Engine oil?

[70 net440]

What engine oil is everyone using? We just had my son's '71 350 rebuilt into a 383. My engine builder recomened Lucas semi-synthetic and Lucas break in additive for break in. My research for everyday oil lead me to Mobil's tech line. The guy there said Mobil 1 15w50 still had the lube package needed for older engines with flat tappet cams. Comp Cams web site says Shell Rotella with their additive is best. I'm getting confused. Also, what intervil are you changing your oil at?

[ChevLoRay]

Saw some interesting stuff done with Royal Purple, too.

[Gray Ghost]

I use Castrol 30 weight in my 355...I'm old school on that one!

[El Jay]

I run Castrol 20W-50 in everything. (I, too, am old school)

For whatever it's worth, MANY, MANY years ago, I had an old time mechanic and racer tell me to break it in with whatever kind of oil you're going to be using.
I don't know if that would hold true with all these modern oils, or not.

[d10s69c10]

Well My auto Teachers back in HS always told me if its SAE its all basicly the same. if your using COnvetional..
But i do try to stay away from the Wax type oils. Penzoil ect.

Royal Purple is hands down the best..
But i use Valvoline 15/40 with half a quart of Lucas Miracle sauce
Looks like antifreeze smells like brake fluid and pours like gear oil (thats got to be good)

While breaking it in i like TO change the Oil ALOT!
500
1500
3000 ect. and cut up that filter make sure your not losing to much metal,

[El Jay]

Originally Posted by d10s69c10

Well My auto Teachers back in HS always told me if its SAE its all basicly the same. if your using COnvetional..
But i do try to stay away from the Wax type oils. Penzoil ect.

Royal Purple is hands down the best..
But i use Valvoline 15/40 with half a quart of Lucas Miracle sauce
Looks like antifreeze smells like brake fluid and pours like gear oil (thats got to be good)

While breaking it in i like TO change the Oil ALOT!
500
1500
3000 ect. and cut up that filter make sure your not losing to much metal,

I'm with you on the oil changes.

To use the old axiom, "Oil's cheap. Motors cost money."

[70 net440]

The reason I asked, was that the EPA is requiring oil companies to reduce the amount of zinc and phosphorus in oil to stop damage to catylitic convertors. I was looking in Jeg's and saw that Valvoline makes an oil that still has the ZDDP in it.(20W50 VR1) I went onto Valvoline's web site and it says that this oil is good for older street/strip engines with flat tappet cams. It's about $5.00 a quart from Jeg's. I'm going to call our oil jobber to see if they can do any better. They quoated me about $6.50 a quart for Mobil 1.

[dwcsr]

I'd use what the engine company that carries the engine warranty recommends.

[BarryB]

here is what I do, use d10s69c10 formula for oil change interval's but I use a straight sae 30w to break it in. then after the motor has been broken in. swap over and put in Amsoil diesel oil. this stuff does wonders. Had a car getting 45 mpg before Amsoil conversion. getting close to 60 mpg after changing all the oils. It is a Toyota Corolla with a diesel motor and 5spd trans. So I ain't BSing ya.

[odog]

I agree change it often during the break in period and check for metal. My boss told me the best thing he learned was when you break in a motor continue to use the same brand of oil, don't use Valvoline, then Castrol at the next change, then Walmart oil at the next, Stay consistant. I use Valvaoline, its what he uses in his drag race motors so it must work pretty good.

[jamesi20]

after the initial break in especially the cam,I think synthetic oil would be fine,but a little to expensive for as often as I change oil.

[GREASEMONKEY72]

Valvoline 20w50 VR1 Racing plus a can of Restore with a Frame Tough Guard filter

[subalternnavert]

If you have a mechanical cam, you want to make sure it says on the bottle somewhere that it meets API service grade SF on it. Service grade SM, in most cases, does not have enough of the zinc additive in it. The zinc additive (sorry, I forget the proper name) forms a sacrificial coating necessary for the moving parts. Car craft had an article in this years' old school issue on the problem. I'll dig it up when I get a chance to finish moving in.

