oil additives, do they work



oil additives, do they work

Postby grumpyvette » January 19th, 2009, 5:02 pm

read thru these links, its well worth the effort and time

http://www.carbibles.com/additives.html

viewtopic.php?f=67&t=11060

http://www.animegame.com/cars/Oil%20Tests.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubricant

http://www.ford-trucks.com/article/idx/ ... ative.html

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=282&p=2022#p2022
Even with roller valve train there is a break in period where the metals have to "mate". on flat tappet valve trains and non-roller rocker valve trains use of a good moly assembly lube is critical, Break in oils and assembly lubes have high pressure additives to help protect these new surfaces while this "mating" is taking place. Regular motor oil does not, always have the required additives or enough of them. thus using a good moly based assembly lube on lifters and bearings helps reduce wear , on roller rockers and roller lifter a mix of 50% assembly lube and 50% MARVEL MYSTERY OIL, thins this moly mix viscosity allowing it to penetrate roller bearings far faster

Image
Image
SOME WORK< MOST DON.T

E.O.S and CRANE CAMS MOLY ASSEMBLY LUBE DO ADD SOME ADDED WEAR PROTECTION
MOST OTHERS TESTED DON,T


engine assembly lube (YEAH NOT REALLY AN OIL ADDITIVE)

engine assembly lube needs to be used to protect your engine durring the first few minutes its running to protect the new parts as they start to lap in ,BEARINGS,CAM LOBES, LIFTERS,ROCKER ARMS,AND TIMEING CHAINS/GEARS, DISTRIBUTOR GEARS,ETC. ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO COAT TOTALLY DURRING THE ASSEMBLY PROCESS. first spray the contact surfaces with this ultra penatrateing moly-disulfide lube the carrier in the spray can allow the moly to soak into the metals surface,this stuff has been proven to coat the inside surface of rifle barrels and drastically reduce wear and friction even at temps of over 500 degs(F) and at pressures over 50,000psi,this forms your base layer,moly disulfide greatly increases the load and heat carrying ability of the lubericant and coating the surface with a layer of ultra-fine 20 micron moly before coating things with the lube gets the moly into the metal surfaces (check out the electron microscope photos) next use a good assembly lube that contains moly disulfide and/or zinc dialkyt-dithiophosphate both of which greatly add to the extreme pressure and heat resistance on the bearing or cam lobe surfaces.
heres some sources;
http://www.cranecams.com/index.php?show ... l=2&prt=15

http://www.mrmoly.com/html/mos2_theory.html

these are proven Anti-Wear Agents
These agents prevent wear due to seizure or rubbing surfaces. Compounds such a zinc dialkyt-dithiophosphate break-down microscopic hot spots and form a chemical filter which eliminates metal-to-metal contact.
also read this because the quality of the oil you use also has a big effect on how your engine wears during its lifetime. http://www.micapeak.com/info/oiled.html

Image
Image
REMEMBER WHAT YOUR TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IS THE TOTAL PREVENTION OF METAL TO METAL CONTACT, AND ONLY THE BEST ANTI-WEAR LUBERICANTS PLACED BETWEEN CONTACT SURFACES AND FLOWING INTO THE CLEARANCES CAN DO THAT !
BTW DON,T FORGET TO PRELUBE THE ENGINE WITH AN ENGINE PRELUBER WHILE TURNING IT OVER BY HAND UNTILL OIL FLOWS FROM ALL THE PUSH RODS ONTO ALL THE ROCKER ARMS BEFORE STARTING A NEW ENGINE! and make sure your oil and coolent levels are correct too!

read thru this thread also

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=282

watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... dEFGJqpCMY
IF YOU CAN,T SMOKE THE TIRES AT WILL,FROM A 60 MPH ROLLING START YOUR ENGINE NEEDS MORE WORK!!"!
IF YOU CAN , YOU NEED BETTER TIRES AND YOUR SUSPENSION NEEDS MORE WORK!!
grumpyvette

User avatar
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14105
Joined: September 14th, 2008, 1:40 pm
Location: florida

Re: oil additives, do they work

Postby grumpyvette » March 11th, 2009, 11:37 am

Ive found two (ADDITIVES that work)

MARVEL MYSTERY OIL
http://www.marvelmysteryoil.com/

its just a high quality oil with lots of solvents and detergents that WILL tend to dissolve crud and loosen sludge, lube the valve train and loosen varnish or sticky lifters, its just a darn good lubricant and solvent, not really an additive.


and
RESTORE

this stuff DOES tend to reduce oil consumption and reduce exhaust smoke after a few miles. Ive seen it work successfuly on lots of older engines, its not a cure-all, but it will tend to reduce oil consumption in some applications

http://www.atvconnection.com/Features/P ... storer.cfm
IF YOU CAN,T SMOKE THE TIRES AT WILL,FROM A 60 MPH ROLLING START YOUR ENGINE NEEDS MORE WORK!!"!
IF YOU CAN , YOU NEED BETTER TIRES AND YOUR SUSPENSION NEEDS MORE WORK!!
grumpyvette

User avatar
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14105
Joined: September 14th, 2008, 1:40 pm
Location: florida

Re: oil additives, do they work

Postby grumpyvette » August 18th, 2011, 7:56 pm

"hey GRUMPYVETTE?
I had only 10 psi of oil pressure before I changed my oil ,the guy at the local parts store suggested I use some oil additive,and 10w40 race oil, instead of the 10w30 oil and oil filter, I used for years, I swapped to 10w40 oil and a quart of LUCAS oil stabilizer and the same brand of oil filter,and now the engine shows 25 psi at idle, how does that additive do that?"



pressure is simply the measure of RESISTANCE TO FLOW, the added LUCAS product INCREASED the VISCOSITY, making it harder to pump thru the bearing clearances, it also means that on cold days and when the engines been sitting awhile it take longer for lubricant to reach the further extent of the oil passages, you would get the same increase in pressure if you poured bacon grease, and melted cheddar cheese in the engine, that dosen,t indicate it is lubricating better only that the effectively thicker oil viscosity increased, making it harder to pump thru the bearing clearances
I have yet to see any scientific data testing showing it hurts or helps lubrication, only user testimonials , you can get
user testimonials that tell you magnets on your fuel filter ionize fuel and give better mileage that dos not mean its true
Remember the most of your engine wear happens at start-up, before the warm pressurized oil forms a barrier between moving parts, the longer it takes for lubricants to start flowing , and coating parts the more wear





http://forum.grumpysperformance.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=52

http://forum.grumpysperformance.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=2187

http://forum.grumpysperformance.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=1334

:

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."

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 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 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) 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 to Bob Olree – GM Powertrain Fuels and Lubricants Group
IF YOU CAN,T SMOKE THE TIRES AT WILL,FROM A 60 MPH ROLLING START YOUR ENGINE NEEDS MORE WORK!!"!
IF YOU CAN , YOU NEED BETTER TIRES AND YOUR SUSPENSION NEEDS MORE WORK!!
grumpyvette

User avatar
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14105
Joined: September 14th, 2008, 1:40 pm
Location: florida

Re: oil additives, do they work

Postby grumpyvette » July 13th, 2012, 11:47 am

Does “ADDING” Zinc to low zinc oils really help?


Does “ADDING” Zinc to low zinc oils really help?

Postby 540 RAT » Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:30 pm
This write-up ended up being very long, so if you don’t want to bother with something quite long, then feel free to close out now and go on to the next topic.

The Diesel oil “wear testing” (or Diesel oil “film strength testing”, if you prefer) effort I have coming up, has become fairly sizable, so it will be quite some time before it’s ready to share. In the meantime, I thought I’d do this zinc additive test since it would take far less time, and would be every bit as interesting. My apologies for this write-up being so long, because before I get into this test, I need to address a few questions that seem to keep coming up regarding this “wear testing”. That way, hopefully we can all be on the same page.

THE TESTER USED:

If someone shows up at your shop or puts on some kind of demonstration promoting some type of lubricant and pulls out one of those "one armed bandit" oil testers, with a torque wrench on it. Send him away or walk away before he wastes your time. Those one armed bandits were designed to hype a lubrication product, and can be very easily manipulated by how you apply the load. You can make the same oil look good or bad, depending on how “fast and abrupt” or “slow and easy” you apply that load. It is pure snake oil.

As for the testing I did for this thread, I specifically did NOT purchase one of those "one armed bandit" testers. With my tester, you have to apply small individual weights, one at a time, so as to gradually apply the load and not shock load the oil being tested. I perform every test "exactly the same", as much as humanly possible, while being extremely careful. Then to allow for minor variations, I perform multiple tests of each oil, and average all those results to arrive at the final posted value. But, even before I average those values, the testing I perform is so close to identical, that the variation between results is typically within 2 to 5%, which is quite good. And that clearly shows how all these oils compare head to head.

FOCUSING ON FILM STRENGTH:

My tester focuses on an oil’s “load carrying capability or film strength”, and for good reason. “THE” single most “CRITICAL” capability of any motor oil is its film strength. Every thing else it does for your engine comes “AFTER” that. Here’s why. When oil is down to a very thin film, it is the last line of defense against metal to metal contact and subsequent wear or damage. And oil film strength capability “DIRECTLY APPLIES” to flat tappet lobe/lifter interfaces, cam gear/distributor gear interfaces, and other highly loaded engine component interfaces. The higher an oil’s film strength, the better protected your engine is in these areas.

