what oil to use
- Thread starter 68valiant400
- Start date
-
That's exactly what I found interesting about the quote on the link.
DusterBoy15
THE WISE(guy) MEMBER
go to pep boys they have deals for 25 dollars for 5 quarts of mobil one and a filter
adriver
Blazing Apostle
So am I reading that right?
It agrees with what TheDemonator was told.
Syn oil doesn’t need ZDDP.
Which would be the "safe" thing since the oil companies seem to change the contents of a given oil daily.
:-k
Everything I have ever read said it does not matter whether the oil is synthetic or not. For a flat tappet engine you need the ZDDP. Every cam manufacturer I have seen a statement from agrees.
TheDemonator
Well-Known Member
For those of you that are worried about the whole ZDDP issue, there is a solution.
You can have your engine block machined for a roller cam and go the route.
Roller cams are immune to the "lack of ZDDP" wear problem.
You can have your engine block machined for a roller cam and go the route.
Roller cams are immune to the "lack of ZDDP" wear problem.
roosduster
Colorado Mopar
I have heard that Valvoline has a not street legal racing oil that i guess is not street legal because it has added zinc in it.
Read back in the thread a bit and you will see many postings regarding using this oil.
Not so black and white. The comments I read - including the one posted above (albeit it being a bit outdated, apparently) - appear to suggest the necessity of the zinc only during camshaft break in. Whether the engine needs it afterward seems to me to still be a point of contention. I'd personally rather err on the side of the zinc if it does not mean sacrificing something else.
And from all that I have read thus far, the best solutions on this side of the issue are:
1. Valv VR1;
2. AMSOIL.
Whether STP has enough in it is still up for debate.
If I can, I personally would rather go with AMOIL. I say "if I can" ... I certainly can, but what I mean is, if it is a good enough oil. Some here like it, some do not. I prefer synth oil to non-synth - my personal experience with synthetic before this lack of zinc issue came about has been very good.
demon seed
The Original Demon Seed
Dartley, I agree that the past conversation was pretty all incompassing but if you want to sum up, some of it, the flat tappet cams need the zinc package all the time at a concentration of 1200ppm minumum. During breakin a person would ad the cam manufactorers oil suppliment to the oil which would bring up the zinc concentration, among other things, even higher. By the way I think the rest of your comments are bang on.
Terry
Terry
Thanks for the compliment. As to the need for "zinc all the time" ... I don't disagree, but that's not what the cam manuf generally state.
dodge freak
Well-Known Member
I understand the bearings and pistons like zinc also. Maybe not need it like the cam does but it keeps them happy longer.
Zinc is great stuff, as long as you have no cats in the exhaust.
I hear that VR1 does not have as much zinc as before, which is why Valvoline came out with the "not street legal" oil.
Zinc is great stuff, as long as you have no cats in the exhaust.
I hear that VR1 does not have as much zinc as before, which is why Valvoline came out with the "not street legal" oil.
It isn't that any oil is "not street legal" meaning that using them is breaking any law. The difference is that any lube that is marketed as a "racing oil" or "off-road" oil does not have to meet any particular standard.
adriver
Blazing Apostle
Right. Needed at break in is what I read they and Comp Cams are saying.
Rotella (?). Then syn. is will work.
I think the way I’m going to look at it is if I can’t get it at K-mart, do I really need it?
My engine is well broken in.
How much pressure do my stock springs have anyway?:bounce:
What's next, molybdenum disulfide?:scratch:
dodge freak
Well-Known Member
Lets see, K-mart sells no Holley carbs, Carter too. They have spark plugs, wires and crazy glue.
The also sell that Wells brand of auto parts.
And I thought Auto Zone was bad
dodge freak
Well-Known Member
The way I look at motor oil now is, if I CAN buy it in a local store, it must not be too good.
adriver
Blazing Apostle
So that leave what, about three or four oils to chose from? (One's that can't be gotten locally).
Have we come to mail order motor oil?
And the Pep Boys just closed up.
How many parts for a 73 car can you buy there anymore?
Have we come to mail order motor oil?
And the Pep Boys just closed up.
How many parts for a 73 car can you buy there anymore?
dodge freak
Well-Known Member
Maybe, but Amazon is cool on shipping cost, $5 a 6 pack with no sales tax.
