Need a high zinc oil
- Thread starter tutermoe
- Start date
- Status
Brad Penn or Penn Grade since DA took over the brand, Driven, VR1, Schaeffer Racing oil if you you can get it,
5 or 10W30. I prefer not to rely on additives.
5 or 10W30. I prefer not to rely on additives.
Originally Posted by dave1251
It's funny with the zink crowd API specs do not allow for increased cam wear with each successive specification and actually allow less.
Exactly...
It's funny with the zink crowd API specs do not allow for increased cam wear with each successive specification and actually allow less.
Exactly...
Originally Posted by A_Harman
I vote for the Valvoline VR1 10w30. If your local NAPA doesn't have it, they can easily get it. Most stores that carry it only have the 20w50, but that is not necessary for your SBC.
Yep.
I vote for the Valvoline VR1 10w30. If your local NAPA doesn't have it, they can easily get it. Most stores that carry it only have the 20w50, but that is not necessary for your SBC.
Yep.
Racing oils have elevated Zinc levels. However, they do not have the proper detergent packs for street driven cars.
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Racing oils have elevated Zinc levels. However, they do not have the proper detergent packs for street driven cars.
The street version of VR1 has plenty of Calcium and the TBN of the 20W-50 at least is 11.8, so actually it has quite a bit of detergent in it.
In the US you also have "Not Steet Legal" VR1, now that is only recommended for 500 mile OCIs.
Racing oils have elevated Zinc levels. However, they do not have the proper detergent packs for street driven cars.
The street version of VR1 has plenty of Calcium and the TBN of the 20W-50 at least is 11.8, so actually it has quite a bit of detergent in it.
In the US you also have "Not Steet Legal" VR1, now that is only recommended for 500 mile OCIs.
Originally Posted by kschachn
is there any technical evidence that a flat tappet engine requires elevated ZDDP after break-in?
No just aftermarket "builders", internet myth, and marketers of "boutique" motor oils.
is there any technical evidence that a flat tappet engine requires elevated ZDDP after break-in?
No just aftermarket "builders", internet myth, and marketers of "boutique" motor oils.
I just changed my 89 with the last of the VR1 10w30 I had in my stash from back when Amazon had for $36 for a six pack now it's $50. Napa has it but it's $7.99 a qt so I think I'm going to start running either Advanced or Daily Protection in it. I think as long as it has the upper limits of Zink SN allows it's enough.
Originally Posted by Duffyjr
I just changed my 89 with the last of the VR1 10w30 I had in my stash from back when Amazon had for $36 for a six pack now it's $50.
Its 34.74 today. It seems to change in price alot. I just ordered a box for $30.something.
![[Linked Image]](https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/attachments/usergals/2019/05/full-6602-32890-screen_shot_2019_05_25_at_12.14.44_pm.png "[Linked Image]")
![[Linked Image]](https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/attachments/usergals/2019/05/full-6602-32891-screen_shot_2019_05_25_at_12.21.59_pm.png "[Linked Image]")
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00DJ4FMK2
I just changed my 89 with the last of the VR1 10w30 I had in my stash from back when Amazon had for $36 for a six pack now it's $50.
Its 34.74 today. It seems to change in price alot. I just ordered a box for $30.something.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00DJ4FMK2
Last edited:
I doubt you need higher zinc levels that are already in a quality 10W-30 HM oil, but here is another option: http://www.marvelmysteryoil.com/products/marvel-classic-motor-oil/
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by kschachn
is there any technical evidence that a flat tappet engine requires elevated ZDDP after break-in?
No just aftermarket "builders", internet myth, and marketers of "boutique" motor oils.
I've torn down a few older flat tappet V8s with wiped cam lobes, and wiped one myself trying to run a modern API-SM oil after proper break-in.
Does Sequence IVA test on older flat tappet pushrod engines or just newer flat bucket OHC engines?
The old V8 OHV engines have higher open spring pressure than a OHC engine since the springs have to control the weight of the rockers, pushrods, lifters, and any intertia and jerk in the system. That higher spring pressure gets multiplied across the rocker ratio as well like a torque arm. A spring that's 250 lbs force at .500" lift is 375 lbs at the lifter with a 1.5 rocker ratio, 400 lbs with a 1.6 ratio, plus the weight and inertia of the valvetrain.
