Technical Switching grades and types of engine oil and its affects on engine noise, exhaust etc.

So your customer runs sub 35 hydraulic intensity flat tappet cams with big springs in his cat diesels? (Rhetorical question) You are comparing apples and oranges, totally different needs and requirements.

 

That's close, see one of the links I posted above to CrazySteve with the viscosity charts. It shows that 10W specification has a maximum viscosity, measured with a rotary viscometer, at a low temperature. As the temperature decreases, viscosity will increase, in order to meet the spec for 10W the viscosity can not increase more than 7000cp at -25C, and at 100C it must remain at least 4.1 cSt. But in order to be called a 10W-30 it must also meet the minimum viscosity for an SAE 30 grade, which is between 9.3 - <12.5 cSt.

At 100C, a 10W-30 and a straight grade 30 will both have between 9.3 - <12.5 cSt, regardless of what CrazySteve says. Crazy electricians that change oil in the cars every few months are not better at determining viscosity than a calibrated viscometer in a lab. Sorry, don't intend to be mean, he's just being foolish.

 

Eh, just replying to the comment that the oil chamistries have changed. Yes they have, and yes, they will again. But increased wear has not been a problem, and zinc levels are still in the 1200 - 1300 ppm range. And other compounds have been developed to provide increased wear resistance.

BTW, the Cummins B series engines, which are about the most common diesel engines in existence (Dodge alone has sold more than a million) use a flat tappet cam, so they are still dealing with sliding tappet wear. Granted, I'm sure the cams have nowhere near the lift and spring pressures of a race tuned engine, but probably not very different from the thousands of SBC and flat head and Nail Head and Cadillac etc powering hot rods out there.

 

I didn't see this before. Why do you say the zinc level has been lowered 3 times in 5 years, where did you get this info? The CJ-4 oil spec has been around for just about 10 years now, and I see no reason why Shell would reformulate their product and spend the >$1M dollars to recertify for the API license. That makes no sense. I question your source of information. I don't follow what Shell is doing, it just doesn't make sense that they would do this.

 

I think you're mistaking different types of gear lubes. Older gear boxes with yellow metals typically called for GL-4 gear oil, with lower levels of extreme pressure additives. Modern differentials use GL-5 gear oil, which has much higher levels of EP additives (usually suphur-phos compounds) that can indeed be aggressive on yellow metals. You do need to match the gear oil spec to the application. GL-4 gear oil are still around.

 

I hinted at it before, aggressive lobe designs have nothing directly to do with race tuned motors, or race cams. If you are running a Comp Xtreme energy series lobe (this whole line is street cams, starts at 196@050, that's a fuel economy lobe, and is currently Comps best selling line) or a Comp XT, TL, XTQ or FL lobe, better than 1/2 the current Howards lobes, ANY Ultradyne or Bullet lobe, you are running a sub 35 degree hydraulic intensity lobe design, that is an extremely aggressive lobe that is VERY fast off the base circle. These lobes need more spring (proportionately)than old school lobes and will be much more prone to high levels of cam wear, even at lower spring rates. Lobe "aggression" has nothing to do with "race" cams, or the amount of total duration or lift, its about how high the rate of lifter acceleration is per degree of rotation.
You commented that you haven't heard these cams at cruise nights, if you can identify them by ear, you are better than me, in fact for a given duration at .050, these lobes will idle SMOOTHER than a lazier old school lobe.

 

I can't tell you about assembly lubes, but the trend in service lubes is definitely going toward moly. Moly has been used for years in grease, very successfully. But not so much in oil, though there have been some smaller co's specializing in it, i.e. Schaeffers. But more and more lubricants that I see the oil analysis of are starting to include moly in the chemistry.

 

Well I am old, I do have a tendency to compress time, it may be more like over the last ten years, but they have lowered the zinc level in Rotella three times in recent memory that I know of, and yes, I can document this.

 

OK George, I won't argue that. So where does that leave us then? What is required with these cams?

 

Took me 15 minutes to find an email from an oil company rep stating that they dropped the zinc level from 1400 to 1200 in 2009, bear with me, and I will find more.
http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/shell-rotella-t-162437.html

 

Apparently I need to get out more as I just stumbled on this issue a couple years ago when visiting the Ye//ow Bu//et site. Went to NAPA for lube for my Muncie and all they stocked was the GL-5 oil, but they had the GL-4 from their warehouse the next day.