Oil film strength capability also “DIRECTLY APPLIES” to cold start-up conditions. In this case, only an oil film remains on most internal engine components, because most of the oil drained off after shut down. And it’s no secret that nearly all wear occurs during start-up when there can be a couple of seconds or even more, depending on the viscosity being used and the ambient air temperature, before a flow of oil reaches all the components. Before oil flow reaches the components, all you have saving your engine from wear or damage, is the oil’s film strength. So, that’s another very important reason why it’s beneficial to use an oil with an excellent film strength.

When Amsoil refers to wear scar size comparisons on their website, they are referencing oil film strength test data. A couple of years or so ago, when Castrol Edge and Valvoline SynPower ads talked about their oils providing better wear protection than Mobil 1, they were referencing oil film strength test data. Pennzoil Ultra currently advertises that no leading synthetic oil provides better wear protection, and they also reference oil film strength test data. The bottom line is that oil film strength testing and the resulting data, is the gold standard in the motor oil industry, regarding wear protection.

There is no additional value to performing more “comprehensive” oil testing related to wear prevention. Because when an oil is thicker than a mere film, it becomes “liquid” oil. And all liquids are incompressible, which of course is how hydraulics work. Since liquid oil is “NOT” compressible, where parts are separated by a flow of liquid oil, you “cannot” have metal to metal contact. For example, the oil between the crank and rod or main bearings, is "liquid" oil. And the "liquid" oil in that hydrodynamic wedge is incompressible, just like any liquid is. So, there is no need for any testing of a liquid oil condition, because incompressible liquids is just common knowledge in Physics.

And if conditions cause the flow of liquid oil to be squeezed out of the way, you are right back to being left with only an oil film, and the need for good film strength. To achieve metal to metal contact, and thus wear/damage, you have to go through the oil’s film strength to get there. And since liquid oil “CANNOT” be compressed, that means that “ALL” oils when in liquid form, provide the “SAME” level of wear protection. And this is “PRECISELY” why we perform “FILM STRENGTH” testing. Because the only thing that separates one oil from another oil, in terms of wear prevention, is the difference between their film strength capabilities. So, if an oil has sufficient film strength capability, then you are good to go when it comes to wear prevention.

My testing performs severe torture testing on motor oil, which is much harder on the oil, than what the oil will ever experience inside any running engine. This is a dynamic friction test under load, and the test results are determined by the size of the wear scar. And how good an oil is at preventing wear, high zinc or low zinc, is determined in a fair and straight forward manner. The numbers come out how they come out, depending on the capability of the oil.

All of the oils are tested at a representative normal operating oil temperature of 230*F, to make the comparison meaningful. By testing in this manner, it absolutely shows which oils are better at preventing wear than others. This is NOT Rocket Science. But, it is a real world test comparison. This type of testing allows you to test a multitude of oils EXACTLY THE SAME, under controlled and repeatable conditions, which you simply cannot do in a running engine. And you can see how they compare right away, without having to wait for 100,000 miles to find out what happened. With this testing methodology, you can quickly and easily distinguish between outstanding oils and merely ordinary oils.

NOTE: A motor oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength” capability is NOT the same thing as slipperiness or friction reduction. Therefore, this type of test data says nothing at all about the amount of Horsepower one oil will make vs another.

HIGH ZINC OILS VS LOW ZINC OILS:

Zinc is used as an extreme pressure, anti-wear additive, as most everyone knows. But, zinc “DOES NOT” build-up over time like some type of plating process. For those who have actually taken an engine apart that has been running high zinc oil, you know that you don’t find a build-up of zinc that looks like some sort of coating or sludge build-up. Zinc doesn’t work that way. And zinc is not even a lubricant until heat and load are applied. Zinc is only used when there is actual metal to metal contact in the engine. At that point zinc must react with the heat and load to create the sacrificial film that allows it to protect flat-tappet camshafts and other highly loaded engine parts. So, with zinc being sacrificial, it will become depleted over time as it is used up. This has been confirmed by analysis of new and used oil lab testing. And the literature from the “ZDDPlus” zinc additive folks also says the exact same thing, if you’d like to verify it there.

“Lab Testing” and “Wear Testing” analysis also shows that extra zinc does NOT provide BETTER wear protection, it only provides LONGER wear protection. This is not a new discovery at all. In fact, for what it’s worth, Ed Hackett wrote an article some years ago, titled “More than you ever wanted to know about Motor Oil”. And in that article he says the exact same thing, so it’s been well known for a long time. You can Google his article if you like, and see for yourself. And excessively HIGH zinc content can lead to INCREASED wear, due to its abrasive nature at high levels. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

So, you really don’t want or need a ton of zinc. You simply need “enough” so that you don’t run out of it with your particular application, that’s all. And this is precisely the reason why the motor oil “wear testing” I’ve been performing, has shown that the LEVEL of zinc does not affect how well an oil can provide wear protection. I’ve had many high zinc oils, as well as many low zinc oils, produce outstanding results in the wear testing. And I’ve also had high zinc oils as well as low zinc oils produce only modest results in the wear testing. Wear protection is determined only by the base oil and its additive package “as a whole”, and NOT just by how much zinc is present.

Modern API certified oils use alternate chemistry that is equal to, or better than zinc/phos, to replace much of the zinc/phos that might otherwise be used in those oils, so that the cats are not fouled in modern street vehicles. And most modern API SM and SN certified oils have shown in my wear testing to be quite good when it comes to providing wear protection.


LAB WEAR TESTING VS ENGINE WEAR TESTING:

It is essentially impossible to test dozens and dozens of oils inside a running engine with 100% identical conditions. And imagine how difficult it would be to remove every single drop of oil from inside an engine before you test the next oil. Because of course, any residual oil remaining would contaminate the next oil and skew the results for it. It would take a tear down between every oil test to ensure that there was absolutely no residual oil left.

Plus, you'd have tear the engine down anyway to blueprint it every time, in order to see how much wear took place. But, how many miles would you have to put on it to be sure you'd tested enough? How long do you think that would take when testing 50 or 60 different oils? A number of years, right? By then, some of the oils wouldn't even be available anymore. And then you'd also have to test the engine under the "exact same" conditions time after time, after time, which is basically impossible. So, the idea of accurately testing this many oils inside a running engine is completely out of the question.

The tester used here, was never intended to reflect exactly what goes on inside a running engine. It was designed to test “oil against oil”, nothing else. So, the whole point of my lab “wear testing” was to test oils directly against each other, head to head, back to back. Then see how they stacked up against each other. For example, if oil "A" has a 110,000 psi capability in this test, and oil "B" has only a 65,000 psi capability in this test, it’s not hard to understand the fact that oil "A" will provide a much higher level of reserve wear protection in a running engine as well.

But, keep in mind that I've never ever said that I found any BAD oils. Because I did NOT find any bad oils. Even the lowest ranked oil will still generally perform well enough in most applications. And that is precisely why you could have had an oil that has always worked well inside a running engine, yet find that it ranked only mid-pack, or even lower in this testing. However, like I said, “lower ranking” oils will not provide as much reserve wear protection as “higher ranking” oils.

The whole thing simply comes down to what is called "margin of safety" or extra reserve protection capability. Let's say the lowest ranked oil has a 20% margin of safety relative to your engine's needs, which means that the oil’s capability "exceeds" your engine's needs by 20%. So, you are in good shape and you will never see a problem. But, if something bad happens like an overheating condition, or an oiling condition, or a loading condition, or some parts heading south, or whatever, and your oil protection requirements increase to say 50% above your engine’s typical needs. Now you've just exceeded the oil’s capability by a whopping 30%, and your engine is junk. But, what if you'd been running an oil that had a whopping 70% margin of safety to begin with. In this case, when your engine’s needs went up 50%, but you still have another 20% capability above that. So, your engine would still live to fight another day.

It all comes down to how much margin of safety an individual is comfortable with for his particular engine combo. I'm one of those guys who runs a block, crank, pistons, rods, etc, that are capable of handling WAY more power than my weenie 800ish HP, 540 BBC will ever make. I simply feel better about having a LARGE margin of safety everywhere I can. And I'm the same way when it comes to the oil I run. So, I've chosen the oil with the highest wear protection capability, even though the oil with the lowest capability might work well enough under most circumstances. And that's whole point of all my oil testing, having the data to make an informed choice when it comes to choosing the best motor oil.

I did all this testing only for my own knowledge, because there is so much misinformation and misunderstanding about motor oil. And some buddies talked me into sharing the info on some of the Forums. But, I do NOT sell oil, and I do NOT get paid by any oil company. So, it doesn't matter to me what oil people buy, or why they buy, the oil they buy. That being the case, I have absolutely no reason to try to make one oil seem better than another. On the contrary, I'm only interested in seeing how they TRULY differ.

There is no Snake Oil pitch going on here. And I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm only sharing my findings. People can embrace my data or ignore it. It really doesn't matter to me. So, run whatever oil you like, but now you’ll have the data to see how oils rank, relative to each other.

So finally, on with the AFTERMARKET ZINC ADDITIVE TEST.

The motor oil companies have always insisted that we “NEVER EVER” add anything to their oil, because adding “ANYTHING” to it, will upset the carefully balanced additive package that they painstakingly designed for each of their oil products. And adding anything will only make the oil “WORSE” than it was to begin with, by altering its chemical properties. These Chemical Engineers and Chemists know what they are doing and are the experts for their own products. But, I’m well aware that a number of folks are either not aware of this warning, or else they simply choose to ignore it and use aftermarket oil additives anyway. They have no doubt been brainwashed by the high zinc folklore and figure they can do better than the motor oil companies themselves.