Still its not cheap, $46 for 6 quarts, thats $7.66 a quart. Gosh, but oil is $90 a barrel now.
The cheap oil-name brand-is $3.30 a quart, yeah its more. I change my oil 3 X a year now.
Look how much it cost to fill up with gas now, heck motor oil's cheap for how long it last. $60 of gas is gone in a week.
Amsoil's stuff is sold in stores around here but it is still cheaper to sign up as a preferred customer and get it from Amsoil, even with the shipping cost.
fstfish66
Well-Known Member
Is Vr-1 Available In Stores ??? Or Mail Order Such As Jegs Or Summit?? I Havent Looked For It Yet
Longgone
John/68 Barracuda & Dart
Here in Va. it`s available at Autozone and I`ve heard it`s also available at Napa.
A
Ace
Guest
You guys STILL having this discussion? Chew on this, paraphrased from a recent BITOG post:
Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths. Here are some facts you may want to pass along...
The Pennsylvania Crude Myth -- This myth is based on a misapplication of truth. In 1859, the first commercially successful oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania. A myth got started before World War II claiming that the only good oils were those made from pure Pennsylvania crude oil. At the time, only minimal refining was used to make engine oil from crude oil. Under these refining conditions, Pennsylvania crude oil made better engine oil than Texas crude or California crude. Today, with modern refining methods, almost any crude can be made into good engine oil.
Other engine oil myths are based on the notion that the new and the unfamiliar are somehow "bad." The Detergent Oil Myth -- The next myth to appear is that modern detergent engine oils are bad for older engines. This one got started after World War II, when the government no longer needed all of the available detergent oil for the war effort, and detergent oil hit the market as heavy-duty oil. Many pre-war cars had been driven way past their normal life, their engines were full of sludge and deposits, and the piston rings were completely worn out. Massive piston deposits were the only thing standing between merely high oil consumption and horrendous oil onsumption. After a thorough purge by the new detergent oil, increased oil consumption was a possible consequence. If detergent oils had been available to the public during the war, preventing the massive deposit buildup from occurring in the first place, this myth never would have started. Amazingly, there are still a few people today, 60 years later, who believe that they need to use non-detergent oil in their older cars. Apparently, it takes many years for an oil myth to die.
The Synthetic Oil Myth -- Then there is the myth that new engine break-in will not occur with synthetic oils. This one was apparently started by an aircraft engine manufacturer who put out a bulletin that said so. The fact is that Mobil 1 synthetic oil has been the factory-fill for many thousands of engines. Clearly, they have broken in quite well, and that should put this one to rest.
The Starburst Oil Myth -- The latest myth promoted by the antique and collector car press says that new Starburst/ API SM engine oils (called Starburst for the shape of the symbol on the container) (fig. 3 and 4) are bad for older engines because the amount of anti-wear additive in them has been reduced. The anti-wear additive being discussed is zinc dithiophosphate (ZDP). Before debunking this myth, we need to look at the history of ZDP usage. For over 60 years, ZDP has been used as an additive in engine oils to provide wear protection and oxidation stability. ZDP was first added to engine oil to control copper/lead bearing corrosion. Oils with a phosphorus level in the 0.03% range passed a corrosion test introduced in 1942. In the mid-1950s, when the use of high-lift camshafts increased the potential for scuffing and wear, the phosphorus level contributed by ZDP was increased to the 0.08% range.
In addition, the industry developed a battery of oil tests (called sequences), two of which were valve-train scuffing and wear tests. A higher level of ZDP was good for flat-tappet valve-train scuffing and wear, but it turned out that more was not better. Although break-in scuffing was reduced by using more phosphorus, longer-term wear increased when phosphorus rose above 0.14%. And, at about 0.20% phosphorus, the ZDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.
By the 1970s, increased antioxidancy was needed to protect the oil in high-load engines, which otherwise could thicken to a point where the engine could no longer pump it. Because ZDP was an inexpensive and effective antioxidant, it was used to place the phosphorus level in the 0.10% range. However, phosphorus is a poison for exhaust catalysts. So, ZDP levels have been reduced over the last 10-15 years. It's now down to a maximum of 0.08% for Starburst oils. This was supported by the introduction of modern ashless antioxidants that contain no phosphorus.
