know where to start in correcting the idiocy. Probably pointless. OK, the guy's got a gimmick that pulls in dollars: custom-blended oil that arrives at your doorstep with your name right on the container. Good for him. None for me, thanks; I'm driving. $12.95/quart? Gimme a break. :roll: There's not a slant-6 engine born or built that needs or benefits from overpriced oil like this.
Author:  Charrlie_S [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:18 am ]
Post subject: 
I have been using 10-30 Quaker State since the 70's, untill they were bought by Penzoil. Since them I use "house" brand oil, in everything, even my race cars, with no oil related problems. When I brake in a "new" engine, I add some GM "EOS".
Author:  MI6 [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:09 am ]
Post subject: 
Looks like the epa's reasoning for banning ZDDP from oil may have more to do with the mandated warranty on emissions equipment (cats) than actual emissions. And I don't think we should forget that for any bureaucracy to thrive it must constantly find new "problems" to fix, even if those problems are only in their head. :D

My concern, and it's too early to tell, is the long term effects. After all, if ZDDP wasn't necessary the oil companies wouldn't have put it in in the first place. Forty years ago a car with 100k mi on the clock was considered worn out and in need of a rebuild, today it's 200k - 300k or even more. Are we heading back to the 100k mi rebuild? Or has the metallurgy improved enough that the extra anti-wear agents aren't necessary?
Author:  DadTruck [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:37 am ]
Post subject: 
the understanding of metallurgy has improved over the past 40 years,, computer controlled heat treat systems and modern alloying practices are examples but generally the bigger improvements in component manufacturing is the application of process control and process capability. Having the manufacturing machinery that has the designed in ability to consistantly produce parts that meet engineering specifications is now common. I remember 40 years ago it was practice to check one or two parts and declare a whole lot of items to be good. Today, machines that self comp to produce parts at a nominal dimension are common. Engineering tools such as FEA analysis, 3D computer modeling are also responsible for more robust designs.
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:02 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
After all, if ZDDP wasn't necessary the oil companies wouldn't have put it in in the first place.
That is not a logically sound statement.
Author:  Reed [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:44 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Today, machines that self comp to produce parts at a nominal dimension are common. Engineering tools such as FEA analysis, 3D computer modeling are also responsible for more robust designs.
Except for most parts that are manufactured in China. :wink:
Author:  64'4$peed [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
I've seen people break in motors without a zinc additive or "break in" oil and burn up lobes on a camshaft. wether or not it was directly related to oil? I couldn't tell you
Author:  MI6 [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Quote:
After all, if ZDDP wasn't necessary the oil companies wouldn't have put it in in the first place.
That is not a logically sound statement.
Are you suggesting that the oil companies would put stuff in our oil that wasn't necessary? Say it isn't so! :shock: :shock:
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Are you suggesting that the oil companies would put stuff in our oil that wasn't necessary?
No, I'm saying this is 2009-almost-2010, not 1999 or 1989 or 1979 or 1969 or 1959 or...

The point is that there are usually many ways at any given time of doing any given job. As science and technology advance, new solutions become available and old ones become obsolete. It is very likely true that ~800ppm Zn was essentially necessary to prevent scuffing of flat tappet/cam lobe junctions with the oils that were available at the time the research was done. But the idea that ZDDP was yanked in a contextual vacuum, "tough noogies, you'll just have to do without it", doesn't appear to be true.

Really, the best place to discuss this is over at BITOG ( www.bobistheoilguy.com ) — there have been many threads over there on the subject, and if you filter out the uninformed noise and commercially-interested sales pitches, you will find a good amount of informed, knowledgeable discussion.

But you needn't worry about undetectable long-term damage. If you're concerned that the oil available to you at reasonable prices on parts store shelves is not adequately protecting your engine, spend $30 or so on an oil analysis. You send for a kit that contains two bottles. In one you pour a sample of the new/unused oil you're putting in your engine. Then you fill the engine and drive it for an oil change's worth of distance (say, 4000 miles) and put some of the drained oil into the second bottle. Send it off and you get back a detailed analysis of the oil. If anything's wearing abnormally fast, it will show up. If the air filter isn't working right, it'll show up. If there is a combustion gas leak or a coolant leak too small to detect normally, it'll show up. If the antiscuff properties of the oil are not sufficient, it'll show up. The results are analysed and pointers are given as to what to pay attention to.
Author:  FrankRaso [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
Some of guys on BITOG have found that UOA doesn't necessarily show any indication of engine wear very well:

UOA showed no indication of imminent cam failure

Some information about ZDDP:

Esso Technical Bulletin: Flat Tappet Engine Wear

CJ-4/SM HDEO & Flat Tappet Valve Train Protection
Author:  Dolmetsch [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
The reason the sidditive is missing is because as far as the oil companies are concerned it is not needed since the regular use of roller cams in production engines.
Most cams fail on initial start up. Often because the engine was allowed to idle. The cam companies tell you not to let it idle but there is always some one who thinks a little bit would be ok. It takes just a few seconds for a cam to wipe, Not minutes. Once the engine is through the first 20 minutes the lifters and cam lap themselves to a happy point and generaly any wear troubles are over. Comp cams offers a Nitriding service for cams . I have been using it since it was introduced. A $100 extra for the peace of mind is to me a bargin. Wear takes place when the two parts rubbing are similar. The more they are different the better the resistance to wear.
It is a big problem now and engines which normally never had a problem now lose a cam now and then. Back in the day it was a standard problem in SBC chevies and that was about it. Now it is a possibilty with all. I use Rotella T currently which still has a bit of protecion. Now there are good break in oils. Lucas also makes a specific zinc additive althugh it is not always on the shelf. it is made for this excat purpose. EOS I do not believe adds any additives but is basically STP in a GM can.
Don
Author:  MI6 [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Really, the best place to discuss this is over at BITOG ( www.bobistheoilguy.com ) — there have been many threads over there on the subject, and if you filter out the uninformed noise and commercially-interested sales pitches, you will find a good amount of informed, knowledgeable discussion.
I've looked at some of the discussion at BITOG and indeed some of it is valid, however, there was just too much "noise" for me to feel completely comfortable making a decision on this subject. If I guess wrong I'm the one on the side of the road with a big $$$ repair bill.

My purpose in starting this thread was to see if there was anyone on this board (and it's a GREAT board) has had (or has first hand knowledge of) an unexplained failure which could possibly have been caused by the new oil formulation.

Its been about 2 years since the ZDDP levels were reduced and so far I have not seen any evidence that cams or lifters are failing at a higher rate than before so perhaps all the hoopala over zinc and phosphorus levels is just a lot of paranoia.

What caught my attention on this issue was the role the epa played. If my understanding is correct they (epa) mandated lower levels of zinc and phosphorus because they were the cause of catalytic converter failure. What does the epa know about engine oil and proper lubrication? Not much is my guess. This looked to me like a classic example of a bureaucrat making a decision based on one supposed "problem" without regard for unintended consequences. Time will tell.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC-08:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/