Aside from that, the flat tappets aren't actually flat but are actually rounded on the bottom as well as the cam lobe is slanted, allowing the lifter to rotate on the lobe and in the lifter bore. ZDDP has the job of both keeping the lifter and lobe surface apart under that pressure while also providing enough friction there for the lifter to grab and turn with the lobe. Catastrophic failure occurs when that lifter stops turning. Then it starts beating the lobe like a jackhammer.
That said, improper valvetrain geometry can easily cause this to happen as well and no amount of ZDDP will save it in such a case. Yet the oil still gets the blame in most of those cases.
Originally Posted by kschachn
is there any technical evidence that a flat tappet engine requires elevated ZDDP after break-in?
No just aftermarket "builders", internet myth, and marketers of "boutique" motor oils.
I've torn down a few older flat tappet V8s with wiped cam lobes, and wiped one myself trying to run a modern API-SM oil after proper break-in.
Does Sequence IVA test on older flat tappet pushrod engines or just newer flat bucket OHC engines?
The old V8 OHV engines have higher open spring pressure than a OHC engine since the springs have to control the weight of the rockers, pushrods, lifters, and any intertia and jerk in the system. That higher spring pressure gets multiplied across the rocker ratio as well like a torque arm. A spring that's 250 lbs force at .500" lift is 375 lbs at the lifter with a 1.5 rocker ratio, 400 lbs with a 1.6 ratio, plus the weight and inertia of the valvetrain.
Aside from that, the flat tappets aren't actually flat but are actually rounded on the bottom as well as the cam lobe is slanted, allowing the lifter to rotate on the lobe and in the lifter bore. ZDDP has the job of both keeping the lifter and lobe surface apart under that pressure while also providing enough friction there for the lifter to grab and turn with the lobe. Catastrophic failure occurs when that lifter stops turning. Then it starts beating the lobe like a jackhammer.
That said, improper valvetrain geometry can easily cause this to happen as well and no amount of ZDDP will save it in such a case. Yet the oil still gets the blame in most of those cases.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
The old V8 OHV engines have higher open spring pressure than a OHC engine since the springs have to control the weight of the rockers, pushrods, lifters, and any intertia and jerk in the system. That higher spring pressure gets multiplied across the rocker ratio as well like a torque arm. A spring that's 250 lbs force at .500" lift is 375 lbs at the lifter with a 1.5 rocker ratio, 400 lbs with a 1.6 ratio, plus the weight and inertia of the valvetrain.
This depends entirely on the operating RPM range of the engine and camshaft profile. Most non-HiPo FT cams were extremely mild and the stock springs quite weak. A 7K RPM Euro COB setup is going to be a more demanding environment than a 4.5K RPM 305 in a 1500 Silverado. Also, COB setups don't have the advantage of a rocker ratio to increase valve lift, ergo, the lobe profile is going to be significantly more aggressive, somewhat negating the geometry argument.
As an example, the cam-over-bucket BMW S54 has 0.457 lobe lift with 288/280 duration. That bucket and its lubrication is subsequently having to handle that extremely aggressive ramp and the spring be sufficient for an RPM ceiling approaching 8,000RPM. The venerable "30-30" cam from the HiPo Chevy 302 had 0.305 lobe lift (0.485 at the valve with a 1.5 ratio rocker) and 258/258 duration, so less aggressive ramps, but of course has to contend with the valvetrain mass issue and amplified spring pressure.
In contrast, your typical warmed-over 305/350 with a stock-ish cam like the Comp 240H is looking at 0.260 lobe lift and 240/248 duration, not a demanding application.
A buddy of mine and myself put together a couple of 355's "back in the day", one of which we fitted with a Lunatti Voodoo series camshaft, which had some pretty wild ramps. Broke it in on Kendall 15w-40 and that's what was run in it until the motor was pulled a few years later and we did a roller build. Cam was still immaculate, as were the lifters, which surprised us.
The old V8 OHV engines have higher open spring pressure than a OHC engine since the springs have to control the weight of the rockers, pushrods, lifters, and any intertia and jerk in the system. That higher spring pressure gets multiplied across the rocker ratio as well like a torque arm. A spring that's 250 lbs force at .500" lift is 375 lbs at the lifter with a 1.5 rocker ratio, 400 lbs with a 1.6 ratio, plus the weight and inertia of the valvetrain.