Enough history. Let's get back to the myth that Starburst oils are no good for older engines. The argument put forth is that while these oils work perfectly well in modern, gasoline engines equipped with roller camshafts, they will cause catastrophic wear in older engines equipped with flat-tappet camshafts. The facts say otherwise. Backward compatability was of great importance when the Starburst oil standards were developed by a group of experts from the OEMs, oil companies, and oil additive companies. In addition, multiple oil and additive companies ran no-harm tests on older engines with the new oils; and no problems were uncovered.
The new Starburst specification contains two valve-train wear tests. All Starburst oil formulations must pass these two tests.
- Sequence IVA tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a single overhead camshaft engine with slider finger (not roller) followers.
- Sequence IIIG evaluates cam and lifter wear using a V6 engine with a flat-tappet system, similar to those used in the 1980s
Those who hold onto the myth are ignoring the fact that the new Starburst oils contain about the same percentage of ZDP as the oils that solved the camshaft scuffing and wear issues back in the 1950s. (True, they do contain less ZDP than the oils that solved the oil thickening issues in the 1960s, but that's because they now contain high levels of ashless antioxidants not commercially available in the 1960s.)
Despite the pains taken in developing special flat-tappet camshaft wear tests that these new oils must pass and the fact that the ZDP level of these new oils is comparable to the level found necessary to protect flat-tappet camshafts in the past, there will still be those who want to believe the myth that new oils will wear out older engines.
Like other myths before it, history teaches us that it will probably take 60 or 70 years for this one to die also.
Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths. Here are some facts you may want to pass along...
The Pennsylvania Crude Myth -- This myth is based on a misapplication of truth. In 1859, the first commercially successful oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania. A myth got started before World War II claiming that the only good oils were those made from pure Pennsylvania crude oil. At the time, only minimal refining was used to make engine oil from crude oil. Under these refining conditions, Pennsylvania crude oil made better engine oil than Texas crude or California crude. Today, with modern refining methods, almost any crude can be made into good engine oil.
Other engine oil myths are based on the notion that the new and the unfamiliar are somehow "bad." The Detergent Oil Myth -- The next myth to appear is that modern detergent engine oils are bad for older engines. This one got started after World War II, when the government no longer needed all of the available detergent oil for the war effort, and detergent oil hit the market as heavy-duty oil. Many pre-war cars had been driven way past their normal life, their engines were full of sludge and deposits, and the piston rings were completely worn out. Massive piston deposits were the only thing standing between merely high oil consumption and horrendous oil onsumption. After a thorough purge by the new detergent oil, increased oil consumption was a possible consequence. If detergent oils had been available to the public during the war, preventing the massive deposit buildup from occurring in the first place, this myth never would have started. Amazingly, there are still a few people today, 60 years later, who believe that they need to use non-detergent oil in their older cars. Apparently, it takes many years for an oil myth to die.
The Synthetic Oil Myth -- Then there is the myth that new engine break-in will not occur with synthetic oils. This one was apparently started by an aircraft engine manufacturer who put out a bulletin that said so. The fact is that Mobil 1 synthetic oil has been the factory-fill for many thousands of engines. Clearly, they have broken in quite well, and that should put this one to rest.
The Starburst Oil Myth -- The latest myth promoted by the antique and collector car press says that new Starburst/ API SM engine oils (called Starburst for the shape of the symbol on the container) (fig. 3 and 4) are bad for older engines because the amount of anti-wear additive in them has been reduced. The anti-wear additive being discussed is zinc dithiophosphate (ZDP). Before debunking this myth, we need to look at the history of ZDP usage. For over 60 years, ZDP has been used as an additive in engine oils to provide wear protection and oxidation stability. ZDP was first added to engine oil to control copper/lead bearing corrosion. Oils with a phosphorus level in the 0.03% range passed a corrosion test introduced in 1942. In the mid-1950s, when the use of high-lift camshafts increased the potential for scuffing and wear, the phosphorus level contributed by ZDP was increased to the 0.08% range.