 

well, that's a tough one, oil engineers and internet experts will argue this till we are blue in the face. My "evidence" is strictly empirical, based on first hand experience and what engine builders that do a lot more of this than I do, but consensus among most of the engine builders I talk to is that zddp levels in the 1300-1400 ppm range help, and face oiling lifters help as well. Nitriding the camshafts helps a LOT as well, but most guys don't want to do it because of the extra expense.
Its funny, this is going to get long-winded, its a complicated subject. I just went through a whole thing with this last week in the process of selecting a camshaft for a 351C I am working on. It has heavier valves. and probably more important, higher ratio rockers than most stuff I work on. I was going to go with the latest, uber aggressive .875 lifter diameter specific lobe design, but on the advice of someone that have a shitload of dyno time on flat tappet clevelands, I decided not to. The cam I was going to use was 236 @ 050, and 264@020. 264@020 is a VERY short seat duration, actually less than the stock Boss 351 cam, would have really idled like a pussycat, but because it accelerates the lifter very quickly, it packs a lot of valve opening area into a very short seat duration.
After some discussion, I came to the conclusion that I wouldn't be able to run this cam to the 6700-6800 rpm shift point I desired unless I ran titanium retainers and springs that would not be compatible with daily street use. Now keep in mind, this cam would idle like a stocker due to the very short seat duration. I went to a less aggressive, older school lobe, but to get the same amount of valve opening area with the gentler less aggressive lobe, I had to go to a lobe with 23 more degrees duration @ .020! And it still has less gross lift than the more aggressive, more modern high intensity lobe. Read that a couple times and let it sink in, its a pretty big deal!
I also run all this stuff through a pretty high zoot dyno simulation computer program, the predicted idle vacuum went from 12.8" with the aggressive, shorter lobe, to 9.6" with the gentler lobe that, I'll repeat this again, has the same amount of effective valve opening area.

 

Keep in mind that the main lubrication mechanism keeping the tappet and the cam lobe from making contact is hydrodynamic lubrication. At what point does this become insufficent

Cool info. OK first, this is in regards tot he change in oil chemistry in 2007 for the then new CJ-4 specification. So it's been like this for almost 10 years. Second:

That's an important point. I hope everybody catches that.

Third:

Like I said earlier, they have developed other compounds to reduce wear, and CJ-4 oils have proven to be very effective at preventing wear.

So my question is, how do we know that CJ-4 diesel engine oils are insufficient to protect flat tappet cams? Who has done any research on it? What is required?

George, I'd be willing to run some oil analysis on some samples of Rotella from your engine, but I think getting them across the border to me may be problematic. I don't know, you want to try? Let's take a look at the Iron wear rates.

 

December 1 / CK-4 (PC-11A) will be for current & Older diesel engines. FA-4 (PC-11B) will be for new diesel engines. major companies, like Shell, Chevron, Lucas, Ford, etc provide oils to meet all current and soon upcoming changes

 

Like I said, I don't run Rotella, not because it CURRENTLY has insufficient zinc levels for high performance flat tappet engines, but because they have previously dropped the zinc levels. My concern is, that because Rotella isn't intended for use in high performance flat tappet engines, at some point in the future they may lower the zinc levels again, and by the time it becomes common knowledge in the circles I travel in, I will have had a cam failure. Additive packages that may be superior in roller cam applications are NOT necessarily superior or even SAFE in high load flat tappet applications.This is why I run oils that ARE intended for use in high performance flat tappet applications, I can feel at least reasonably secure that they aren't going to suddenly decide to drop the zinc level to a point that will lead to flat tappet cam failure.

 

Lets see if I can put this another way. Its because I am NOT an oil engineer that I am very conservative in this area, and stick with what I know by experience, will do the job. A wise mans gotta know his limitations.
One other thing, I am sure at some point someone will start quoting "the oil guy" aka "540 Rat" as he is known on Speedtalk. Lets just say that a lot of guys a LOT smarter than me on Speedtalk have some real issues with his testing methodology. Again, I don't enter into that debate, I know my limitations. I just pretty much stick with what I know works. So far, for me, in flat tappet applications, that has been the Brad Penn mineral oil, although, based on a whole LOT of feedback from a lot of guys that build a lot more motors than I do, and have a lot more dyno time under their belts, I am thinking about trying VR1.