[70rs/ss]

http://www.cranecams.com/pdf/548e.pdf


This is the link from Crane cams, here is an article written by GM's oil god, then the red is a rebuke of sorts by some other oil experts? Sorry for the cut and paste, but this is another forum and a link wouldn't direct you straight to this so here it is:

"We at AMI may not be lubrication engineers or tribologists, but we are engineers, and know how to read and interpret test reports. We have nothing but respect for Mr. Olree, indeed he is one of the most experienced engine lubrication engineers we have read, but we feel that his opinions leave some issues important to older classic and high-performance vehicle owners unanswered. To address them point by point:

”Engine Oil Myths -
Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths. Here are some facts you may want to pass along to customers to help debunk the fiction behind these myths.
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."”

It is human nature to be unsure about new technology. We agree that the situations vis-à-vis Pennsylvania Crude oil and detergent oil is adequately explained by this aspect of human nature. The working fundamentals of many modern technologies such as engine oils are far beyond the grasp of an average person. When reading Bob Olree’s comments, we also acknowledge that they are applicable to an average vehicle and engine. There are few people who have as much direct experience with the issue of ZDDP and API test Sequences as he has.

However, to describe the current situation where oils are being marketed with lower ZDDP than a vehicle’s original specified requirement as merely another “new or unknown = bad” myth does not do the facts of the situation justice.

There are no test reports we know of which conclude that any low ZDDP oil is compatible with older, high spring pressure flat-tappet high-performance engines.

There is on the other hand, research that concludes that the minimum ZDDP requirement is directly related to the lifter foot pressure. In one SAE paper it is reported that: “at a ZDP level corresponding to 0.02% phosphorus, scuffing occurred at 200 pounds lifter load, while it required 240 and 480 pounds lifter load for oils containing 0.04 and 0.06% phosphorus, respectively, to initiate scuffing. At 0.08% phosphorus concentration, no scuffing occurred up to 600 pounds lifter load, the test hardware limit. Scuffing occurred at 350 pounds lifter load with no ZDP (0% phosphorus).”

The older engines and high-performance engines we are concerned about may have lifter foot pressures several times that of a low-performance engine such as those used in the Sequence III tests, and their wear characteristics are not predicted by common Sequence III testing methodology. An additional factor is the dynamic load at the lifter foot. Sequence III engines run at 3600 RPM maximum during the test. Most high-performance TR engines are regularly run to 6000 RPM. The inertial contribution to the lifter foot pressure increases as the square of the increase in RPM. This means that the inertial load at 6000 RPM is 2.67 times it’s value at 3600 RPM.
“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.“

One of our engineers drives 1996 Chevrolet Impala SS with an LT1 engine which was filled at the factory with Mobil 1, and has never had any other oil in it. One might wonder if the Mobil 1 factory fill is actually the same spec as off the shelf product or if it is initially dosed with a break-in additive. It has indeed broken in well, and at over 200,000 miles it still has very little blow-by, so I would agree with Mr. Olree’s conclusion, for his Impala SS at least. Engine break-in problems are usually caused by improper break-in driving habits, not by the difference between synthetic or fossil based oil.


”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) 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.

We have never been able to find the results of these tests on older engines. We would need to study those reports to see exactly which engine types and cam/follower types were involved. The fact is that all API test sequences we have studied use non-performance engines with low spring pressures, indeed in the Sequence IIIG test, the static lifter load is 350 pounds . Many high-performance engines have as much as 500 pounds or more of lifter foot pressure. Referring to the Bennet data, this would indicate that in order to keep from scuffing, a ZDP level giving a .065 % minimum phosphorus level would need to be ensured. If one considers that fact that the ZDDP level constantly drops from the initial level as a vehicle is driven, a safety margin above that is advisable. This means that if one wishes to maintain .065% minimum phosphorus, more than that must be present in the initial fill. Our calculations estimate that if you start with a ZDDP level which gives .14% phosphorus, after 2000-3000 miles, the actual ZDDP remaining active has dropped to the point where there is just enough protection.


"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.)"