I thought it would be interesting to see who was right about all this. So, I selected the lowest ranked, low zinc oil from my previous “wear testing”, which was the Motorcraft 5W30, API SN full synthetic oil. It ranked 45th out of the 48 oils I’d tested so far, with a 68,782 psi “load carrying capacity/film strength” value, which put it in the “Modest Protection” category. I figured since this low zinc oil needed the most help, that it would show the clearest difference of all the oils on hand.

I also selected two aftermarket zinc additives to test in that oil. One was “ZDDPlus”, and the other was “Edelbrock Zinc Additive”. Not only would I be testing zinc additives in general, but I’d also be testing these two zinc products against each other, to see how they compared.

The Royal Purple Engineers I’ve spoken with, told me that the technology is not in place to ensure that every single batch of oil will be identical. So, if various bottles of otherwise identical oils are lab tested, they may well show different component amounts.

I wanted to add the appropriate amount of each zinc additive to its own bottle of oil, so I got two “NEW” bottles of the Motorcraft 5W30. But knowing that there can be variations between motor oil batches, I wanted to make sure that both bottles were absolutely identical. So, I poured both bottles into a clean pan, thoroughly mixed them, and poured them back into the bottles. Now I had two identical bottles of Motorcraft 5W30, API SN.

I sent a sample of this newly mixed and matched oil into to the lab for testing. That way, I could see exactly how this oil started out, to use that as a baseline for comparison. I also “wear tested” it again in this current configuration in order to know its actual “load carrying capacity/film strength” to use that as a baseline for comparison as well. The details are just below.

Once all that had been established, then I added the appropriate amount of each zinc additive to its own bottle of oil, thoroughly shook them, and sent a sample of each into the lab for testing. So, I’d be able to see exactly how each zinc additive had changed the make-up of the oil. Then finally, I was ready to perform the wear tests on each bottle of oil, to see how each type of zinc additive may have changed the oil’s wear prevention capability. Here’s the comparison:

Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, full synthetic, factory baseline version (from the two factory bottles mixed together):

Zinc = 1107 ppm
Phos = 758 ppm
Moly = 74 ppm

After repeated testing, the “load carrying capacity/film strength” = 64,166 psi at 230*F, which is the baseline for comparison to the oils below that have the zinc additives.

******

Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, full synthetic, now with the appropriate amount of “ZDDPlus” added:

Zinc = 2955 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
Phos = 2114 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
Moly = 76 ppm (up 2 ppm)

After repeated testing, the “load carrying capacity/film strength” = 56,243 psi at 230*F


YIKES!!! This is about 12% “BELOW” the factory baseline value above. In the ZDDPlus literature that comes with the bottles, it says that most motor oil additives are nothing more than automotive snake oil. So, it’s a bit ironic that their product appears to fall into the same category they were putting down.

******

Now, let’s take a look at the other zinc additive and see what it shows.

Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, full synthetic, now with the appropriate amount of “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added:

Zinc = 1680 ppm (up 573 ppm)
Phos = 1275 ppm (up 517 ppm)
Moly = 89 ppm (up 15 ppm)

After repeated testing, the “load carrying capacity/film strength” = 50,202 psi at 230*F

This is about 22% “BELOW” the factory baseline value above.

And keep in mind, that with my test procedure and equipment, having a resulting value below 60,000 psi, puts an oil into the weak UNDESIRABLE protection category.

WOW!!! I honestly didn’t see that coming. I never expected that there would be such a large reduction in capability. I’ve seen in my earlier testing that higher zinc levels did not equal higher protection levels. And I know the oil companies say that adding anything to their oils will only ruin them. But, I thought there might only be a little actual difference in capability, not such a “HUGE” drop.

Obviously the oil companies “DO KNOW” what they are talking about, and were right all along. And at the same time, this also gives my test equipment and test procedure some credibility, since my results exactly reflect what the oil companies have always said.

And no one can complain that my test equipment and test procedure do not allow high zinc oils to perform at their highest level. Because here are some high zinc (over 1100 ppm) conventional, semi-synthetic, and full synthetic oils that I’ve tested previously. They all had test results over 90,000 psi, which put them in the “OUTSTANDING PROTECTION” category.


10W30 Lucas Racing Only, full synthetic = 106,505 psi
zinc = 2642 ppm
phos = 3489 ppm
moly = 1764 ppm


10W30 Valvoline NSL (Not Street Legal) Conventional Racing Oil = 103,846 psi
zinc = 1669 ppm
phos = 1518 ppm
moly = 784 ppm


10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
zinc = 1472 ppm
phos = 1544 ppm


10W30 Valvoline VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle) = 101,139 psi
zinc = 1180 ppm
phos = 1112 ppm
moly = 162 ppm


30 wt Red Line Race Oil, full synthetic = 96,470 psi
zinc = 2207 ppm
phos = 2052 ppm
moly = 1235 ppm


10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil, full synthetic = 95,360 psi
zinc = 1431 ppm
phos = 1441 ppm
moly = 52 ppm


10W30 Quaker State Defy, API SL (semi-synthetic) = 90,226 psi
zinc = 1221 ppm
phos = 955 ppm
moly = 99 ppm

To provide the most honest, fair and accurate results possible, I thought I should make sure that my test equipment was still performing as it should. Call it a calibration check. So, I decided to dig out the original bottle of Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, full synthetic that I had tested months ago, which had its test results posted in my original “wear test” write-up. Up to now, that particular bottle had NOT been involved in this zinc additive testing.

The plan was to re-test this oil and see if it still matched up to its original values from several months ago. If the results did match up, within the normal range of 2 to 5% variation, then it would show that the tester was still performing up to par, and that those zinc additive test results were valid.

This oil’s original posted value had been 68,782 psi. Now, after several months and dozens and dozens of oil tests later, repeated testing shows its resulting value as 66,664 psi. This value only differs by 3% from the original posted value, which is quite good. And it is smack in the middle of the normal variation range, indicating that the test equipment is still spot on. So, that leaves us with those poor zinc additive test results being correct.

But, not wanting to base the whole wind-up on testing with only a single oil, I decided to test each zinc additive with two additional oils. That would ultimately test each additive with 3 different oils, which would absolutely tell the tale without any question. I had selected this first Motorcraft oil from the “Modest Protection” category. This time I decided to select one oil from the “Good Protection” category, and one oil from the “Outstanding Protection” category, for each zinc additive. And I’d include both conventional and full synthetic oils. That way, the zinc additives would have every opportunity to perform across a full range of oils.

For reference, the Oil categories are:

*** Over 90,000 psi = OUTSTANDING protection

*** 75,000 to 90,000 psi = GOOD protection

*** 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODEST protection

*** Below 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE protection


The “ZDDPlus” zinc additive will now also be tested in the following two oils:

Royal Purple 20W50, API SN, full synthetic, factory baseline version:

Zinc = 588 ppm
Phos = 697 ppm
Moly = 0 ppm

The original posted “load carrying capacity/film strength” = 83,487 psi at 230*F, and was ranked 34th out of 48 oils tested, which put it in the “Good Protection” category.

******

Royal Purple 20W50, API SN, full synthetic, now with the appropriate amount of “ZDDPlus” added:

Zinc = 2436 ppm
Phos = 2053 ppm
Moly = 2 ppm

After repeated testing, the “load carrying capacity/film strength” = 63,595 psi at 230*F

This is about 24% “BELOW” the factory baseline value just above. But, at least it is still in the “Modest Protection” category.


******

And now:

O’Reilly (house brand) 5W30, API SN, conventional, factory baseline version:

Zinc = 863 ppm
Phos = 816 ppm
Moly = 0 ppm

The original posted “load carrying capacity/film strength” = 91,433 psi at 230*F, and was ranked 25th out of 48 oils tested, which put it in the “Outstanding Protection” category.

******

O’Reilly (house brand) 5W30, API SN, conventional, now with the appropriate amount of “ZDDPlus” added:

Zinc = 2711 ppm
Phos = 2172 ppm
Moly = 2 ppm

After repeated testing, the “load carrying capacity/film strength” = 56,728 psi at 230*F

This is about 38% “BELOW” the factory baseline value just above.

So, there is nothing new after testing “ZDDPlus” in two additional oils.


******

Now let’s see how “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” does when also tested in two additional oils:


Royal Purple 5W30, API SN, full synthetic, factory baseline version:

Zinc = 942 ppm
Phos = 817 ppm
Moly = 0 ppm

The original posted “load carrying capacity/film strength” = 84,009 psi at 230*F, and was ranked 33rd out of 48 oils tested, which put it in the “Good Protection” category.

******

Royal Purple 5W30, API SN, full synthetic, now with the appropriate amount of “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added:

Zinc = 1515 ppm
Phos = 1334 ppm
Moly = 15 ppm

After repeated testing, the “load carrying capacity/film strength” = 54,044 psi at 230*F

This is about 36% “BELOW” the factory baseline value just above.

******

And now:

Lucas 5W30, API SN, conventional, factory baseline version:

Zinc = 992 ppm
Phos = 760 ppm
Moly = 0 ppm

The original posted “load carrying capacity/film strength” = 92,073 psi at 230*F, and was ranked 24th out of 48 oils tested, which put it in the “Outstanding Protection” category.

******

Lucas 5W30, API SN, conventional, now with the appropriate amount of “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added:

Zinc = 1565 ppm
Phos = 1277 ppm
Moly = 15 ppm

After repeated testing, the “load carrying capacity/film strength” = 51,545 psi at 230*F

This is about 44% “BELOW” the factory baseline value just above.

So, there is nothing new here either, after testing “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” in two additional oils.


