Oil Myths.....older engines

Here is a little info from a very qualified source regarding oils and our old engines.

Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths (fig. 1). Here are some facts you may want to p*** 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 ***usville, Pennsylvania (fig. 2).
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. M***ive piston deposits were the only thing standing between merely high oil consumption and horrendous oil consumption. 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 m***ive 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 p***ed 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 p*** 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 (fig. 5).

​

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 p*** 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 to Bob Olree – GM Powertrain Fuels and Lubricants Group

 

I have been told that Synthetic oil just prolongs the break in period not provents it.

 

I"ve been told that the cars that use synthetic for factory fill have cylinder finishes wayyyy smoother than you'll get from your local friendly machine shop on a rebore job.

I also don't believe that a test engine with a mild cam and light duty valve springs is going to adequately test the cam protection ability of the oil that's going into my hot rodded big block chevy.

 

Good article.....I've NEVER had a problem using the 'new' oils in my older engines.....even fresh rebuilds (with big cams)....and I've done a few in the last couple or years.
Some of the cam companies may just be laying blame towards the oil rather than admit to getting ****py steel for their cam blanks......

 

This post wasn't intended to stir this debate again as it's been beat to death several times already....just adding another viewpoint.

 

i believe many of the starburst oils contain less zddp than the oils that have equal or higher levels from back in the day. I've looked at data that supports this.

I also believe that this causes cam failures, etc.. I believe this because of too many experiences that i've heard.

I'm selective about the oil i run. I dont believe its all the same...

-scott noteboom

 

Yep, I agree-- that's suspect as well....

-scott noteboom

 

How many engines with synthetic for factory fill have flat tappet, high-lift cams though? Has anyone done any testing with this combo?

All this oil stuff makes my head hurt...

 

Mike, that article came from Bob Olree from GM Powertrain, the fuels and lubricants group. My opinion is that these guys are pretty much on top of their game. Remember with the factory going to a 100,000 mile powertrain warranty on the new stuff, they NEED to be on their game. Powertrain has done alot of work in regards to the high perf crate engines that alot of guys are using now.....some of those are still flat tappet pushrod motors also. Just food for thought.

I think the reference to high mileage engines mentions a condition where built up sludge and deposits from non detergent use causes problems when a high detergent oil is used AFTER the engine is all clogged up with ****.

 

It doesn't address the zinc content...only phosphorus. Zinc seems to be one determining factor in extreme pressure/low surface area contact points, like the cam/lifter interface.

Much of what he says in other respects seems accurate.

One point not mentioned is that some older seals did not deal well with some of the first synthetic oils, causing leaks.

 

Boy, this is fun! Here is just a little more info just for the heck of it.

I contacted Castrol with this question and here's their answer:


Castrol is aware of articles in enthusiast magazines and web-sites, as well as after-market parts manufacturer discussions concerning GF-4 engine oils and cam-shaft durability issues in older performance vehicles. Some consumers suspect the lower level of ZDDP in GF-4 oils may be causing these failures. Castrol is currently investigating this issue.

As indicated on our product packaging, the current engine oil category API SM/ILSAC GF-4 is fully backwards compatible or 'back serviceable' and has been extensively tested. Valve train issues are not anticipated with the use of modern engine oil in older cars of OEM stock configuration. In fact, current SM/GF-4 engine oils are subjected to testing that is far more intensive than engine oils of previous API/ILSAC categories.

To clarify, in general, ZDDP levels have been reduced a small amount in the current category engine oils (API SM/ILSAC GF-4) in compliance with industry regulations that set maximum levels of Sulphur and Phosphorus, but are still at levels that provide ample engine protection.

Special procedures have always been recommended for the proper initial break-in of a new, matched, cam and lifter set; which include the use of a properly formulated cam break-in lubricant paste which typically contains a healthy dose of molybdenum. Engine oil alone is typically insufficient for break-in of a new cam and lifter set, particularly in a vintage engine type built to historic specifications.