We wish that it were true that all modern oils contained 0.08% ZDP. Our recent tests of two major name brand oils bearing the SM API grade showed that they contain <0.06% phosphorus, therefore they cannot contain even that much ZDP.
We know that there are technologies other than ZDDP which can function as effective EP anti-wear agents for some engine designs, as proven with newer engines with roller cam followers. The most recent SM formulations in particular have shown a move to Boron based EP additives. We have been testing virgin oils on an ongoing basis, and most quality oils in early 2007 have had a phosphorus level in the 0.05% to 0.08% range, lower on average than that of the SL oils. This certainly shows a downward trend which the classic or high-performance car owner needs to be aware of.
”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.“

I do not believe that anyone who has spent time investigating this situation would say that the new oils had insufficient EP characteristics for ALL flat tappet engines, especially low-performance engines. As a matter of fact, the number of oils with API certification proves that low-performance flat-tappet engines can pass the Sequence III tests with acceptable wear. Our study of the ASTM test sequences IIIE, IIIF, IIIG, IVA and VE required to achieve API certification reveal that NONE were developed using high-performance engines. Indeed, these tests were developed using relatively low-performance engines intended to model average current and emerging vehicle engine wear characteristics. This makes sense considering that the purpose of the ILSAC/API specifications is to provide a standard set of performance criteria for oil to be used in new over-the-road automobiles and trucks. The standards are not intended to infer any degree of backwards compatibility with older or specialty engines. While investigating the amount of ZDDP needed to protect engines Olree stated: “Arguing that modern oils should pass tests developed 25 years ago to protect engines built 30 years ago is a rather useless exercise ”. Since he is studying the situation from the perspective of designing the lubrication for the next generation of motors, we see his perspective for making such a statement. In doing so he is acknowledging that the test is not specifically designed to quantify oil’s performance with older engines. Unfortunately, “those” engines are the ones we enthusiasts run and care about.

At AMI our automotive group has 60 years of experience collectively with GM flat tappet engines. In all of this experience, the recent failures of stock cams and lifters due to severe wear is unprecedented. It is this experience as well as supporting reports from others we spoke to that made us try to find out the nature of the problem first hand. After preliminarily concluding that the low ZDDP levels in SL oils were the culprit for the wear we were seeing, we tried to obtain enough ZDDP for our own vehicles. We soon found out that major oil companies and additive manufacturers do not sell small quantities, and buying a large quantity is expensive! When others people in car clubs asked to buy ZDDP with us as well, we finally were able to put together enough justification to place an order. This is how we first found ourselves in the business of selling a ZDDP supplement.

It is our belief that there is no overt movement in the oil industry to create new oils that are bad for older engines as some conspiracy theorists may speculate. There certainly IS a movement in the oil industry to create new oils which are tailored to the specifications and requirements primarily of newer cars, and secondarily of older vehicles. This does not mean that they are concerned at all with 30 years old muscle cars. To the automotive industry an OLD car is 10 years old. The cars we care about are invisible to the OEM industry. While we have great faith in the engineering behind the new oils, we also notice that backwards compatibility with 100% of old engines is not on the product spec sheet. The oil manufacturers obviously know of the importance of the ZDDP to older flat tappet engines, as many of them are steering owners of these engines toward their ZDDP formulated diesel oil line, showing they acknowledge the possible need for higher levels of ZDDP in these engines. Unfortunately the characteristics and available viscosity ranges of diesel oil may not be suitable for our engines.

As Bob Olree knows better than we do, the amount of investment and research required to define, specify and perfect a set of tests and resulting standards is huge, and off-the-cuff recommendations like one sees in advertisements for oil supplements are poorly thought out and ill-advised. Our position on the right oil and additive package to use is simple: an individual should be using the oil specified at the time of manufacture of the specific vehicle. Period. An automotive engine is a fantastically complex and (sometimes) well thought out machine, and we believe that almost all oil additives are simply get rich schemes, impose unnecessary cost, and are unneeded at best, and like some chlorinated additives, dangerous at worst.

Our conclusion and current recommendation is to augment one of the new and superior base stock modern oils of the correct viscosity with additional ZDDP in order to bring the oil’s EP characteristics to that for which the engine was designed. We know from years of oil industry testing that ZDDP is compatible with all base stocks and other additive packages including the newer Boron EP additives, so there is little risk in adding it to achieve the equivalent of 0.12% phosphorus, a level similar to that formulated into SF or SG oils.


In my word's (70rs/ss'), the "good oils" were SJ, SH, SG (not around anymore) then SL (well below the SJ, SH, SG)is better than the SM (lowest ZDDP ratings of all) Look for the API numbers if it has SM or SL it is low in Zink/phosphorus.