SUMMARY

The “ZDDPlus” aftermarket zinc additive was tested in the 3 following oils:

O’Reilly (house brand) 5W30, API SN, conventional
With the resulting wear protection level falling 38% “BELOW” the original factory oil

Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, full synthetic
With the resulting wear protection level falling 12% “BELOW” the original factory oil

Royal Purple 20W50, API SN, full synthetic
With the resulting wear protection level falling 24% “BELOW” the original factory oil

Taking into account all 3 oils, the average “DROP” in protection level was about 25%. So, there is sadly nothing good to report here.



The “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” aftermarket zinc additive was tested in the 3 following oils:

Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, full synthetic
With the resulting wear protection level falling 22% “BELOW” the original factory oil

Lucas 5W30, API SN, conventional
With the resulting wear protection level falling 44% “BELOW” the original factory oil

Royal Purple 5W30, API SN, full synthetic, API SN, full synthetic
With the resulting wear protection level falling 36% “BELOW” the original factory oil

Taking into account all 3 oils, the average “DROP” in protection level was 34%. So, there is nothing good to report here either.

There is no point in even attempting to declare a winner between these two aftermarket zinc additives. Because, even though one is less bad than the other, they are both clearly awful.


CONCLUSION

The test results above, prove beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the motor oil companies are absolutely correct when they say that you should NEVER EVER add anything to their carefully balanced additive packages, because you will only make the oil WORSE by ruining its chemical properties.

Those who have used these or other additives over the years without causing engine damage, no doubt wonder why, considering the test data above. The answer is easy. As long as an engine’s demands on its oil, DO NOT EXCEED the oil’s “load carrying capacity/film strength”, then there will be no engine damage. It’s that simple. But, using an additive such as the ones tested here, will certainly REDUCE an oils reserve wear protection capability, or its margin of safety, which is just the opposite of what was surely intended. And that puts you CLOSER to engine failure than you would have been, if you hadn’t added anything to the oil in the first place.

What that means of course is that, the low zinc oil you were using, which was weakened by the aftermarket zinc additive, was actually still good enough to keep your engine running “IN SPITE” of that added zinc, not “BECAUSE” of that added zinc. And in the process, you’ve actually made a case for how good those low zinc oils are to begin with.

And that matches up exactly with the test results I’ve been seeing all along, which have shown that most of the latest low zinc oils are generally quite good. And has also shown that the “LEVEL” of zinc does not determine how good an oil is at preventing wear. How good an oil is at preventing wear is determined by its base oil and its factory additive package “as a whole”, and NOT just by how much zinc is present.

You can only tell how good an oil is at preventing wear, by performing some type of dynamic “wear testing” (or film strength testing, if you prefer) at representative temperatures. If you only look at zinc levels from an oil’s spec sheet or lab print out, you will only be fooling yourself about how good a given oil is.

A few words about STP and Lucas oil treatments. I didn’t test these products added to a motor oil. So, I can’t say for sure how they would perform. However, based on my past experience with STP as an assembly lube, I expect it absolutely would show an increase in “load carrying capacity/film strength”. But, it does have a couple of downsides that override any increase in wear protection. It increases an oil’s viscosity which will reduce flow. And both STP and Lucas oil treatments have been known to cause increased foaming issues. Obviously it would be wise to avoid both of those concerns.

Most folks would no doubt like to have the highest level of protection possible from the oil they choose. So, don’t shoot yourself in the foot by adding something to your oil. Just select the best oil for your needs, and use it as is. There is an appropriate oil available for every conceivable combo out there.

540 RAT
Expert
Expert

Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:21 pm
Location: Southern California
IF YOU CAN,T SMOKE THE TIRES AT WILL,FROM A 60 MPH ROLLING START YOUR ENGINE NEEDS MORE WORK!!"!
IF YOU CAN , YOU NEED BETTER TIRES AND YOUR SUSPENSION NEEDS MORE WORK!!
grumpyvette

User avatar
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14105
Joined: September 14th, 2008, 1:40 pm
Location: florida

Re: oil additives, do they work

Postby grumpyvette » May 8th, 2013, 10:36 am

Zinc Myth and Test Data on a Dozen more Oils
I have “Wear Test” data on a dozen more oils. Here’s how they all rank in terms of “wear protection capability”, just among themselves:

1. 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum, API SN synthetic = 99,949 psi
This oil is the next step “below” Pennzoil’s Ultra.

2. 5W30 Havoline, API SN conventional = 95,098 psi
Havoline used to be Texaco’s oil brand, but since Chevron took them over, it is now a Chevron brand. It appears that this oil may be a re-bottled version of 5W30 Chevron Supreme oil.

3. 10W60 Castrol TWS Motorsport, API SJ conventional = 90,163 psi
This oil is manufactured in Europe and is sold in the US for BMW models M3, M5, M6, Z4M, and Z8. This is a somewhat odd multi-viscosity, so the interest here was to get some insight as to why BMW calls for this oil in some of their models.

4. 5W30 Havoline, API SN synthetic = 89,406 psi
Havoline used to be Texaco’s oil brand, but since Chevron took them over, it is now a Chevron brand

5. 5W30 Valvoline Nextgen 50% Recycled Oil, API SN conventional = 87,563 psi
The interest here was to see just how good recycled oil might be.

6. 5W30 Castrol Edge w/Syntec, API SN (formerly Castrol Syntec) black bottle, synthetic = 85,179 psi
The Castrol Edge w/Syntec line of oil, falls well below the capability of the Castrol Edge w/Titanium line, which is Castrol’s top of the line oil.

7. 5W30 Peak, API SN synthetic = 80,716 psi
I was curious to see how their oil line shaped up.

8. 5W30 Edelbrock "Cat-Safe", API SM synthetic = 78,609 psi
This oil is made for Edelbrock by Torco

9. 5W30 Pennzoil, API SN yellow bottle, conventional = 76,989 psi

10. 10W40 Chevron Supreme, API SN conventional = 76,806 psi

11. 5W30 Peak, API SN conventional = 73,690 psi

12. 10W40 Summit Racing Premium Racing Oil, API SL conventional = 59,483 psi
This oil is made for Summit by I.L.C.
The bottle makes some bold claims, such as:

* Double the zinc for superior flat tappet cam protection.

* The additive package contains 1800 ppm ZDDP, providing levels of protection unattainable from conventional motor oil. Provides excellent protection from metal to metal contact.

Problem is, this oil fell FAR SHORT of living up to that inflated boasting. These claims were obviously created by the Marketing Department with no regard for what this oil can actually do. This oil ranked a pathetic 85th out of the 94 new oils I’ve tested so far. And once again, the supposed high levels of zinc DID NOT help this oil perform very well. Buyer beware. Motor oils are among the worst products for false advertising.

Now let’s consider that claim of 1800ppm ZDDP. Is that 1800ppm the TOTAL if you add the zinc and the phos individually? Or is that 1800ppm of zinc AND 1800ppm of phos? Or is it something else? When people throw around ZDDP values, do they even know what they are saying? I will be Lab Testing this oil soon to see just what is really in it, and to see how that claim of 1800ppm ZDDP compares to reality. I’ll post my findings when they are available, so stay tuned for that.

This Summit oil and the Castrol 10W60 oil have appeared in recent posts of my motor oil wear protection ranking list, but they have not appeared in any write-up until now. Below is some motor oil tech info, info on my testing, and my latest complete motor oil ranking list, which now includes the 12 oils above.

You DO NOT need a high level of zinc in your motor oil for adequate wear protection in high performance engines, not even for flat tappet engines. Contrary to popular belief, the zinc level alone is NOT what determines an oil’s wear protection capability. Zinc does NOT build up a coating on parts like some sort of plating process. Zinc is consumed/sacrificed A LITTLE AT A TIME as needed by the heat and load on mating parts, to help prevent wear as the engine is operated. And it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for more zinc to provide more wear protection, because zinc simply does NOT work that way. More zinc simply lasts longer because it takes longer for a larger quantity of it to be depleted. It’s much like the way more gas in your tank takes longer to run out, but more gas in your tank does NOT give you more HP.

The thinking that more zinc provides more wear protection is only FOLKLORE that has been repeated so many times that most people just ASSUME it’s true without any proof. And repeating wrong information a million times will NOT magically make it become true. Among those who just assume it is true, includes people at Cam Companies, and even people at some of the smaller Oil Companies who apparently don’t bother to perform any wear protection testing, since their oils often fall WAY SHORT of their own outlandish hype. The fact is, there is absolutely NO real world test data proof to back up the incorrect urban legend that more zinc is needed for more protection. That is merely a MYTH that has been BUSTED by actual real world dynamic motor oil wear testing under load. An oil’s wear protection capability is determined by its base oil and additive package “as a whole”, NOT just by how much zinc is present. And newer motor oil anti-wear additive components that have replaced a good percentage of the zinc that used to be used, are equal to or better than zinc. There is absolutely NOTHING magical about zinc that makes it the only component worthy of being used.

If someone insists that you must have high levels of zinc for adequate wear protection in high performance engines, no matter WHO they are, and no matter WHAT Company they may represent, ask them to PROVE IT by providing actual REAL WORLD TEST DATA that backs up that claim (and mere links to Internet Oil articles that call for high levels of zinc, is NOT real world test data proof). But, they will NOT be able to prove that old myth, because as mentioned above, zinc simply does NOT work that way. Some high zinc oils provide excellent wear protection, while other high zinc oils provide very poor wear protection. So, you can throw away that useless motor oil zinc level reference chart. Because it cannot help you choose the best oil for protecting your engine. If you rely on zinc levels alone, to choose what you "think" is the best oil, you can very easily shoot yourself in the foot, and NOT end up with the wear protection you think you have.