For those consumers that wish not to use a GF-4 oil in these vehicles, Castrol does offer the following products that contain Zinc at a level that is higher than the Zinc level found in oils (API SG) marketed during the "muscle car" era of time:

* Castrol GTX 20W-50 (SL,SM)
* Castrol GTX Diesel 15W-40 (CI4,CH4,CG4,CF4,CF,SL)
* Castrol GTX High Mileage 20W-50 (SL,SM)
* Castrol HD 30 (SL,SM)
* Castrol HD 40 (SL,SM)
* Castrol Syntec Blend Truck 15W-40 (CI4,CH4,CG4,CF4,CF,SL)(Semi-synthetic)
* Castrol Tection Extra 15W-40 (CI4Plus, CI4,CH4,CG4,CF4,SL)
* Castrol Hypuron S 15W-40 (CI4Plus,CH4,CG4,SL)(Semi-synthetic)

The following Castrol products have Zinc levels that are typical of API SG
oil:
* Castrol Syntec 5W-40 (SL,CF)(Synthetic)
* Castrol GO! 10W-40 Motorcycle Oil (SG)
* Castrol GO! 20W-50 Motorcycle Oil (SG)
* Castrol Grand Prix 4-Stroke Motorcycle Oil 10W-40 (SG)
* Castrol Grand Prix 4-Stroke Motorcycle Oil 20W-50 (SG)
* Castrol TWS Motorsport 10W-60 (SJ)(Synthetic)

If installing a new performance cam in an older performance vehicle, it is important to:
* follow the installation recommendations provided by the cam manufacturer
* use the recommended cam break-in lube
* prime the engine oil circuits
* use the recommended engine oil
*confirm valvetrain geometries prior to starting the engine with the new cam

It seems like everyone has an opinion, kinda like belly-****ons.

 

An aircraft engine is similar in design to all others but very different as well. I still use non-detergent oil for break in, especially for those with chrome cylinders. This is something you will probably never see in an auto engine. Very few auto engines are air cooled and none have chrome cylinder walls. Some have to use detergent oil for break in due to turbocharger bearing lubrication.

Auto engines should be able to break in on detergent oil with no problems except where major modifications in the valve train have taken place. I would use a heavy duty spec oil and lots of recommended cam lube for those break ins.

Synthetic base oil will always find its way out of an engine easier than the strait mineral base oils. They will double as a penetrating oil if you try it.

 

When is the reformulated EOS coming out ?
And how do the contents compare to the old formula ?

 

Great thread! Here was a review of M'cycle oil and filter issues, and the fellow seemed a sound investigator. http://motorcycleinfo.calsci.com/Filters.html

 

I remember the Mobil 1 problems in aircraft engines in the early 90's. I do know I replaced 3 engine paid for totally by them because owners never could get there oil consumption rate down to an exceptable level. One was a brand new Contiental TSIO 520 in a Cessna 210, the owner was using 3 qts an hour.

 

Thanks for the article. I was all freaked out by prior posts that told me I was killing my engine (a punched out 350 with a cam). I found it hard to believe that newer oil formulas would be that bad for older cars, but at the same time I'm su****ious enough of oil companies to believe it would. Now I don't feel so bad.

Noteboom, Retrorod addresses your point at the end of the article... not sure if you caught it.

Thanks guys.

 

maybe we also need to look at where (what country the oil is being produced in) and where are the engine components that are wearing out being built?..not all parts or oils are built or manufactured to the same standards..WAY WAY too many variables here.
run a good grade oil , buy good parts, put them togeather correctly and break them in correctly , change you oil regularly and dont over abuse your equipment, and I believe it will give you many years free from oil related breakdowns.

 

A better place to look for placing blame for cam failures would be where the cams are currently being forged, which for the majority of manufacturers, if not all the manufacturers, is - where else - China. My son-in-law is the chief cam design engineer for a major, well known cam manufacturer (he'd rather I not mention any names) and has told me horror stories of huge percentages of cam blanks coming in from China that are rejected, and they only do a spot inspection.

 

If the % is that high,they need to do
a lot more than just "spot inspection".

Where do the big 3 get their cam blanks ?
And do they even sell flat tappet push rod motors any more ?

 

About a year ago I lost a cam in a fresh motor with less than 300 miles on the build. One lobe was almost perfectly round. I won't take the chance on another older motor by not using the oil with Zinc additive. Cost me about $3K, It was an AMC motor. Not cheap to build!

 

So I am going to be breaking in my fresh hemi in the next month or so. She has a moderatly high lift cam...what is a good oil, or oil addiive to use?

 

amen brother...

 

Try Brad Penn break-in oil....http://www.bradpennracing.com/Products/BIO30.html

GM's EOS works well but is discontinued & may be hard to find. Mopar has the same thing, repackaged, but I've heard it's gone as well...haven't confirmed or denied it for myself. An alternative is Crane's SuperLube http://store.summitracing.com/partd...925094+4294869136+4294869119+115&autoview=sku which is an oil additive (not the cam paste used on the lobes, nor a general ***embly lubricant). You can use this at oil changes as well, if you're concerned about the zinc content after break-in, during normal use.

Depending on the spring type & open pressures, you may want to remove the inner coils, if any, (not dampers) for the break-in....

 

The NEW "EOS" is on the shelf now, just released last week. I don't know how different the formula is but they are saying it's a direct replacement for the stuff I've been using for years.

Several of the new GM "crate motors" are still flat tappet, until you get to the ZZ4 and higher HP motors

 

I know that when synthetics are put in a rebuilt sbc the rings wont seat forever or never will and the engine has to be torn down and rebuilt because of it. I seen it happen, but I dont know what brand or kind of synthetic they bought, but the rings never would seat. I have also seen synthetic mess up a harley engine preety bad because the engines use needle bearings in everything and the synthetic kept the bearings from rolling in their cages because it was so slick. In new cars I`ll run synthetic because the manufacture recomend it, but my older engines I will still run conventional oil, I figure $30.00 worth of oil is chepaer than a rebuild.

 

I have a question.

EOS is not realy an additive is it? Or is it a lubricant for ***embly?

 

EOS is strictly an ***embly lube, not intended to be an additive like STP or some of the other additives. By the way the new part number is #88862586 (a 16 oz container), available at all of the General's Parts Departments.

 

Can't speak for the new stuff....but...

the old EOS was originally marketed as an additive (this is 20-25+ years ago, at LEAST), to be used at oil changes. I have, somewhere, an old can stating just that.

There is a statement in a (once) popular book about the BBC, written in the very early '70s, stating that it should not be used on a regular basis, but only as a break-in/***embly lube. The authors implied that this was information acquired from GM; I later found out that one of them was, or had been, employed by GM.

Sometime later GM changed their marketing approach & listed it as an ***embly lubricant.

In the early '80s, being curious about the book statement, I asked a GM spook, who was in a position to know, about it. His comment was that, as EOS contains barium compounds, they can break down during combustion & form chamber deposits, which can cause "hot spots" leading to preignition.....when it is added for long-term use. His particular area did some casual testing on "mules", as a side project during other development. He commented that it wouldn't be an issue for most engines. (So far as I know, GM did more formal testing on EOS & other additives for emissions purposes in the late '60s -early '70s.)

He also stated, somewhat wryly, that many aftermarket additives contained barium & could have the same issue. His, and probably GM's for all I know, opinion was that many additives were useless, for the most part, other than to thicken oil viscosity, which could help mask an oil consumption problem. Keep in mind that this was 20+ years ago, with the conditions/oils/engine designs of that time.

According to the NEW EOS description....

"EOS - Engine ***embly Prelube
Specifically formulated as an engine ***embly 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."



For whatever all this is worth...
​