You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
What do you guys think? Zinc additive for engine oil
The story in a nutshell is that modern SM rated oils lack the zinc and phosphorus additives that oils had prior to 1980's and that the lack of these additives causes weak cam and lifter lubrication in flat tappet engines.
They sell an additive that goes in with every oil change... There seems to be some sense in it... or is it snake oil?
It's cheaper to just buy a better oil, not to mention the good oils that have good additive packages are just plain better than simple store stuff with additive. VR-1 with the SL or earlier rating, the stuff that has higher ZDDP content. Honestly though, just get a good oil, Mobil 1, Amsoil, Redline are all good. I run Torco in mine, they have about one of the best oils on the market, period. The reality is you just have to accept that it's the 21st century, and good oil costs $8 a quart or more.
__________________
Who cares how much horsepower it has, all that matters is how fast it goes!
13.20's with 2.25-2.30 60's, 40+ year old suspension sucks!
Best trap 107.11mph, we'll see what the new intake/carb setup does.
12.80 at 110.5mph NHRA DA corrected
I've done quite a bit of reading on this subject, and although I know more now than I did when I started it's still clear as mud.
It seems there's two camps on the issue, the petroleum engineers and the hot rodders/mechanics. In other words, the people who live in a paper world and the people who live in the real world.
The engineers insist that modern oils have newer additives that more than make up for the lack of zinc-phosphorus, the gearheads basically say bullschit, real world experiences with blow valve train components prove otherwise.
Last night I ran into an old friend who has been an ace mechanic for 35 years. He's a Mopar guy with a Hemi Roadrunner who recently had to replace the hemi's rockers, adjusters, cam and lifters due to excessive wear. This guy's no fool, and he swears it was caused by the modern oils. He said he believed the engineers but now knows better. As he put it, "It's better to blow a few bucks on Joe Gibbs Oil than $16k for a new motor."
I've heard the stories firsthand... And I know engineers... So I will always use either zinc laden oil or Zddplus from here on in.
The engineers are lying sacks of crap. Here's a question for them....if the new oils supposedly meet the lube requirements of older engines like they say, how come when the initial rounds of reductions started in 1998, the engineers felt it was necessary to redesign many valvetrain components and thrust areas in the engines so they could handle increased frictional loads? They even felt it was necessary to redsign thrust bearings in engines to handle increased friction and lower levels of lubrication. Why all of a sudden did engines need newer more expensive multi-piece thrust bearings, when the old design had worked since forever?
Flat tappets are a given, I think everyone either has lost one, or knows someone who has lost one. The race car guys see a lot of it since they stress the valvetrain the hardest, and older British motorbikes that have square lifters(so they don't spin) basically can't even run any more without special oils.
The other thing too, is if the new oils are supposedly just as good, how come all the high end lube manufacturers who are at the top of the heap of engine oil(Mobil, Amsoil, Torco, Redline etc) still make high additive oil targeted at "older" engines and high performance engines?
Keep in mind, these additive levels to meet current ratings, aren't picked by the engineers, they're MANDATED by the US Environmental Protection Agency as an allowable maximum. I read several articles in some lubrication journals that went back as far as 1995, and in the late 90's when the government started telling the engineers they were going to mandate lower additive levels in oils(based on a completely untested and unproven theory that has several holes in it large enough to park an aircraft carrier, but that's another topic altogether), many of the lubrication engineers throughout the country began expressing SERIOUS concerns about whether newer oils would work effectively in engines manufactured prior to 1998. They even went so far as to write a letter to the federal government(who obviously listens, right?) stating that it was their belief that a very high likelihood existed that many engines still in use could suffer lubrication failures as a result of newer oils. When the additive maximum levels were lowered again in 2002, we really started seeing the failures occur.
The only reason they mandate lower ZDDP levels is they believe that it MIGHT contaminate catalytic converters, but they have no evidence of even 1 cat in the US EVER failing as a result of engine oils, and they don't even take into account the volatility of the oil being used and how much is consumed during combustion.
__________________
Who cares how much horsepower it has, all that matters is how fast it goes!
13.20's with 2.25-2.30 60's, 40+ year old suspension sucks!
Best trap 107.11mph, we'll see what the new intake/carb setup does.
12.80 at 110.5mph NHRA DA corrected
The engineers are lying sacks of crap. Here's a question for them....if the new oils supposedly meet the lube requirements of older engines like they say, how come when the initial rounds of reductions started in 1998, the engineers felt it was necessary to redesign many valvetrain components and thrust areas in the engines so they could handle increased frictional loads? They even felt it was necessary to redsign thrust bearings in engines to handle increased friction and lower levels of lubrication. Why all of a sudden did engines need newer more expensive multi-piece thrust bearings, when the old design had worked since forever?
Flat tappets are a given, I think everyone either has lost one, or knows someone who has lost one. The race car guys see a lot of it since they stress the valvetrain the hardest, and older British motorbikes that have square lifters(so they don't spin) basically can't even run any more without special oils.
The other thing too, is if the new oils are supposedly just as good, how come all the high end lube manufacturers who are at the top of the heap of engine oil(Mobil, Amsoil, Torco, Redline etc) still make high additive oil targeted at "older" engines and high performance engines?
Keep in mind, these additive levels to meet current ratings, aren't picked by the engineers, they're MANDATED by the US Environmental Protection Agency as an allowable maximum. I read several articles in some lubrication journals that went back as far as 1995, and in the late 90's when the government started telling the engineers they were going to mandate lower additive levels in oils(based on a completely untested and unproven theory that has several holes in it large enough to park an aircraft carrier, but that's another topic altogether), many of the lubrication engineers throughout the country began expressing SERIOUS concerns about whether newer oils would work effectively in engines manufactured prior to 1998. They even went so far as to write a letter to the federal government(who obviously listens, right?) stating that it was their belief that a very high likelihood existed that many engines still in use could suffer lubrication failures as a result of newer oils. When the additive maximum levels were lowered again in 2002, we really started seeing the failures occur.
The only reason they mandate lower ZDDP levels is they believe that it MIGHT contaminate catalytic converters, but they have no evidence of even 1 cat in the US EVER failing as a result of engine oils, and they don't even take into account the volatility of the oil being used and how much is consumed during combustion.
Are catalytic converters failing slightly early worth a whole new engine? F*** NO!
And I have not really read into the issue about why they are concerned about the converters failing, whether it is for resulting in the cats emitting higher emissions, using up precious platinum for replacements, or costing drivers more.
__________________
1965 Wimbledon White Mustang Inline-6 200
1994 Canary Yellow Mustang GT 5.0
PSN: GreatWalrus Videos
Voted as best sig quote of 2008
The supposed reasoning is that emissions systems are supposed to last the life of the vehicle, and the concern is that the phosphorus could react with the cats to contaminate them and reduce the efficiency. The problem with that line of thought though, is they have 0 evidence that the combustion of oil releases enough phosphorus to actually do ANY damage AT ALL to cats, even long term.
__________________
Who cares how much horsepower it has, all that matters is how fast it goes!
13.20's with 2.25-2.30 60's, 40+ year old suspension sucks!
Best trap 107.11mph, we'll see what the new intake/carb setup does.
12.80 at 110.5mph NHRA DA corrected
there's been tons of posts about this already and I actually believe what zddplus website states as motor oil companies agree. Anyone with an eaten up cam usually complains to cam manufacturer, who then say it was the break in procedure and in the end just ZDDP missing.
We organised VR1 and all flat tapet cars are getting that stuff or additive
__________________
1964 1/2
302ci, Edelbrock RPM heads and cam, 650 speed demon, Long Tube headers and Flowmaster 40s
Quick Performance Racing 9" rear, Moser axles, 3.5:1 trac-loc from FRPP and T5 transmission.
CSRP disc brakes front and FRPP discs back. http://www.gascc.ie
I believe diesel oil has zinc in it.Yes you need zinc on a flat tappet cam the reason the epa made oil companies remove it was zinc eats up the cats on a newer car and most are a roller anyway.
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company
What do you guys think? Zinc additive for engine oil