You can use the link just below, to take a look at a GM Motor Oil Report titled, “Oil Myths from GM Techlink”, which backs up the facts above and matches my own motor oil wear test results. If the link below does not take you directly to the website, then Copy/Paste the link in your browser:

http://www.nonlintec.com/sprite/oil_myths.pdf

This GM Oil Report is meaningful regardless of how stiff the valve springs were in their test engines. Because they were looking at wear protection capability DIFFERENCES between various levels of zinc/phos, and their finding that “more was NOT better” (the same thing I found in my testing), applies to wear protection in any engine, no matter what the spring pressures are.

I have performed extensive motor oil “Wear Testing” over the past year or so, to measure the “Load carrying capacity/Film strength” of nearly a hundred different motor oils. The results of this dynamic friction testing under load, are used to compare the wear protection capability of the various oils. I’ve done this because I wanted to cut through all the misinformation and misunderstanding that is out there about motor oil, get to the truth, and to find out what the FACTS really are. The resulting oil test data is NOT a theory. It is NOT an opinion. It is the real deal, because it is REAL WORLD TEST DATA, just like engine dyno output data is real world test data.

The motor oil tester I use, is a valuable tool for determining an oil’s operating characteristics, yet it is not testing oil inside an engine, because that is simply impractical on a scale this large. It is somewhat similar to how an engine dyno is a valuable tool for determining an engine’s operating characteristics, yet it is not a test of an engine inside a car going down the track or road.

Every single oil I test, is subjected to the EXACT SAME test procedure for an accurate back to back comparison with other oils. My tester and test procedure provide very consistent and repeatable results. And yet, rather than rely on only a single test value, I test each oil multiple times, then those results are averaged. This allows the most accurate and representative final value to be reached for comparison. So, every oil has the exact same opportunity to perform as well as its chemical composition will allow.

As a calibration check to make sure that the tester is always consistent, I periodically recheck the number one highest ranked oil that achieved that ranking position around a year or so ago. No matter when I recheck it, and no matter what kind of test values any other oils have been generating in between, that number one oil has always retested to within a couple of percent or so of its original highest ranking value. That shows me that the test value generated by any oil is correct, because the tester is still operating exactly the same as it always has. Even though I am not splitting atoms here, I do everything I can to ensure that all the test results are accurate, meaningful and worthy of comparison.

My tester is NOT a “One Armed Bandit” tester that can have its manually operated loading arm manipulated by the operator to provide false data to promote a certain product. I purposely did NOT get one of those testers, because I’m only interested in the facts, NOT propaganda. My tester does NOT even have an arm that is manually operated. On my tester, small individual weights are applied one at a time to gradually increase the applied load, so that the oil is not shock loaded, which could artificially penetrate the oil’s film, and invalidate the results.

I don’t sell oil, and I don’t get paid by any Oil Companies, so I have no vested interest in what oil people buy or use. But, I share my test data on Forums as a courtesy to other like-minded gearheads, for them to make use of for choosing the best possible oil for their needs, if they choose to. This dynamic motor oil wear testing is straight forward and most technically knowledgeable gearheads have no problem seeing the value in it. And they understand the significance of this type of motor oil test data, which CANNOT be found ANYWHERE else. This is the ONLY data available where this many oils are all tested on the same equipment, at the same representative temperature, using the same procedure, by the same operator. So, this is the best apples to apples motor oil comparison information you will ever find. I get a good number of PM’s and emails from folks thanking me for my data. A lot of people do appreciate it and make use of it. Even a number of other Degreed Engineers I know, use it to choose their own oil. And some people even post copies of it and links to it, all over the Internet. On top of that, quite a few folks have sent me oil to test for them. So, I do have a lot of supporters who consider this test data their best source for motor oil comparison.

On the flip side, there will always be those who disagree with information that is posted. And that’s fine, because everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But, there are usually a few guys who don’t want to engage in a normal discussion, and immediately get nasty, insulting, and make incorrect comments and assumptions without even knowing what they are talking about. Though, some of them “think” they are motor oil experts simply because they’ve done some Internet research. Yeah right, if something is on the Internet, it has to be true……..NOT!! But, these people believe everything they read about zinc being the answer to everything, and take it at face value even with no supporting test data to back it up. Yet, they do not believe the actual real world test data I provide, nor do they believe that GM Oil Report above that backs up my findings. Go figure. But, they feel the need to attack my data, even though they have never done any back to back oil testing themselves, and have absolutely no real world test data of their own to backup what they say. It is almost comical when they do that, because it just points out that they are NOT technically capable of comprehending the significance and value of this real world test data, which is not difficult to grasp.

And you don’t have to be a Rocket Scientist to know that real world testing trumps Internet articles every day of the week. The concept of product performance “lab testing” like I’ve done, is commonly used throughout many, many industries. So, none of the kicking and screaming these guys do, will change the Physics involved, nor change the oil’s chemical formulation that generated the test results. In other words, shooting the messenger will not change the FACTS of the oil test results. And rather than asking questions and learning something, these guys just want to argue, make foolish comments, and embarrass themselves. It is their loss, since they cannot get any meaningful direction from a useless zinc level reference chart. So, they’ll just have to guess which oils provide outstanding wear protection and which oils do not. And we all know how much guessing is worth.

I let the test data show me what’s truly going on, because that is absolute. And as mentioned above, my test results mirror the results of that GM Oil Report above, which is further proof that my test data is spot on. Also, a good number of folks, who understand and appreciate my test data, have asked me to continue posting it, in spite of what the naysayers say. And my oil test write-ups typically get a lot of views and replies on the Forums. It's not unusual for some of my write-ups to get thousands of views and hundreds of replies. This shows that there is a tremendous amount of interest in my write-ups on actual real world testing of motor oil. So, I will continue posting that data for the folks who want to know the FACTS about motor oil. And if the non-believers don’t like that, they can always close out and go on to the next topic.

I’ve also wear tested a handful of used oils, both synthetic and conventional, that had 5,000 miles on them. And in every case, there was NO REDUCTION what so ever, in wear protection capability, even though the zinc levels had dropped by around 25% on average. So, this is even further proof that the zinc level is not tied to a motor oil’s wear protection capability.

We also still see from time to time, wiped lobes in properly built flat tappet engines that were using high zinc oils. And flat tappet users will typically use a somewhat elaborate procedure to try and NOT wipe any lobes during break-in of a new cam and lifter set, even when using high zinc oils. And they will also often add in zinc additives to further increase the zinc level. But, adding zinc additives to any oil is a huge mistake, no matter what those snake oil salesmen claim. Most major oil companies say to NEVER EVER add anything to their oils, because doing so will upset the oil’s carefully balanced additive package. I tested doing that very thing in several different oils, and found that adding zinc additives in every case, ruined the oil by significantly REDUCING its wear protection capability. That of course, is just the opposite of what people “think” they will be getting. Those oil Companies were absolutely correct about not adding anything to their oil. So, when people follow that high zinc level nonsense, they are often making things WORSE, not better. If people chose an oil based on its “wear protection capability” rather than its “zinc level”, then a lot of oiling concerns would go away. And losing sleep over flat tappet break-in would be a thing of the past.

Performing some type of oil film strength testing is ABSOLUTELY THE ONLY WAY to determine an oil’s wear protection capability, because an oil's film strength is the last line of defense against metal to metal contact. In order to reach metal to metal contact, and subsequent wear or damage, you MUST penetrate the film strength of the oil. And oil thicker than a mere film becomes liquid oil. Of course liquids are NOT compressible, which is how hydraulics work. Since liquids cannot be compressed, ALL oils provide THE SAME wear protection when they are in liquid form, no matter if they cost $1.00 per quart or $20.00 per quart. So, oil film strength testing the GOLD STANDARD for determining how capable an oil is at preventing wear, and how different oils directly compare to each other. In other words, the ONLY THING that separates one oil's ability to prevent wear from another oil's ability to prevent wear, is the difference in their individual film strength capabilities.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, oil film strength capability DIRECTLY APPLIES to flat tappet lobe/lifter interfaces, cam gear/distributor gear interfaces, mechanical fuel pump pushrod tip/cam eccentric interfaces and other highly loaded engine component interfaces.

Due to size limitations, the ranking list will be posted below.

540 RAT
IF YOU CAN,T SMOKE THE TIRES AT WILL,FROM A 60 MPH ROLLING START YOUR ENGINE NEEDS MORE WORK!!"!
IF YOU CAN , YOU NEED BETTER TIRES AND YOUR SUSPENSION NEEDS MORE WORK!!
grumpyvette

User avatar
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14105
Joined: September 14th, 2008, 1:40 pm
Location: florida

Re: oil additives, do they work

Postby grumpyvette » May 8th, 2013, 10:37 am

Here's the ranking list:

For those folks who are interested in this real world test data, below is the “Load Carrying Capacity/Film Strength” ranking list from all the real world motor oil “Wear Testing” I’ve performed so far on new oils, at a representative operational temperature of 230*F. The list includes modern API certified low zinc oils, traditional high zinc High Performance/Racing oils, Diesel oils, low zinc oils with zinc additives added in, and Break-In oils.

Lower ranked oils are not necessarily “bad”, they simply don’t provide as much wear protection capability as higher ranked oils. If you have been running a low ranked oil in your engine without issue, that doesn't mean you have a great oil, it only means that your engine's wear protection needs have not exceeded that oil's capability. And as long as your engine's needs don't exceed that oil's capability, you will never have a problem. But, if unexpected circumstances come up that make your engine's needs exceed that oil's capability, such as an overheating condition, an oiling condition, a loading condition, some parts heading south, or whatever, your engine can end up junk. But, if you'd been using an oil with a much higher capability, it could still provide enough extra protection to save your engine. So, each person has to decide for themselves, which motor oil provides the wear protection capability they are comfortable with, for any given engine build.