[70rs/ss]

Link to GM parts direct with the "NEW" EOS part number. This stuff was discontinued, then brought back?? It is the ZDDP additive you should put in your oil with the a flat tappet for the initial start-up and cam break in.



http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/results...partnumber=EOS

[heavy71chevy]

Rotila or castrol hd 30 and royal purple in the ole ladys fox body

[70 net440]

Thanks for all the replies. Good info here. I'm going to run Valvoline VR1 20W50 when we finish the break in. This truck won't see more than about5,000 miles a year, so I'll change it twice a year like my other old cars.

[chipflyer]

Plenty of ZDP in the one shown below, it was made for pre -73 cars and trucks with flat tappet cams.

[straitnate14]

You guys ever look into brad penn oil? http://www.bradpennracing.com/Zinc.html I get it at the local speed shop and it's like 3.50 a quart, They claim that they like it better than royal purple and they sell both? My dad flipped out when he heard they sold it and had me pick him up some I guess it's a big favorite of the Pontiac guys. I should be switching to it next weekend when I come home and change my intake gaskets Oh and I run the k&n oil filters also and my oil stays supper clean looked like brand new oil forever

[1968SWBBigBlock]

Lubriplate GPO motor oil
Buy it off line and you get free shipping
http://www.lubriplate.com/products/a...otor-oils.html
I also add 1/2 a bottle of EOS - despite the fact that this has enough Zinc I figure it is cheap insurance
I like the Napa gold filters - rated best if you do some research

[89 crew]

Plain and simply, you will get lots of different answers here on this question. Probably as many answers as responses. Myself, I'm a Mobile Delvac 1300 series fan. I have had GREAT service from every engine I have used it in. Does that mean it is right for you? Nope, especially if you have ever put Pensoil in the engine. If you have a brand that has worked good for you in the past, stick with it. If you are unsure, give the 1300 series Delvac a try. Along with it, I run a product called Energy Release. It has constantly got me 1-2 mpg in everything I have put it in.

[Texasbigblock]

i will swear by lucas oil additive! Whatever you decide to run, i would recommend using 1 qt lucas additive in place of a quart of oil. I do that on everything i own and when i drain the oil i am extremely impressed with how little breakdown occurs. On our dirt track car we run straight lucas in the rearend and you can lay your hand on it after a race, while before when running regular gear oil it would be so hot that we actually would melt the silicone between the cover and rearend...... I would put a combination of lucas and convential oil up again straight synthetic any day.... just my .02

[babyJay]

I started to run royal purple in all my vehicles a year or so ago. Before that I only ran Shell Rotella 15w40 in all my v8's for years (military mindset).

[70rs/ss]

Ultimately what brand of oil is up to you, but the OP wanted to know about a good oil with enough ZDDP to not wreck the flat tappet, and in that case none of the new oils that meet the SL or SM rating have enough ZDDP in them, not even the Diesel oils. Brad Penn is supposed to have it as well as Joe Gibbs oil, and the castrol stuff pasted above (but I can't find that stuff anywhere?) and a few others, but ultimately use a break in addative (EOS, comp cams cam break in lube, etc) but the oils meeting the SL or SM are not flat tappet cam friendly nor are they good for ther parts of the engine, so use an off road racing oil, brad penn, joe gibbs, or put the ZDDP additive in there. Some of the synthetics use more ZDDp as well. EOS is again being offered at about $12 quart, just put one of those in with every oil change or the ZDDP additive and you should be good to go no matter what oil you use. The link I attached above is to a web based dealer that sells the GM EOS for $12 a quart, this is a must do for any new motor break in. I pasted some info off the link for those that didn't open it.


Search Results of Available Items
*Prices are Per Unit


Page 1: 1-1 of 1 items



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM PART # EOS *
CATEGORY: Vehicle Care
PACK QTY: 1
CORE CHARGE: $0.00
GM LIST: $19.09
OUR PRICE: $12.17


DESCRIPTION: Engine Oil Supplement

Gm has reinstated this EOS and the new number is 88862586.

Engine oil supplement (Part number 88862586)



EOS - Engine Assembly Prelube
Specifically formulated as an engine assembly lubricant. E.O.S. provides outstanding protection against run-in wear and piston scuffing as well as run-in camshaft lobe and lifter scuffing resulting from insufficient lubrication.

[chipflyer]

Its amazing how many times this has come up on here and I think many still don't understand what you outlined very well.