This depends entirely on the operating RPM range of the engine and camshaft profile. Most non-HiPo FT cams were extremely mild and the stock springs quite weak. A 7K RPM Euro COB setup is going to be a more demanding environment than a 4.5K RPM 305 in a 1500 Silverado. Also, COB setups don't have the advantage of a rocker ratio to increase valve lift, ergo, the lobe profile is going to be significantly more aggressive, somewhat negating the geometry argument.
As an example, the cam-over-bucket BMW S54 has 0.457 lobe lift with 288/280 duration. That bucket and its lubrication is subsequently having to handle that extremely aggressive ramp and the spring be sufficient for an RPM ceiling approaching 8,000RPM. The venerable "30-30" cam from the HiPo Chevy 302 had 0.305 lobe lift (0.485 at the valve with a 1.5 ratio rocker) and 258/258 duration, so less aggressive ramps, but of course has to contend with the valvetrain mass issue and amplified spring pressure.
In contrast, your typical warmed-over 305/350 with a stock-ish cam like the Comp 240H is looking at 0.260 lobe lift and 240/248 duration, not a demanding application.
A buddy of mine and myself put together a couple of 355's "back in the day", one of which we fitted with a Lunatti Voodoo series camshaft, which had some pretty wild ramps. Broke it in on Kendall 15w-40 and that's what was run in it until the motor was pulled a few years later and we did a roller build. Cam was still immaculate, as were the lifters, which surprised us.
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by kschachn
is there any technical evidence that a flat tappet engine requires elevated ZDDP after break-in?
No just aftermarket "builders", internet myth, and marketers of "boutique" motor oils.
I've torn down a few older flat tappet V8s with wiped cam lobes, and wiped one myself trying to run a modern API-SM oil after proper break-in.
Does Sequence IVA test on older flat tappet pushrod engines or just newer flat bucket OHC engines?
The old V8 OHV engines have higher open spring pressure than a OHC engine since the springs have to control the weight of the rockers, pushrods, lifters, and any intertia and jerk in the system. That higher spring pressure gets multiplied across the rocker ratio as well like a torque arm. A spring that's 250 lbs force at .500" lift is 375 lbs at the lifter with a 1.5 rocker ratio, 400 lbs with a 1.6 ratio, plus the weight and inertia of the valvetrain.
Aside from that, the flat tappets aren't actually flat but are actually rounded on the bottom as well as the cam lobe is slanted, allowing the lifter to rotate on the lobe and in the lifter bore. ZDDP has the job of both keeping the lifter and lobe surface apart under that pressure while also providing enough friction there for the lifter to grab and turn with the lobe. Catastrophic failure occurs when that lifter stops turning. Then it starts beating the lobe like a jackhammer.
That said, improper valvetrain geometry can easily cause this to happen as well and no amount of ZDDP will save it in such a case. Yet the oil still gets the blame in most of those cases.
Testing is done on a GM flat tappet engine.
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by kschachn
is there any technical evidence that a flat tappet engine requires elevated ZDDP after break-in?
No just aftermarket "builders", internet myth, and marketers of "boutique" motor oils.
I've torn down a few older flat tappet V8s with wiped cam lobes, and wiped one myself trying to run a modern API-SM oil after proper break-in.
Does Sequence IVA test on older flat tappet pushrod engines or just newer flat bucket OHC engines?
The old V8 OHV engines have higher open spring pressure than a OHC engine since the springs have to control the weight of the rockers, pushrods, lifters, and any intertia and jerk in the system. That higher spring pressure gets multiplied across the rocker ratio as well like a torque arm. A spring that's 250 lbs force at .500" lift is 375 lbs at the lifter with a 1.5 rocker ratio, 400 lbs with a 1.6 ratio, plus the weight and inertia of the valvetrain.
Aside from that, the flat tappets aren't actually flat but are actually rounded on the bottom as well as the cam lobe is slanted, allowing the lifter to rotate on the lobe and in the lifter bore. ZDDP has the job of both keeping the lifter and lobe surface apart under that pressure while also providing enough friction there for the lifter to grab and turn with the lobe. Catastrophic failure occurs when that lifter stops turning. Then it starts beating the lobe like a jackhammer.
That said, improper valvetrain geometry can easily cause this to happen as well and no amount of ZDDP will save it in such a case. Yet the oil still gets the blame in most of those cases.
Testing is done on a GM flat tappet engine.
I have seen in first person the damage a Low Zinc modern oil can cause in an old flat tappet engine from a vintage Triumph, the cam lobes were in a very bad state from running Castrol GTX which only has 600-800ppm of Zinc.
The engine was completely stock, he's since rebuilt it and runs Valvoline VR1 20W-50.
The engine was completely stock, he's since rebuilt it and runs Valvoline VR1 20W-50.
If lower ZDDP didn't cause the sharp increase in flat tappet cam failures after API SM... what did?
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
If lower ZDDP didn't cause the sharp increase in flat tappet cam failures after API SM... what did?
Was there a sharp increase in cam failures? No one has provided anything stating there was other than chatter on the interwebs.
If lower ZDDP didn't cause the sharp increase in flat tappet cam failures after API SM... what did?
Was there a sharp increase in cam failures? No one has provided anything stating there was other than chatter on the interwebs.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by FordCapriDriver
I have seen in first person the damage a Low Zinc modern oil can cause in an old flat tappet engine from a vintage Triumph, the cam lobes were in a very bad state from running Castrol GTX which only has 600-800ppm of Zinc.
The engine was completely stock, he's since rebuilt it and runs Valvoline VR1 20W-50.
So you assume that the damage happened during the period the engine was run on GTX, not any point prior in the engine's life where oils were lower quality? We ran GTX extensively in numerous marine FT engines with no issues. Many of the FT cam failures were due to garbage cores, which was the primary reason GM had a rash of camshaft failures, despite the profiles being nary broomstick levels of mild. Ford and Chrysler, during the same period, run on the same oils, had zero issues.
I have seen in first person the damage a Low Zinc modern oil can cause in an old flat tappet engine from a vintage Triumph, the cam lobes were in a very bad state from running Castrol GTX which only has 600-800ppm of Zinc.
The engine was completely stock, he's since rebuilt it and runs Valvoline VR1 20W-50.
So you assume that the damage happened during the period the engine was run on GTX, not any point prior in the engine's life where oils were lower quality? We ran GTX extensively in numerous marine FT engines with no issues. Many of the FT cam failures were due to garbage cores, which was the primary reason GM had a rash of camshaft failures, despite the profiles being nary broomstick levels of mild. Ford and Chrysler, during the same period, run on the same oils, had zero issues.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
If lower ZDDP didn't cause the sharp increase in flat tappet cam failures after API SM... what did?
There were a ton of failures of AFTERMARKET cores (not to be confused with the GM-exclusive camshaft lobe disappearance issue due to improper manufacture) when engines became predominantly roller. This was due to poor core quality and improper hardening more than oil. Many guys ran crazy additized oils and still had failures. I've NEVER seen a stock Ford FT camshaft experience wear issues, regardless of the oil it was run on for example. Our 318's and 440's were also run on "regular" oils, with no issues. We had a 425HP 312 Ford running on GTX and eventually Mobil 1 SM 5w-30 with excellent performance.
While I think it prudent to run a more "robust" oil in a performance FT application, like my earlier Voodoo example, something mild is not going to inherently require something special. Euro HiPo mills spinning to the moon aren't lunching cams with oils like M1 0w-40, Castrol 0w-40...etc, which have higher ZDDP levels than your typical ILSAC lube. I believe these oils to be more than sufficient for most FT setups mild to reasonably wild, and are readily available and are sufficiently tested for actual proof of performance, something that cannot be said for some of these "high ZDDP" oils with zero approvals.
If lower ZDDP didn't cause the sharp increase in flat tappet cam failures after API SM... what did?
There were a ton of failures of AFTERMARKET cores (not to be confused with the GM-exclusive camshaft lobe disappearance issue due to improper manufacture) when engines became predominantly roller. This was due to poor core quality and improper hardening more than oil. Many guys ran crazy additized oils and still had failures. I've NEVER seen a stock Ford FT camshaft experience wear issues, regardless of the oil it was run on for example. Our 318's and 440's were also run on "regular" oils, with no issues. We had a 425HP 312 Ford running on GTX and eventually Mobil 1 SM 5w-30 with excellent performance.
While I think it prudent to run a more "robust" oil in a performance FT application, like my earlier Voodoo example, something mild is not going to inherently require something special. Euro HiPo mills spinning to the moon aren't lunching cams with oils like M1 0w-40, Castrol 0w-40...etc, which have higher ZDDP levels than your typical ILSAC lube. I believe these oils to be more than sufficient for most FT setups mild to reasonably wild, and are readily available and are sufficiently tested for actual proof of performance, something that cannot be said for some of these "high ZDDP" oils with zero approvals.
- Status
Similar threads