All oil bottles involved in the testing were thoroughly shaken before the samples were taken. This ensured that all the additive package components were distributed uniformly throughout all the oil in the bottle, and not settled to the bottom.

Test result differences between oils of less than 10% are not significant, and oils within that range can be considered approximately equivalent.

An oil's "wear protection" capability that was tested here, and an oil's "friction reduction" capability, are two entirely different things. While this test data provides excellent information about an oil's ability to prevent wear, it says nothing about an oil's ability to reduce friction. So, the data here will not provide any information regarding differences in HP potential.

The ppm quantities of zinc, phos, moly and in some cases titanium, shown in the list, are directly from the Lab Reports that came back from the Professional Lab “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada. Some oils have more zinc than phos, while other oils have more phos than zinc. It just depends on the particular oil’s formulation. Either way, the numbers are correct and are NOT typos.

NOTE: The higher the psi value, the BETTER the wear protection. And this applies to ANY engine, including High Performance flat tappet engines.

That psi value is determined by the testing "load" being applied (which of course, is the EXACT SAME for every oil tested), over the "area" of the wear scar that is created on the test specimen, as the test is being performed. So, the result is "pounds" of force being applied over the wear scar "area", which is in square inches. Or in other words, pounds per square inch, which of course is just shortened to "psi". The better an oil's wear protection capability, the smaller the wear scar will be on the test specimen, and the higher the resulting psi value will be.


Oil categories for gasoline engines:

• Over 90,000 psi = OUTSTANDING wear protection

• 75,000 to 90,000 psi = GOOD wear protection

• 60,000 to 75,000 psi = MODEST wear protection

• Below 60,000 psi = UNDESIRABLE wear protection




1. 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM synthetic = 115,612 psi
I have not been able to find this oil with the latest API SN certification. The bottle says, “No leading synthetic oil provides better wear protection”. For once, a product’s hype turns out to be true. And this oil provides MORE THAN TWICE as much wear protection as the lowest ranked oil on this list.
zinc = 806 ppm
phos = 812 ppm
moly = 66 ppm

2. 10W30 Lucas Racing Only synthetic = 106,505 psi
zinc = 2642 ppm
phos = 3489 ppm
moly = 1764 ppm
NOTE: This oil is suitable for short term racing use only, and is not suitable for street use.

3. 5W30 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 105,875 psi
zinc = 801 ppm
phos = 842 ppm
moly = 112 ppm

4. 0W30 Amsoil Signature Series 25,000 miles, API SN synthetic = 105,008 psi
zinc = 824 ppm
phos = 960 ppm
moly = 161 ppm


5. 10W30 Valvoline NSL (Not Street Legal) Conventional Racing Oil = 103,846 psi
zinc = 1669 ppm
phos = 1518 ppm
moly = 784 ppm
NOTE: This oil is suitable for short term racing use only, and is not suitable for street use.

6. 5W50 Motorcraft, API SN synthetic = 103,517 psi
zinc = 606 ppm
phos = 742 ppm
moly = 28 ppm

7. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Conventional Racing Oil (silver bottle) = 103,505 psi
zinc = 1472 ppm
phos = 1544 ppm
moly = 3 ppm

8. 10W30 Valvoline VR1 Synthetic Racing Oil, API SL (black bottle) = 101,139 psi
zinc = 1180 ppm
phos = 1112 ppm
moly = 162 ppm

9. 5W30 Chevron Supreme, API SN conventional = 100,011 psi
This oil only cost $4.29 per quart at an Auto Parts Store when I bought it.
zinc = 1018 ppm
phos = 728 ppm
moly = 161 ppm

10. 5W20 Castrol Edge with Titanium, API SN synthetic = 99,983 psi
zinc = 1042 ppm
phos = 857 ppm
moly = 100 ppm
titanium = 49 ppm

11. 5W30 Pennzoil Platinum, API SN synthetic = 99,949 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

12. 20W50 Castrol GTX ,API SN conventional = 96,514 psi
zinc = 610 ppm
phos = 754 ppm
moly = 94 ppm

13. 30 wt Red Line Race Oil synthetic = 96,470 psi
zinc = 2207 ppm
phos = 2052 ppm
moly = 1235 ppm
NOTE: This oil is suitable for short term racing use only, and is not suitable for street use.

14. 0W20 Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy, API SN synthetic = 96,364 psi
zinc = 742 ppm
phos = 677 ppm
moly = 81 ppm

15. 5W30 Quaker State Ultimate Durability, API SN synthetic = 95,920 psi
zinc = 877 ppm
phos = 921 ppm
moly = 72 ppm

16. 5W30 Castrol Edge with Titanium, API SN synthetic = 95,717 psi
zinc = 818 ppm
phos = 883 ppm
moly = 90 ppm
titanium = 44 ppm

17. 10W30 Joe Gibbs XP3 NASCAR Racing Oil synthetic = 95,543 psi
zinc = 743 ppm
phos = 802 ppm
moly = 1125 ppm
NOTE: This oil is suitable for short term racing use only, and is not suitable for street use.

18. 5W20 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional = 95,543 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
NOTE: Oil numbers 17 and 18 were tested weeks apart, but due to the similarities in their wear scar sizes, their averages ended up the same.

19. 5W30 Castrol GTX ,API SN conventional = 95,392 psi
zinc = 830 ppm
phos = 791 ppm
moly = 1 ppm

20. 10W30 Amsoil Z-Rod Oil synthetic = 95,360 psi
zinc = 1431 ppm
phos = 1441 ppm
moly = 52 ppm

21. 5W30 Havoline, API SN conventional = 95,098 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

22. 5W30 Valvoline SynPower, API SN synthetic = 94,942 psi
zinc = 969 ppm
phos = 761 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

23. 5W30 Valvoline Premium Conventional, API SN = 94,744 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

24. 5W20 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 94,663 psi
zinc = 764 ppm
phos = 698 ppm
moly = 76 ppm

25. 5W20 Valvoline SynPower, API SN synthetic = 94,460 psi
zinc = 1045 ppm
phos = 742 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

26. 5W30 Lucas, API SN conventional = 92,073 psi
zinc = 992 ppm
phos = 760 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

27. 5W30 O'Reilly (house brand), API SN conventional = 91,433 psi
This oil only cost $3.99 per quart at an Auto Parts Store when I bought it.
zinc = 863 ppm
phos = 816 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

28. 5W30 Maxima RS530 Synthetic Racing Oil = 91,162 psi
zinc = 2162 ppm
phos = 2294 ppm
moly = 181 ppm

29. 5W30 Red Line, API SN synthetic = 91,028 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

30. 5W20 Royal Purple API SN synthetic = 90,434 psi
zinc = 964 ppm
phos = 892 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

31. 10W30 Quaker State Defy, API SL semi-synthetic = 90,226 psi
zinc = 1221 ppm
phos = 955 ppm
moly = 99 ppm

32. 10W60 Castrol TWS Motorsport, API SJ conventional = 90,163 psi
This oil is manufactured in Europe and is sold in the US for BMW models M3, M5, M6, Z4M, and Z8.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

33. 5W20 Valvoline Premium Conventional, API SN = 90,144 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

34. 5W30 Havoline, API SN synthetic = 89,406 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

35. 30 wt Castrol Heavy Duty, API SM conventional = 88,089 psi
zinc = 907 ppm
phos = 829 ppm
moly = 56 ppm

36. 20W50 LAT Synthetic Racing Oil, API SM = 87,930 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

37. 5W30 Valvoline Nextgen 50% Recycled Oil, API SN conventional = 87,563 psi
zinc = 947 ppm
phos = 778 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

38. 10W30 Joe Gibbs HR4 Hotrod Oil synthetic = 86,270 psi
zinc = 1247 ppm
phos = 1137 ppm
moly = 24 ppm

39. 5W20 Pennzoil Ultra, API SM synthetic = 86,034 psi
I have not been able to find this oil with the latest API SN certification.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

40. 15W40 RED LINE Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4/CI-4 PLUS/CI-4/CF/CH-4/CF-4/SM/SL/SH/EO-O = 85,663 psi
zinc = 1615 ppm
phos = 1551 ppm
moly = 173 ppm

41. 5W30 Castrol Edge w/Syntec, API SN (formerly Castrol Syntec) black bottle, synthetic = 85,179 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

42. 5W30 Royal Purple API SN synthetic = 84,009 psi
zinc = 942 ppm
phos = 817 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

43. 20W50 Royal Purple API SN synthetic = 83,487 psi
zinc = 588 ppm
phos = 697 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

44. 20W50 Kendall GT-1 High Performance with liquid titanium, API SN conventional = 83,365 psi
zinc = 991 ppm
phos = 1253 ppm
moly = 57 ppm
titanium = 84 ppm

45. 5W30 Mobil 1 Extended Performance 15,000 mile, API SN synthetic = 83,263 psi
zinc = 890 ppm
phos = 819 ppm
moly = 104 ppm

46. 0W20 Castrol Edge with Titanium, API SN synthetic = 82,867 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

47. 5W30 LAT Synthetic Racing Oil, API SM = 81,800 psi
zinc = 1784 ppm
phos = 1539 ppm
moly = 598 ppm

48. 5W30 Peak, API SN synthetic = 80,716 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

49. 5W30 Edelbrock "Cat-Safe", API SM synthetic = 78,609 psi
This oil is made for Edelbrock by Torco
zinc = 924 ppm
phos = 659 ppm
moly = 28 ppm

50. 15W40 ROYAL PURPLE Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4 /SM, CI-4 PLUS, CH-4, CI-4 = 76,997 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

51. 5W30 Pennzoil, API SN yellow bottle, conventional = 76,989 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

52. 10W40 Chevron Supreme, API SN conventional = 76,806 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

53. 5W30 Lucas API SM synthetic = 76,584 psi
zinc = 1134 ppm
phos = 666 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

54. 5W30 GM's AC Delco dexos 1 API SN semi-synthetic = 76,501 psi
zinc = 878 ppm
phos = 758 ppm
moly = 72 ppm

55. 5W50 Castrol Edge with Syntec API SN, synthetic, formerly Castrol Syntec, black bottle = 75,409 psi
zinc = 1252 ppm
phos = 1197 ppm
moly = 71 ppm

56. 5W30 Royal Purple XPR (Extreme Performance Racing) synthetic = 74,860 psi
zinc = 1421 ppm
phos = 1338 ppm
moly = 204 ppm
NOTE: This particular bottle of oil was just opened, but was out of a 3 ½ year old case.