In addition, the industry developed a battery of oil tests (called sequences), two of which were valve-train scuffing and wear tests. A higher level of ZDP was good for flat-tappet valve-train scuffing and wear, but it turned out that more was not better. Although break-in scuffing was reduced by using more phosphorus, longer-term wear increased when phosphorus rose above 0.14%. And, at about 0.20% phosphorus, the ZDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.
By the 1970s, increased antioxidancy was needed to protect the oil in high-load engines, which otherwise could thicken to a point where the engine could no longer pump it. Because ZDP was an inexpensive and effective antioxidant, it was used to place the phosphorus level in the 0.10% range. However, phosphorus is a poison for exhaust catalysts. So, ZDP levels have been reduced over the last 10-15 years. It's now down to a maximum of 0.08% for Starburst oils. This was supported by the introduction of modern ashless antioxidants that contain no phosphorus.
Enough history. Let's get back to the myth that Starburst oils are no good for older engines. The argument put forth is that while these oils work perfectly well in modern, gasoline engines equipped with roller camshafts, they will cause catastrophic wear in older engines equipped with flat-tappet camshafts. The facts say otherwise. Backward compatability was of great importance when the Starburst oil standards were developed by a group of experts from the OEMs, oil companies, and oil additive companies. In addition, multiple oil and additive companies ran no-harm tests on older engines with the new oils; and no problems were uncovered.
The new Starburst specification contains two valve-train wear tests. All Starburst oil formulations must pass these two tests.
- Sequence IVA tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a single overhead camshaft engine with slider finger (not roller) followers.
- Sequence IIIG evaluates cam and lifter wear using a V6 engine with a flat-tappet system, similar to those used in the 1980s
Those who hold onto the myth are ignoring the fact that the new Starburst oils contain about the same percentage of ZDP as the oils that solved the camshaft scuffing and wear issues back in the 1950s. (True, they do contain less ZDP than the oils that solved the oil thickening issues in the 1960s, but that's because they now contain high levels of ashless antioxidants not commercially available in the 1960s.)
Despite the pains taken in developing special flat-tappet camshaft wear tests that these new oils must pass and the fact that the ZDP level of these new oils is comparable to the level found necessary to protect flat-tappet camshafts in the past, there will still be those who want to believe the myth that new oils will wear out older engines.
Like other myths before it, history teaches us that it will probably take 60 or 70 years for this one to die also.
Thanks for that information. I think the reason for the uncertainty / confusion / etc. is that people really don't know whom to trust anymore (did they ever?, but certainly it's worse now).
Add to that the fact that it is exteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemly difficult to get good solid and consiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiistant information on this issue. Why don't the oil companies just say specifically which oil to use for which application. Yes they do that for diesels and racing and boating applications, and new cars come with oil requirements specified in the owners manuals. But other than AMSOIL, I have yet to read anything that specifically says that an oil is good for older flat tappet engines. If they put that on their website or on the container, that'd be that then. Which is why I am considering AMSOIL.
redfastback
Don't ask me... my garage is empty
i have heard even from engine builders that only the first few thousand miles require the higher levels of zddp to aid in cam breakin. after that, you can use whatever oil you want, since you should change it when dirty regardless of mileage. i have also heard that synthetics of the same weight are thinner and aren't good for older engines because of clearances aren't as tight as freshly rebuilt older engines or newer engines that have ohc's and tighter clearances.
demon seed
The Original Demon Seed
Funny Ace I wasn't dealing with any myths about engine oil or even knew there could be a problem until I was told by a Shell oil refinery chemical engineer (also a mopar maniac) that the Shell oils were changing. It wasn't until I started researching on the internet that all these so called experts started popping out with there so called theories and alot of it was BS.
It comes down to one basic fact, when your engine has survived and thrived on an oil with a specific additive package and you find that the package is dramatically changing, for what ever reason, I'll switch to an oil that still has the original package. The BB high lift cammed, double valve springed animal under the hood of my Demon likes the original package and when it's happy I'm happy.
Terry
It comes down to one basic fact, when your engine has survived and thrived on an oil with a specific additive package and you find that the package is dramatically changing, for what ever reason, I'll switch to an oil that still has the original package. The BB high lift cammed, double valve springed animal under the hood of my Demon likes the original package and when it's happy I'm happy.
Terry
-