 

I just fired up the work computer and ran a query of oil samples for the past 2 months using Rotella T 15W40. After doing a little clean up of the data I have just under 200 sample results. The lowest figure for zinc is 1138ppm, the highest figure for zinc is 1632, with an average zinc level of 1305 ppm and a mean level of 1299 ppm.

There are always going to be differences in batch to batch, and this will also depend on the blending methods used. But like I posted earlier, I typically see from 1200 - 1300 ppm of zinc in heavy duty diesel engine oils.

Note, I did the same query for Chevron Delo 400 15W40, and got a low figure for zinc of 1145 ppm, a high figure of 1971 ppm, an average of 1393 ppm and a mean of 1386 ppm.

Also, an average of 449 ppm boron, and an average of 108 ppm of moly.

 

Brad Penn has several motor oils, which one? Penngrade 1? What is the zinc content?

I just looked up VR-1 data sheet. It shows VR-1 with 1400 ppm of zinc. I'd like to have some analyzed, see what it actually is, of course, that would just be 1 data point.

Also, it shows sulphated ash of 1%, and calcium level of 2100 ppm (and sodium at 490 ppm), indicating it is not just a race motor oil, it does have detergents for longer drain intervals. Not really a true race oil after all. Though with a total base number of just 8.5 it's far less durable than Rotella (which we've measured at around 10.5)

Also, NOACK Volatility they list as <15, which means it's approaching 15, CJ-4 limit for NOACK volatility is 13, and we've measured Rotella at <12.

Sorry man, everything is pointing to Rotella as the better oil.

http://content.valvoline.com/pdf/vr1_racing.pdf

 

Which is consistant with everything I have said, including the fact that the high performance flat tappet cam market is not the market Rotella is aimed at, and so there is no guarantee that they wont go ahead and drop the zinc content again. And your lowest number, 1138 ppm, is definitely pushing the bottom edge of the envelope, which re-enforces my thoughts on not using Rotella in a high-perf flat tappet application. You do it your way, I wont be changing to the "superior" 1138ppm Rotella. You "win", and I wont lose a cam.

 

Hopefully EPA will be on a chopping Block in January 2017
(Down sizing & restrictions )

 

If GL5 gear oil attacks bronze synchros it must take a while, have been using it for 20 years. Not saying it doesn't, but.

 

Thanx for the info, have certainly used Rotella T 15W40 quite often with my tractors yard equipment, and Chrysler flathead 6 engines. Of course the flathead 6 engines are flat tappet engines, but low spring pressure and high quality metallurgy cam shafts, using any modern oil would be light years ahead of what was available when this engine was built.
With respect to additives and ingredient specs, would Canadian manufactured Shell Rotella T be congruent with the US manufactured product?
I am going to go back to Rotella, after using a Canadian refined Heavy Duty Diesel 15W40 manufactured and refined by Klonike Oils......

 

Hi George and enjoying your comments and learned experience on this topic too.
I do have 1 question for you, and it could be a bit loaded without actual empirical field tests.
Now as you noted, there appears to be some inconsistency levels of ZDDP in Rotella oil analysis samples, and it is not clear as to what or how actually causes this in the "test samples". Now the other manufacturers "Brad Penn" and Valvoline VR1, is there any independent data to support there levels of ZDDP and/or other anti wear additives by chance?
I mention this, as to inquire, could or would these other very high quality oils also have some inconsistency in ZDDP levels if scrutinized by multi random samples empirically tested by a qualified lab.
I do get quite intrigued with modern oil discussions.

 

Guys,

The importance of ZDDP is a perpetuated myth. The primary purpose of motor oil is film strength protection (psi). Read this independent study, it'll change your view of oil forever...

https://540ratblog.wordpress.com/

 

Not only have I read his blog, as I allude to above, I have also read literally DOZENS of posts by 540rat on speedtalk, and I have read the retorts. It hasn't changed my life. Not even remotely. Did you know that we didn't REALLY land on the moon?

http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=36916

Not specific to 540rat, but another well-informed look at the whole pissing match...
http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21409&start=30

Ten plus pages started by 540rat. This is THE epic 540rat/oil guy thread, my advice would be read it all, or don't read it at all.
http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35731

 

Man it j

Man. It just seems that the answers are right at the beginning of this oil thing.
The motor was run with Rotella 15w40 for 4yrs!
So switching to Royal Purple HPS Synthetic 10w40 did something bad. But what? The motor liked the other oil period.
So to me the real question is if you run two identical motors from the beginning with these two oils... would the rp synthetic 10w40 do this from the beginning or just after 4yrs with the other oil.
All the other oil info that has been posted is GREAT but kinda confusing if you dont do tests on similar engines from the beginning.
My guess stays the same. Who cares. Use the oil that was used AND nothing smelled burned.

 

I don't recall having specifically seen that. I don't really want to say this, for fear of setting him off again, but yes, if anything, the wildly inconsistent zddp levels that Blue One quoted actually did more to convince me that I will stick with what I have been using than they did to change my mind.

WHY THE F@CK DID I LET MYSELF GET DRAGGED INTO AN OIL THREAD!!!
Oh, yea, it was because Blue one said high intensity cam lobes weren't commonly used on the street. CURSE YOU BLUE ONE!!

 

It would certainly appear that a "Logical deduction" of prior Rotella usage and the introduction of the Royal Purple oil would constitute a causal factor.
I suppose this could be very possible, and/or other factors and mitigating factors may be at work here, this I of course do not know.
The simple answer for myself would be to switch back to the original Rotella15W40 to ascertain the issues.
Now if the Rotella allows the engine to continue with the OPs complaints, then what, the prior oil "Royal Purple" now damaged the engine, and if all is well in the world, the Rotella is the saving grace.
Now I know this may sound all too simple, but this is how I would approach this issue to start with.

 

Just purchased a new drum of Rotella.

Called the Shell help desk before buying and inquired on the amount of ZDDP ,was told its at least 1200 ppm in both Rotella 3 and 4 .

That was on Wednesday before Thanksgiving. Drum will be here on Monday.

On a different note - a pretty sharp younger mechanic that I know told me that using a different grade or weight of oil than recommended in the new (off topic) engines can possibly set off a computor sensor code alert. Thats pretty fucked up!

Oldmics

 

I'm just gonna add this post from the Speedtalk thread here (I bolded and coloured highlighted sentences), then I will sit back and watch the fun....

Re: Zinc Myth and Test Data on a Dozen more Oils
by racear2865 » Sat May 11, 2013 5:44 am

I hope you do not mind my offering an opinion. I have been running a dyno since 1975. During all those times, I never remember loosing a camshaft until our beloved government forced oil companies to cut certain "stuff" out of oils. During that time ,I, just like many others lost a rash of camshaft. Not knowing any better, I blamed the camshaft companies. Most of those same cam companies did not know the difference until later. At that time I went to Rotella cause it worked. I did not know why, but it worked. Little did I know that the government had not forced changes in that oil "yet". Well guess what, they were mandated to change it. So again lost a couple camshaft. This time, even I knew what was going on. I got on line and found the mandated changes. It has seen been changed again. To my knowledge there is no single test that will tell you if a oil is good. The test would have to involve a running engine to get the same characteristics. We have certain people that says their test tells which oil is best. If it is not put in an environment of running. The test are useless. You can look at any one characteristic of oil, and find the best oil for that characteristic. About a year ago, I applied a 6 Sigma test to oils on the dyno. The one thing that I did conclusively decide was that if the heat in oil heat was lower , then friction "should" be less. This really only applies to short use engines as it does not tell how well a oil cleans or any other long term property. Some oils, the temp went as high as 30 degrees higher. At that time I had one oil that came out better but I had 2 others was good also. So that number one oil is what I stayed with. Since then, I have never lost another cam. But it is a ever changing market. My point is that I am sure that RAT has a test that only looks at a small amount of properties and I am sure he feels it is best BUT and I mean BUT he has only touched the surface. It is hard to come up with a proper test, and the main reason being is that it is a destructive test if it fails. Do you all want to do that. I just fired a engine for a customer and he wanted to use his on oil. So I put EGT"s all over engine(at my expense). And sure enough, I heard a peck develop after about 15 minutes. He was here and he pulled a valve cover and he said man the rocker arm backed off. I said lets measure the cam lift. Lost .015 lift. I removed the engine from the dyno, he tore it down and sure enough cam going. He tried to get a cam on warranty. No deal So he purchase another. Cam company did help him on price. This time I started it on my oil and customer is happy. It doesnt mean my oil is best but it does mean it is better than his. Also rings seated within about 15 minutes, whereas with his oil, rings had not seated "yet". Again more to the oil than camshaft. Rings must seat quickly.. I really pay attention to how long it takes for new "friction" to go out of engine. Sorry I will shut up now.
reed