57. 5W40 MOBIL 1 TURBO DIESEL TRUCK synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4 and ACEA E7 = 74,312 psi
zinc = 1211 ppm
phos = 1168 ppm
moly = 2 ppm

58. 5W30 Peak, API SN conventional = 73,690 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

59. 15W40 CHEVRON DELO 400LE Diesel Oil, conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CF-4,CF/SM, = 73,520 psi
zinc = 1519 ppm
phos = 1139 ppm
moly = 80 ppm

60. 15W40 MOBIL DELVAC 1300 SUPER Diesel Oil conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4/SM, SL = 73,300 psi
zinc = 1297 ppm
phos = 1944 ppm
moly = 46 ppm

61. 15W40 Farm Rated Heavy Duty Performance Diesel Oil conventional CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF/SL, SJ = 73,176 psi
zinc = 1325ppm
phos = 1234 ppm
moly = 2 ppm

62. 15W40 SHELL ROTELLA T Diesel Oil conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CH-4, CF-4,CF/SM = 72,022 psi
zinc = 1454 ppm
phos = 1062 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

63. Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 Nitro 70 Racing Oil semi-synthetic = 72,003 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

64. 0W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 semi-synthetic = 71,377 psi
zinc = 1621 ppm
phos = 1437 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

65. 15W40 “OLD” SHELL ROTELLA T Diesel Oil conventional, API CI-4 PLUS, CI-4, CH-4,CG-4,CF-4,CF,SL, SJ, SH = 71,214 psi
zinc = 1171 ppm
phos = 1186 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

66. 10W30 Brad Penn, Penn Grade 1 semi-synthetic = 71,206 psi
zinc = 1557 ppm
phos = 1651 ppm
moly = 3 ppm

67. 15W40 VALVOLINE PREMIUM BLUE HEAVY DUTY DIESEL Oil conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SM = 70,869 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

68. 15W50 Mobil 1, API SN synthetic = 70,235 psi
zinc = 1,133 ppm
phos = 1,168 ppm
moly = 83 ppm

69. 5W40 CHEVRON DELO 400LE Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, SL, SM = 69,631 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

70. 30wt Edelbrock Break-In Oil conventional = 69,160 psi
zinc = 1545 ppm
phos = 1465 ppm
moly = 4 ppm

71. 5W30 Motorcraft, API SN synthetic = 68,782 psi
zinc = 796 ppm
phos = 830 ppm
moly = 75 ppm

72. 10W40 Edelbrock synthetic = 68,603 psi
zinc = 1193 ppm
phos = 1146 ppm
moly = 121 ppm
This oil is manufactured for Edelbrock by Torco.


73. 5W40 SHELL ROTELLA T6 Diesel Oil synthetic, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, SM, SL = 67,804 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

74. 15W40 LUCAS MAGNUM Diesel Oil, conventional, API CI-4,CH-4, CG-4, CF-4, CF/SL = 66,476 psi
zinc = 1441 ppm
phos = 1234 ppm
moly = 76 ppm

75. 15W40 CASTROL GTX DIESEL Oil conventional, API CJ-4, CI-4 Plus, CI-4, CH-4, CG-4, CF-4/SN = 66,323 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

76. 10W30 Royal Purple HPS (High Performance Street) synthetic = 66,211 psi
zinc = 1774 ppm
phos = 1347 ppm
moly = 189 ppm

77. 10W40 Valvoline 4 Stroke Motorcycle Oil, API SJ conventional = 65,553 psi
zinc = 1154 ppm
phos = 1075 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

78. 5W30 Klotz Estorlin Racing Oil, API SL synthetic = 64,175 psi
zinc = 1765 ppm
phos = 2468 ppm
moly = 339 ppm

79. “ZDDPlus” added to Royal Purple 20W50, API SN, synthetic = 63,595 psi
zinc = 2436 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2053 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
moly = 2 ppm (up 2 ppm)

The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 24% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Most major Oil Companies say to NEVER add anything to their oils, because adding anything will upset the carefully balanced additive package, and ruin the oil’s chemical composition. And that is precisely what we see here. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised. Buyer beware.

80. Royal Purple 10W30 Break-In Oil conventional = 62,931 psi
zinc = 1170 ppm
phos = 1039 ppm
moly = 0 ppm

81. 10W30 Lucas Hot Rod & Classic Hi-Performance Oil, conventional = 62,538 psi
zinc = 2116 ppm
phos = 1855 ppm
moly = 871 ppm

82. 0W20 Klotz Estorlin Racing Oil, API SL synthetic = 60,941 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

83. 10W30 Comp Cams Muscle Car & Street Rod Oil, synthetic blend = 60,413 psi
zinc = 1673 ppm
phos = 1114 ppm
moly = 67 ppm
This oil is manufactured for Comp Cams by Endure.

84. 10W40 Torco TR-1 Racing Oil with MPZ conventional = 59,905 psi
zinc = 1456 ppm
phos = 1150 ppm
moly = 227 ppm

85. 10W40 Summit Racing Premium Racing Oil, API SL = 59,483 psi
This oil is made for Summit by I.L.C.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD

86. 10W40 Edelbrock conventional = 59,120 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This oil is manufactured for Edelbrock by Torco.

87. 0W20 LAT Synthetic Racing Oil, API SM = 57,228 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD


88. “ZDDPlus” added to O’Reilly (house brand) 5W30, API SN, conventional = 56,728 psi
zinc = 2711 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2172 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
moly = 2 ppm (up 2 ppm)

The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 38% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised. Buyer beware.


89. “ZDDPlus” added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 56,243 psi
zinc = 2955 ppm (up 1848 ppm)
phos = 2114 ppm (up 1356 ppm)
moly = 76 ppm (up 2 ppm)

The amount of ZDDPlus added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 12% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the ZDDPlus was added to it. Adding ZDDPlus SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised. Buyer beware.

90. “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Royal Purple 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 54,044 psi
zinc = 1515 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1334 ppm (up 517 ppm)
moly = 15 ppm (up 15 ppm)

The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was a whopping 36% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised. Buyer beware.

91. 10W30 Comp Cams Break-In Oil conventional = 51,749 psi
zinc = 3004 ppm
phos = 2613 ppm
moly = 180 ppm

92. “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Lucas 5W30, API SN, conventional = 51,545 psi
zinc = 1565 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1277 ppm (up 517 ppm)
moly = 15 ppm (up 15 ppm)

The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was a “breath taking” 44% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised. Buyer beware.

93. “Edelbrock Zinc Additive” added to Motorcraft 5W30, API SN, synthetic = 50,202 psi
zinc = 1680 ppm (up 573 ppm)
phos = 1275 ppm (up 517 ppm)
moly = 89 ppm (up 15 ppm)

The amount of Edelbrock Zinc Additive added to the oil, was the exact amount the manufacturer called for on the bottle. And the resulting psi value here was 22% LOWER than this oil had BEFORE the Edelbrock Zinc Additive was added to it. Adding Edelbrock Zinc Additive SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED this oil’s wear prevention capability. Just the opposite of what was promised. Buyer beware.

94. 30wt Lucas Break-In Oil conventional = 49,455 psi
zinc = 4483 ppm
phos = 3660 ppm
moly = 3 ppm

At the end of the day, it is not my goal to convince anyone of anything. I’m simply sharing valuable real world test data for folks to consider. Everyone can obviously decide for themselves if they want to embrace this data and make use of it, or if they simply want to ignore it.

540 RAT
Member SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
IF YOU CAN,T SMOKE THE TIRES AT WILL,FROM A 60 MPH ROLLING START YOUR ENGINE NEEDS MORE WORK!!"!
IF YOU CAN , YOU NEED BETTER TIRES AND YOUR SUSPENSION NEEDS MORE WORK!!
grumpyvette

User avatar
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14105
Joined: September 14th, 2008, 1:40 pm
Location: florida

Re: oil additives, do they work

Postby grumpyvette » July 7th, 2013, 10:30 pm

Testing David Vizard’s Oil Extreme

Postby 540 RAT » Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:32 pm
I’ve been skeptical of Automotive Celebrity types endorsing and promoting motor oil products, ever since NHRA’s #1 all time Drag Racer “Big Daddy” Don Garlits started hyping ZDDPlus zinc additive. People can do whatever they want with their reputation and credibility. But, since I’ve always been a fan of Big Daddy, personally, I felt bad for him after he signed on with that product.

I’m sure those ZDDPlus folks are good people who mean well, but they simply DO NOT understand what it takes to improve an oil’s wear protection capability, and/or they never do any testing. Because when I tested that product in 3 different low zinc oils to find out what the oil’s new capability would be, it had ruined all 3 oils. It did this by not only NOT improving each oil’s wear protection capability, but it made them significantly WORSE than they were before the additive was put in. And for any sensible person, that would be a textbook example of pure snake oil. And this is consistent with most major Oil Companies saying to never ever add anything to their oil, because it will ruin the carefully balanced additive package they designed into it.

And ZDDPlus is not the only additive that causes total failure. Edelbrock’s Zinc Additive did the exact same thing with 3 other low zinc oils. Throwing extra zinc in a motor oil CANNOT improve its wear protection capability. Extra zinc provides LONGER wear protection, because more zinc takes longer to be depleted as it is sacrificed while helping to protect parts under heavy load. But, it is impossible for extra zinc to provide more wear protection. Because the fact is, zinc simply doesn’t work that way. It’s like how having more gas in your tank, will take longer to run out. But, having more gas in your tank will NOT make more HP.

When I saw that Tech Author David Vizard was endorsing and promoting a little known oil called “Oil Extreme”, I couldn’t help but wonder if he was doing the same thing Big Daddy had done. But, since this product’s claim to fame was NOT simply throwing zinc at it, which Vizard calls outdated technology, I thought it might be worth getting some to test.

So, I got a quart of 5W30 Oil Extreme, API SM motor oil for $10.45, and a 6 ounce bottle of their Oil Extreme Concentrate additive for $17.95, plus tax and shipping, directly from the Company. Here is their website:

http://www.oilextreme.com/

I subjected the Oil Extreme products to the exact same “dynamic wear testing under load” procedure that I subject every oil to in my testing, in order to find the “specific limit” of each oil’s wear protection capability. That is the only way you can accurately compare various oils directly to each other.

Most Forum members are technically sharp enough to understand the value of dynamic motor oil wear testing under load, because it is the same concept as testing an engine under load on a dyno. And many of those folks have asked me to continue posting my motor oil test data, so below you will find more.

But, there are always a few folks who are not sharp enough to grasp this straight forward and obvious approach. And all they want to do is make nasty negative comments, with no hard factual test data to back up anything they say. They add nothing to the discussion, and only embarrass themselves by pointing out how weak they are technically. It is their loss, since they are too stuck in their ways to actually learn something.

************************

Here are the results of my “Wear Testing” and the results from “Lab Testing” for component quantities at Professional Lab, “ALS Tribology” in Sparks, Nevada:

5W30 Oil Extreme motor oil, API SM conventional = 110,286 psi, so this motor oil ended up ranking “2nd” out of the 96 oils I’ve wear tested so far.

The Company claims this oil contains their proprietary formula of calcium petroleum sulfontate EP (Extreme Pressure) technology that is NOT found in any other motor oil. They also claim that it will provide 5 to 7 more HP, 7 to 10% better fuel mileage, cut engine wear in half, and will extend drain intervals two or three times safely.

This oil is endorsed and promoted by Tech Author David Vizard. And he was so impressed by this oil's performance that he also became a share holder in the Company. The results from the "Dynamic Wear Testing Under Load" performed here, supports their claim regarding wear protection. So, their hype about that, turned out to be absolutely true. And since this oil beat every high zinc oil I’ve ever tested, it also proved another one of their claims, that using zinc as the primary anti-wear component, is outdated technology.

Here is the oil’s Lab Report info:

(lab tested 2013)
Image
many more modern oil formulations lack the correct additives for flat tappet lifters, so be very sure you check to see what oil your using and if its designed for flat tappet lifter applications
Silicon = 6 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 87 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Magnesium = 52 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 7,652 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, and at high levels as part of calcium petroleum sulfontate, can also increase an oil’s anti-wear capabilities)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 765 ppm (anti-wear)
Phos = 624 ppm (anti-wear)
Moly = 52 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 505 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 23.2 (Total Base Number) This is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9. This becomes depleted over time as mileage accumulates. And it is not unusual for this value to drop by about 5.0 points per 5,000 miles.
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.1 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness

******************

“Oil Extreme concentrate” added to 5W30 Pennzoil, API SN conventional, yellow bottle = 100,252 psi, so the concentrate additive mixed in (using the exact 1.5 ounces of concentrate per quart of oil that they call for) with this ordinary Pennzoil, ended up ranking “10th” out of the 96 oils I’ve wear tested so far.

This oil on its own WITHOUT the "Oil Extreme concentrate" added to it, has a wear protection capability of only 76,989 psi, and is ranked 53rd. But, with the concentrate added, its wear protection capability “IMPROVED A WHOPPING 30.2%". This is the “ONLY” additive I've ever tested that actually worked as advertised and made an oil better. Obviously with this Oil Extreme concentrate being calcium petroleum sulfontate based, it is an exception and does not ruin an oils original additive package, the way high zinc based additives do. The high zinc based additives I have tested, have been pure snake oil in every case. When I get the time, I will test this Oil Extreme concentrate in other oils to see if it consistently performs this well.

Here is the mixture’s Lab Report info:

(lab tested 2013)

Silicon = 6 ppm (anti-foaming agent in new oil, but in used oil, certain gasket materials and dirt can also add to this number)
Boron = 105 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Magnesium = 29 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Calcium = 4,443 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge, and at high levels as part of calcium petroleum sulfontate, can also increase an oil’s anti-wear capabilities)
Barium = 0 ppm (detergent/dispersant, anti-deposit buildup/anti-sludge)
Zinc = 970 ppm (anti-wear)
Phosphorus = 749 ppm (anti-wear), this value is 91 ppm “LESS” than the original basic oil, because the concentrate additive had less phosphorus in it, which diluted the ppm (parts per million) count.
Moly = 285 ppm (anti-wear)
Potassium = 4 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
Sodium = 267 ppm (anti-freeze corrosion inhibitor)
TBN = 18.8 (Total Base Number) This is an acid neutralizer to prevent corrosion. Most gasoline engine motor oils start with TBN around 8 or 9. This becomes depleted over time as mileage accumulates. And it is not unusual for this value to drop by about 5.0 points per 5,000 miles.
Viscosity (cSt at 100*C) = 10.5 (cSt range for SAE 30 is 9.3 to 12.4) And cSt (centistokes) in general terms, represents an oil’s thickness

******************
What can I tell you? These products flat work. And for the record, I have absolutely no connection what so ever with this Oil Company. So, it makes no difference to me if anyone buys these products or not. I’m simply reporting the results that came out of my testing.

If you are interested in seeing my entire 96 oil “Wear Protection” ranking list, along with additional motor oil tech information, here is a link:

http://540ratblog.wordpress.com/
IF YOU CAN,T SMOKE THE TIRES AT WILL,FROM A 60 MPH ROLLING START YOUR ENGINE NEEDS MORE WORK!!"!
IF YOU CAN , YOU NEED BETTER TIRES AND YOUR SUSPENSION NEEDS MORE WORK!!
grumpyvette

User avatar
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14105
Joined: September 14th, 2008, 1:40 pm
Location: florida

Re: oil additives, do they work

Postby 87vette81big » July 8th, 2013, 8:47 am

540,
How about some oil testing results with 10w30, 10w40, straight 40, 50, 60 weight oils, Royal Purple XPR 10W40,
SPECIALITY METHANOL & NITROMETHANE FUEL OILS.
UP TO 70 STRAIGHT WEIGHT OILS.
CONVENTIONAL DINO OIL & FULL SYNTHETIC.

BR
87vette81big

User avatar
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: February 28th, 2012, 12:34 am
Location: Central Illinois

Re: oil additives, do they work

Postby Indycars » July 8th, 2013, 8:51 am


I'm not ready to buy in yet.

540Rat never describes how the test is run and who knows how relevant film strength is to determining the overall quality of the oil.

Rick
Too much is just enough!!!

- Check Out My Dart SHP Engine Project: viewtopic.php?f=69&t=3814
- Need a Dynamic Compression Ratio Calculator: viewtopic.php?f=99&t=4458
Indycars

User avatar
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4424
Joined: May 25th, 2010, 8:58 am
Location: Yukon, OK

Re: oil additives, do they work

Postby mathd » July 8th, 2013, 8:51 am

Well i dont know but my CompCAM sheet clearly say to use high zddp oil or to use a bit of break-in/zddp additive in the oil with their flat tappet cam all the time.
To me they are more credible since they are the one making the cam and warranty it.

Maby he but too much zddp into the oil and that made it worst. there is many way to make a test outcome the way you want.
And still he say longer protection, to me longer is better.

Camshaft company say so, so i dont think i will do otherwise ruinig the product.
Last edited by mathd on July 8th, 2013, 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mathieu
mathd

User avatar
 
Posts: 1004
Joined: October 15th, 2010, 11:22 am
Location: Qc, Canada

Re: oil additives, do they work

Postby 87vette81big » July 8th, 2013, 8:55 am

Testing done with 120 motor octane gasoline too. 4-8 grams per gallon of Tetra Ethyl Lead.
High test race gas does funny stuff to most oils.
Purest base stock required.
87vette81big

User avatar
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: February 28th, 2012, 12:34 am
Location: Central Illinois

Re: oil additives, do they work

Postby 87vette81big » July 8th, 2013, 12:37 pm

Engine dyno testing good. Eddy current brake dyno.
Real world testing street & racetrack better.
I know an ex Mobil oil engineer.
He invented GM EOS.
GRUMPYS GENERATION HE IS FROM.
He rode in my 70 TA . SHOT him up to 160 in 1998.
More to oils than told here.

BR
87vette81big

User avatar
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: February 28th, 2012, 12:34 am
Location: Central Illinois


Return to Oil and Lube Systems

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests